Hebrews 1:1
God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, – Hebrews 1:1
Meaning of “Last Days”
“God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son,” – Hebrews 1:1. Unlike the last day (sg), which, refers to the future—the culminating day of God’s final salvation and wrath being revealed for all to see (see 1 Thess. 5:1–11), the last days (pl) refers to the period of time we are now in—between Christ’s death/resurrection/ascension and his second appearing or return. This is also called “the last time/s” (Jude 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:20) or “the last hour” (1 John 2:18) or “the end of the ages” (1 Cor. 10:11). Cf. Acts 2:17.
A Denial of the Sons Pre-existence?
Some object, particularly from a Unitarian perspective, arguing that Hebrews 1:1 shows God did not speak through the Son in the Old Testament, implying that the Son did not pre-exist or share in divine revelation before His incarnation. However, this objection misunderstands the passage. Hebrews 1:1 emphasizes that God spoke “in time past… by the prophets,” highlighting the mediated and partial nature of Old Testament revelation. Hebrews 1:2 then reveals that in these last days, God has spoken through His Son, “whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds.” As we shall see, this clearly affirms the Son’s eternal pre-existence and active role in creation, showing that the Son was indeed present and operative before the incarnation.
While God used prophets to communicate His will in the Old Testament, the Son has always been the ultimate agent of divine revelation, now manifest fully and personally. Thus, the text does not deny the Son’s pre-existence but rather contrasts the partial earlier revelations with the final and complete revelation in the Son. So Hebrews 1:1 doesn’t deny the Son’s pre-existence; it contrasts the partial, mediated revelation through prophets in the OT with the full, personal revelation in the Son. The Son always existed, and God spoke through Him as the ultimate and eternal Word.
Here’s a rhetorical parallel: Luke 16:16: “The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is pressing into it.” But here’s the punchline—Luke’s wording shows that such reasoning is faulty. Why? Because the “kingdom of God” was, in fact, proclaimed before John. Think of Daniel: “In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed” (Dan 2:44). Or Isaiah: “Your God reigns!” (Isa 52:7). That’s kingdom language, long before John and Jesus’ ministry. Yet Jesus still says, “Since John, the kingdom of God is preached.” So the structure in both texts is not “this never happened before,” but “this is now proclaimed in a fuller, climactic, eminent way.” John marks a decisive turning point in how the kingdom message is announced, not the first time it was ever mentioned.
Apply that logic back to Hebrews 1:1–2: the author isn’t claiming the Son was absent before, but that God’s revelation has reached its ultimate clarity in the Son. Just as “the kingdom is preached since John” doesn’t erase earlier kingdom preaching, “God has spoken through His Son in these last days” doesn’t erase the Son’s earlier activity. In short, Luke 16:16 exposes the flaw in the anti-trinitarian interpretation. It demonstrates that the biblical way of speaking about “since this time” is about intensification and climax, not absolute absence beforehand.
In Matthew 21:33-46, the landowner first sends many servants (representing the prophets) to the vinedressers, people in charge of his vineyard, but the servants are mistreated and rejected. Finally, he sends his own Son, saying, “They will respect my Son” (Matthew 21:37, NKJV). This story helps us understand Hebrews 1:1-2: before the Son was sent, God spoke through the prophets at different times and in various ways, much like the landowner sending servants. But the Son, who has always existed and is the heir of all things (Hebrews 1:2), is the ultimate messenger—God’s own Son—sent to bring the final, full revelation. Here, who will deny that before the Landowner speaks to the vinedressers by and through His Son that this means the Son didn’t exist before or that He didn’t participate or speak through the servants since we know Christ and the Father are perfectly united in will?
Just as the landowner’s Son comes with authority that the servants didn’t have, the Son in Hebrews is more than a messenger; He is eternal, involved in creation (John 1:3), and the ultimate revelation of God (John 1:18). This means God did speak through the Son in the Old Testament, but it was often indirect, mediated through the prophets. The Son’s coming “at the fullness of time” (Galatians 4:4) was the culmination of God’s revelation, not the beginning of the Son’s existence.
Hebrews 1:2
has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; – Hebrews 1:2
The Son as Heir of All Things
Hebrews 1:2 states, “whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds.” This verse reveals profound truths about the unique status of the Son of God and His relationship to creation and believers.
The phrase “appointed heir of all things” directly connects with the fact that Christ took on human nature. In doing so, He fulfills the role of the promised King of Israel, destined to inherit the throne of David. This idea finds its roots in Psalm 2:7-8, where the Messiah is declared God’s Son and given dominion over the nations.
Ask of Me, and I will give You
The nations for Your inheritance,
And the ends of the earth for Your possession.
Just as a son is the rightful heir to all that his father owns, Jesus, as the Son of God, inherits everything His Father possesses once He assumes His kingship.
The Apostle Paul echoes this concept in Galatians 4:7, saying, “Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.” Similarly, Romans 8:17-18 speaks of believers as “heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ.” Because Christians are united with Christ—who has inherited all creation and sits on His throne (cf. Revelation 3:21)—we too share in this inheritance.
Yet, it is important to recognize that Jesus Christ’s sonship is unique and supreme. He is not only the Son in an ontological sense but is also the royal Son, the King of kings and Lord of lords. Nevertheless, Paul’s teaching in Galatians clarifies that all who belong to Christ are made heirs of God’s promises.
This inheritance theme also reflects the restoration of what was lost through the first Adam. Where Adam forfeited his rightful dominion over creation, Christ—the second Adam—restores that position (1 Corinthians 15:45).
From the perspective of Jesus’ divine nature, the Old Testament further underscores the concept of divine inheritance. Jehovah Himself is described as an heir in several passages: Exodus 34:9, Deuteronomy 32:8-9, 1 Samuel 10:1, Psalm 82:8, and Zechariah 2:6-13. God “inherits” in the sense of reclaiming what rightly belongs to Him. The nations were already His. What changes is who governs them. So God, who rightly owns all things, can refrain from exercising authority over the earth only to “inherit” meaning to start exercising authority again. Likewise, Christ, who owns all things by His divine essence, has refrained from ruling because He came to serve. And He “inherited” all things by virtue of starting to exercise authority again over them at His ressurection. Notice particularly:
8 Arise, O God, judge the earth;
For You shall inherit all nations.
Intresting how God inherits all the nations after He raises up. In the LXX, the word is “ἀνάστα”, the same word for Jesus’ ressurection.
Zechariah 2:10-13 speaks of YHWH being sent to dwell in the midst of His people to inherit Israel:
10 “Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion! For behold, I am coming and I will dwell in your midst,” says the Lord. 11 “Many nations shall be joined to the Lord in that day, and they shall become My people. And I will dwell in your midst. Then you will know that the Lord of hosts has sent Me to you. 12 And the Lord will take possession of Judah as His inheritance in the Holy Land, and will again choose Jerusalem. 13 Be silent, all flesh, before the Lord, for He is aroused from His holy habitation!”
In summary, Hebrews 1:2 powerfully affirms that the Son is the appointed heir of all things, through whom the entire universe was made. Through Him, believers also become heirs of God, sharing in the glorious inheritance prepared by the Father.
“Through Him” – Lesser being?
A common objection arises from the phrase in Hebrews 1:2 that God created the worlds “through” the Son. Some interpret this wording to imply that Jesus is a lesser being than the Father—merely a channel or agent—rather than being fully God and co-creator.
However, the use of different prepositions in Scripture serves to clarify the distinct roles within the Godhead, not to suggest inequality in nature or essence. The Father and the Son are distinct Persons, yet both fully divine. Saying creation came “through” the Son emphasizes His role as the active Agent or means by which the Father brought all things into existence.
For example, Romans 11:36 says, “For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things,”. Here, who will accuse God of being a “lesser being” because creation is “through Him”? In this way, “through Him” does not imply inferiority but distinguishes Persons within the Trinity (see my other page – Metaphysics of the Trinity). Creation is the work of the triune God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—each fully involved and fully divine.
“Dia” – ‘Through Him’ or ‘Because of Him’
A common objection is that the Greek preposition διά, translated “through Him,” could also be rendered “on account of” or “because of” Christ in that He existed notionally, only in the mind of God, and that He was the final cause (the reason for) of creation. So Creation isn’t made through Christ, Him being the Agent of creation, but rather that creation is made “on account of” or “because of” Christ in the sense that God created all creation for Christ to inherit.
As I shall prove, I maintain that διά with the genitive, whenever it is used of a person—and that point is crucial—consistently denotes conscious, ontological agency rather than a merely notional or conceptual cause. In such constructions, the person referred to functions as a real, active agent through whom something is accomplished, not as a future idea, abstract plan, or mental projection. The grammatical pattern, especially when applied to personal subjects, points to actual mediation or agency in reality, not to a purely conceptual role within someone else’s intention. Let’s see if this holds:
Appendix 104 of Bellinger’s Companion Bible:
“Dia governs two cases, the Genitive and the Accusative.
WITH THE GENITIVE it has the general sense of: through, as though dividing a surface into two by an intersecting line. It includes the idea of proceeding from and passing out (e.g. Mark 11:16; 1 Cor. 3:15; 1 Tim. 2:15; 1 Pet. 3:20). In a temporal sense; after an interval (e.g. Matt. 26:61; Mark 2:1; Gal. 2:1). From the ideas of space and time dia, with the Genitive, denotes any cause by means of which an action passes to its accomplishment (e.g. Matt. 1:22; John 1:3; Acts 3:18; 1Cor 16:3; 2Cor. 9:13); hence, it denotes the passing through whatever is interposed between the beginning and the end of such action.
WITH THE ACCUSATIVE it has the sense of: on account of, or because of (e.g. Matt. 27:18; Mark 2:27; Re 4:11), indicating both the exciting cause (e.g. Acts 12:20; Rom. 4:25; 1Cor. 11:10), the impulsive cause (e.g. John 12:9; Rom. 4:23; Rom. 15:15; Heb 2:9), or the prospective cause (e.g. Rom. 6:19; Rom. 8:11; Rom. 14:15; Heb 5:3).”
Thayer’s Greek Lexicon:
Διά…akin to δίς and Latin dis in composition, properly, denoting a division into two or more parts; a preposition taking the genitive and the accusative…
With the genitive: through;
I. of place;
1. properly, after verbs denoting an extension, or a motion, or an act, that occurs through any place…
and the Lexicon goes on to give a bunch of examples such as) δἰ ἀνύδρων τόπων (through dry places), Matthew 12:43; διὰ τῆς Σαμαρείας (through Samaria), John 4:4; [Cf. Also Matthew 19:24 (through the eye of a needle); Mark 2:23 (through the corn fields); Mark 11:16 (through the temple) etc…However, when the genitive dia is used in reference to a person, the Lexicon says:
of the instrument used to accomplish a thing, or of the instrumental cause in the stricter sense: — with the genitive of person by the service, the intervention of, anyone; with the genitive of thing, by means of, with the help of, anything;
B. with the accusative
2.of the reason or cause on account of which anything is or is done, or ought to be done; on account of, because of…with the accusative of the person, by whose will, agency, favor, fault, anything is or is done: διὰ τὸν πατέρα… δἰ ἐμέ (properly, because the father lives… because I live (Jn 6:57) [cf. Winer’s Grammar, 399 (373)])… διά with the accusative of a person is often equivalent to for the benefit of, [English for the sake of]: Mark 2:27 (the Sabbath was made for man); John 11:42 (And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said it…); John 12:30 (this voice came not because of Me, but for your sakes); 1 Corinthians 11:9 (Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.); Hebrews 1:14 (Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?)…
It is important to understand the Greek preposition διά (dia) when used with a genitive case referring to a person. In such cases, it means “by the agency of” or “through the intervention of” someone. When used with the genitive of a thing, it means “by means of” or “with the help of” something. See Hebrews 2:10 where dia accompanies both cases. In Hebrews 1:2, διά is used with the genitive pronoun οὗ (hou – “Him”), referring specifically to the Son, a person. This usage highlights that Christ is the active agent through whom all things were created, emphasizing His role as the divine mediator in creation.
In conclusion, the objection that the Greek preposition διά (dia) in Hebrews 1:2 should be understood as “because of Him” rather than “through Him” reflects a misunderstanding of the Greek language and its grammatical usage. When dia governs a genitive referring to a person—as it does here—it consistently conveys agency or means, not mere causation or reason. Thus, the correct interpretation affirms that Christ is the divine Agent through whom the Father created all things, underscoring His active and essential role in creation rather than a secondary or incidental involvement. This understanding aligns both with the original Greek and the broader biblical testimony of Christ’s divine participation in the work of creation.
Some mention that dia+Gen can also mean the prevailing conditions. Here is the Concise Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament:
διά [basic sense ‘through’] through – A. w. gen. – a. place Mk 9:30; Lk 6:1; 1 Cor 10:1; thing Mt 7:13; Mk 10:25; group 2 Cor 8:18. – b. temporal use, of duration Mk 5:5; Ac 16:9; during Lk 9:37 v.l.; Ac 5:19. διὰ παντὸς τοῦ ζῆν throughout the lifetime Hb 2:15. – c. instrumentality – α. thing Ac 5:12; Gal 1:15; Eph 1:7; prevailing condition under which someth. takes place Ro 2:23; 3:24; 10:17; 2 Cor 1:11; Phil 1:20; causal 1 Cor 1:21. – β. personal agency Mt 1:22; 11:2; Lk 17:1; J 1:3; Ac 1:2; Ro 1:2; supported by 2 Ti 2:2. – B. w. acc. – a. spatially through Lk 17:11. – b. causally because (of), for the sake of, Mt 6:25; Mk 2:4; Ac 10:21; of emotional states, such as envy, fear, love from, out of Mt 27:18; J 7:13; Eph 2:4. – διὰ τί; because of what? = why? J 7:45; 1 Cor 6:7; διὰ τοῦτο therefore Ro 1:26; 2 Th 2:11.
They argue that because Jesus is called the “plan of God,” the phrase “through whom” in Epistle to the Hebrews 1:2 must mean that God created all things through a prevailing condition—namely, His plan. But this reading stretches the lexical evidence beyond what it can bear. As the lexicons note, when dia with the genitive expresses a prevailing condition, the object is an abstract noun—terms like “faith,” “grace,” or “redemption.” In those cases, the “thing” governed by dia is impersonal and conceptual.
In Hebrews 1:2, however, the referent is “the Son.” That is not an abstract noun or a mental construct but a personal designation. If one insists that “the Son” here refers only to a plan in God’s mind, consistency would demand that the same be true throughout the chapter. Yet the subject who is later said to sit at God’s right hand, to sustain all things, and to make purification for sins is clearly presented as a personal agent. The referent does not shift mid-argument from abstraction to person.
Not satisfied, they also seek to prove their position by citing the BDAG Lexicon which says:
⑤ At times διά w. gen. seems to have causal mng. (Rdm. 142; POxy 299, 2 [I a.d.] ἔδωκα αὐτῷ διὰ σοῦ=because of you; Achilles Tat. 3, 4, 5 διὰ τούτων=for this reason; in Eng. cp. Coleridge, Anc. Mariner 135–36: Every tongue thro’ utter drouth Was wither’d at the root, s. OED s.v. ‘through’ I B 8) διὰ τῆς σαρκός because of the resistance of the flesh Ro 8:3.—2 Cor 9:13.—On the use of διά w. gen. in Ro s. Schlaeger, La critique radicale de l’épître aux Rom.: Congr. d’ Hist. du Christ.
(A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature)
First of all, this still proves our assertion that διά + genitive, when used of persons, must always mean conscious ontological agency. In fact, this is precisely what BDAG indicates. We know this because of all the examples BDAG gives of διά + genitive meaning “because of”, only 1 of those is of persons – “ἔδωκα αὐτῷ διὰ σοῦ – “I gave it to him because of you” (POxy 299, 2, 1st c. A.D.).” The text cited is:
POxy 299
1. Horus to Apion, most esteemed, greetings.
2. I have given to Lampon the mouse-catcher, because of you (ἔδωκα αὐτῷ διὰ σοῦ),
3. an advance of eight drachmas, so that he may catch mice at interest. You will do well
4. to send these to me. And to Dionysius, the representative of the Nemerōn,
5. I have lent eight drachmas also, and he has not sent these either, so that you may know.
6. Farewell. Pauni 24.
(Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 299)
Here, the “you”, who is a person, must of necessity exist as an ontological conscious cause. So no example has been given that refutes us.
Further, Aristotle, for example, gave four meanings to the word “cause”:
material cause (that out of which something is made),
formal cause (the structure, essence, or defining pattern that makes a thing what it is), efficient cause (the agent or source that brings something into being), and
final cause (the purpose or goal for which something is done).
These distinctions matter because they prevent us from collapsing every “because” into the same type of explanation. In the theological debate, a Unitarian reading would typically assign the Son a role in terms of final causality—that is, creation exists for the sake of the Son as God’s intended goal or purpose. By contrast, Trinitarian theology understands the Son as the instrumental cause of creation, which is a subcategory of efficient causation: God creates as the ultimate efficient cause, but does so through the Son as the mediating agent.
Hence in this example, the “you” would also fall under the category of efficient cause (instrumental specifically), not final cause.
The Son Made The Ages
Unitarians object that Hebrews 1:2 does not teach the Son’s involvement in the original act of creation. They argue that the Greek word αἰῶνας, often translated “world,” can also mean “ages” and therefore need not refer to the physical universe as the NIV puts it. On this reading, αἰῶνας is understood not as referring to God’s past creation of the heavens and the earth, but to God’s establishment of the “world to come” through the Messiah, quoting Heb 2:5 as their proof text:
5 For He has not put the world to come, of which we speak, in subjection to angels.
According to this view, the Son is not the creator of the original world, but the agent through whom God inaugurated the new age following Christ’s resurrection—God’s new world order or system of things.
This interpretation fails on several grounds:
- Different Greek word
Paul uses an entirely different Greek term in Hebrews 2:5 when referring to the “world to come”, which is “οἰκουμένη” rather than the word αἰῶνας used in Hebrews 1:2. - Proleptic?
The “world to come” in Hebrews 2:5 is explicitly future, as indicated by the participle μέλλουσαν (“about to come” or “to come”), whereas the making of the ages in Hebrews 1:2 is described as a completed action in the past (“made” (ἐποίησεν) is aorist tense) surrounded by other completed actions in the past such as “God spoke in time past…has….spoken…has appointed…He made the worlds…when He had…purged…sat down…having become…He has…obtained a more excellent name than they.” (Heb 1:1-4). Since the entire context is things that have already been completed, this then cannot be taken as proleptic or prophetic perfect and hence must have been actually completed. - All the ages
The Greek word αἰῶνας (aiōnas), translated as “ages” or “worlds,” means different periods or eras of time. αἰῶνας, in the Plural, is used more than 50 times in the NT. One example is Ephesians 2:7 which says: “7 that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.” which clearly speaks of unending eternity future. Apart from Eph 2:7, the rest of its usages are phrased something like “for ever,” “for ever and ever,” or “liveth for ever.” which also clearly indicate unending time, time everlasting, all the ages to come. No one reading those texts thinks, “ah yes, God is only blessed two or three future ages.” or that “Jesus only shows shows us kindness for two or three future ages.” The phrase functions idiomatically to mean unbounded duration, to eternity future. With that said, the point is that all future usages of the plural indicate eternity future.
That leaves us with about 8 plural usages referring to the past (1 Corinthians 2:7; 1 Corinthians 10:11; Ephesians 3:9; Colossians 1:26; Hebrews 1:2; Hebrews 9:26; Hebrews 11:3; Jude 1:25). 1 Corinthians 2:7 states, “…which God decreed before the ages for our glory.” and Jude 1:25 says “…through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.” Some translations render them as “before all time” or “before time was”. Hence, the same goes here. All plural past references to ages in the plural include all ages (which started in Genesis 1:1) up until the present. In Hebrews 1:2, nothing in the context limits it to one specific era, and since the word is past tense the phrase naturally points to all past ages as a whole, not just one stage of history, just as the reverse refers to all future ages as a whole, not just one stage of the future.
This directly impacts how Hebrews 1:2 must be read, because the text states that God “made the ages” through the Son using a past-tense verb (made) that describes a completed action. This shows that Heb 1:2 is talking about all the ages up until the present. Putting all this together, the Son was the agent through whom the Father created the ages. If He made the ages as the Father’s instrument, then He is before the ages; if He is before the ages, He is ageless; if He is ageless, He is uncreated; if He is uncreated, He is YHWH God. And if He is YHWH God, this must be reconciled with the Father also being YHWH God, hence the doctrine of the Trinity.
Jesus’ Resurrection = the beginning of a new age?
Some will try and insert that multiple ages have passed from Jesus birth to the present time (when Hebrews was written). Jesus birth began one age + the resurrection began another. Both were made through Christ. However, “ages” cannot refer to Jesus’ birth + resurrection because the resurrection is never stated as the beginning of an “age”. From Jesus’ birth, the Bible consistently speaks of 2 ages: this age and the age to come:
- 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come. – Matthew 12:32
- 21 far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come. – Ephesians 1:21
The new age will be inaugurated when Christ returns to resurrect all His saints:
34 Jesus answered and said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35 But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; 36 nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. – Luke 20:34-36
38 The field is the world, the good seeds are the sons of the kingdom, but the tares are the sons of the wicked one. 39 The enemy who sowed them is the devil, the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are the angels. 40 Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age. – Matthew 13:38-40
49 So it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come forth, separate the wicked from among the just, 50 and cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.” – Matthew 13:49-50
3 Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”
“And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” – Matthew 28:20
20 which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, only in this age but also in that which is to come. – Ephesians 1:20-21
“For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.” Titus 2:11-14
(cf. Rev 6:9-11 where those in heaven still wait for the coming of Christ)
17 Command those who are rich in this present age not to be haughty, nor to trust in uncertain riches but in the living God, who gives us richly all things to enjoy. 18 Let them do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to give, willing to share, 19 storing up for themselves a good foundation for the time (age) to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life. – 1 Tim 6:17-19
30 who shall not receive a hundredfold now in this time —houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions—and in the age to come, eternal life. – Mark 10:30 (cf. Luke 18:30)
4 who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, – Galatians 1:4
4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, – Heb 6:5
Notice that in Gospel of Matthew 13:38–40, the age changes when the righteous are separated from the wicked. The “end of the age” is marked by judgment and removal of evil. Likewise, in Gospel of Matthew 25:31–46, that separation occurs when the Son of Man comes in glory. The decisive division between righteous and wicked is future and tied to Christ’s return.
Paul describes the present era as “this present evil age” in Epistle to the Galatians 1:4. If this age is defined by the continued presence and influence of evil, then the age to come — by definition — must involve the removal or destruction of evil, hence the 2nd coming. Therefore, the age to come cannot be inaugurated until Christ returns and judgment is executed.
Has the new age began only for Jesus?
Now consider Jesus Himself. Some argue that He presently possess the qualities associated with the coming age and therefore it has already been inaugurated for Him. He is risen. He has an immortal body. He possesses indestructible life. According to Luke 20:35–36, those in that age “cannot die” and do not marry; resurrection life is fundamentally different in quality. Jesus already embodies that mode of existence.
However, this understanding doesn’t hold for a couple of reasons:
First of all there is no passage that says the age to come has already begun solely for Jesus in a way that inaugurates it for Him alone. So this objection is baseless.
Jesus as the Prototype
But possessing the attributes of the coming age does not necessarily mean the age itself has begun. He can be the prototype without the age being inaugurated.
Take the iPhone as an example. A quick search will tell you it was made in 2007. That’s the year the first Apple iPhone was announced and released to the public. But development began earlier. Apple had working prototypes around 2004–2005. Yet no one says the iPhone was “made” in 2005. The prototype prepares the way for the final release. It proves the concept, exposes weaknesses, and shapes the design. But the product’s official beginning—the point from which we start counting—comes when the completed version is introduced. The prototype demonstrates what the final product will be like, but the official launch happens later. In that analogy, Jesus is the perfected prototype of resurrection humanity. He paves the way for the new age. The mass rollout — the resurrection and judgment that mark the new age — awaits his appearing. Biblically, it is possible to experience or possess the powers of the age to come without the age itself being fully inaugurated, as Hebrews 6:4–5 illustrates. Likewise, although Jesus already possesses all the defining qualities of that age in its fullness — resurrection life, immortality, and exalted authority — this does not mean that the age to come has fully arrived. He embodies the reality of the age to come personally, while its universal manifestation in the world remains future.
Jesus as the Firstfruits
Another thing is in biblical imagery, the firstfruits are the initial portion of the crop, fully mature and offered in advance of the harvest, and they guarantee the full harvest to come (Leviticus 23:10–14; 1 Corinthians 15:20). Jesus’ resurrection is exactly that: He is the firstfruits of the age to come, fully possessing its qualities — resurrection life, immortality, and authority over all powers.
The harvest, in contrast, represents the inauguration of the age for the world, when all the defining conditions are realized: resurrection of believers, judgment, and the subjection of all enemies (1 Corinthians 15:23; Matthew 25:31–46). Those who belong to Christ will be raised at His coming — they are the harvest, following the firstfruits.
So Jesus is the firstfruits, not the harvest itself. He demonstrates and guarantees the age to come, but the age is only inaugurated when the harvest — all who belong to him — is gathered.
Ephesians 2:7 – Ages to Come?
Once the Age to Come is inaugurated, Paul also speaks of “ages to come” in the plural. In Ephesians 2:7, he refers to “the coming ages,” suggesting unfolding periods within the larger redemptive reality that has already begun:
7 that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. – Ephesians 2:7
In other words, the inauguration of the one great Age does not eliminate future phases within it. Rather, it opens the door to them. Distinct ages, which the bible does not exactly identify but I’m guessing such as the thousand-year reign described in Revelation 20—would occur within the framework of that ultimate Age once it has been inaugurated. Unlike the Age to Come, which Scripture describes as containing “ages to come” within it (Ephesians 2:7), the Bible never says the same of the present age. The present age is consistently treated as a single, unified period—“this age”—in contrast to the age that is coming.
The expression “the age to come” is therefore contrastive, not exhaustive. It identifies the next eschatological age relative to the present one without denying the existence of further ages beginning alongside/in it, as texts like Ephesians 2:7 explicitly confirm.
By analogy, if someone says, “I will teach my present child and also the child to come,” the phrase “the child to come” identifies the next child in contrast to the present one, without specifying or limiting how many children may exist afterward. In the same way, the New Testament consistently frames history in a twofold contrast—this age and the age to come. Although scriptures speaks of “ages” occurring after the age to come, it never does so for this present age (ages in-between this age and the age to come), and hence we can conclude that the unitarian understanding falls flat on the ground.
Ages – Plural but Singular in Meaning
Some argue that the plural “ages” (aiōnas) in Hebrews 1:2 is grammatically plural but semantically singular, and therefore refers only to the Messianic age. While it is true that aiōnas can, in certain contexts, function collectively or even be rendered with a singular sense, this does not support identifying it with the Messianic age in Hebrews 1:2. Even if one were to take aiōnas as conceptually singular here, that singular would necessarily be comprehensive, encompassing the totality of the ages, not a single redemptive epoch. This is precisely why some translations render the term as “the universe” (NIV) or “the world” (ESV). A singular reading, if adopted at all, points toward total scope, not restriction.
That said, the immediate context strongly favours understanding aiōnas as a genuine plural. Throughout Hebrews 1:1–4 (and indeed 1:1–14), plural terms consistently function as true plurals, not as collective or idiomatic singulars. The chapter repeatedly employs plural language without any signal that such forms are being used loosely or metaphorically.
These are all the plural words used in Hebrews 1:
“times, ways, fathers, prophets, last days, all things, [the one in question – the ages]; upholding all things, our sins, the angels, than they, angels, angels, angels spirits, ministers, companions, your hands, they, they, them, they, years, angels, enemies, spirits, those” – Heb 1:1–14
The interpretive question is straightforward: which of these plurals is actually singular in meaning? Are “prophets” meant to indicate one prophet rather than many? Do “angels” really signify a single angel? Are “years” intended to mean one year? The suggestion borders on the absurd. Nothing in the passage indicates that any plural forms are being relaxed into a singular meaning.
To single out “ages” alone as plural in form but singular in meaning is therefore exegetically arbitrary. The text provides no contextual marker that aiōnas should be handled differently from the surrounding plurals. On the contrary, the consistent plural usage throughout the chapter reinforces the most natural reading: through the Son, God made the ages themselves, that is, the totality of temporal order.
Recasting “ages” as a singular at precisely the point where such a move avoids the theological implications of the text is not demanded by the grammar or the context. It is a conclusion driven by theology imported into the passage rather than exegesis drawn from it.
Wisdom Christology
Another Unitarian response to Hebrews 1:2 concedes that Scripture may speak of the Son as the agent through whom God created the ages, but insists that this does not require the Son’s conscious pre-existence. On this view, Jesus is said to have created all things only insofar as he is the embodiment of divine Wisdom. Since Wisdom is personified and present at creation (e.g., Proverbs 8), and since Jesus embodies Wisdom in his earthly life, the creative work of Wisdom may be predicated of Jesus without implying that he personally existed or acted at the time of creation.
Firstly, this position is refuted by a simple question: Is the Son in Hebrews 1:1–4 a hypostasis (person)?
If the answer is yes, then the argument is already settled, since we have shown that διά with the genitive, when used of persons (such as the Son), consistently denotes conscious agency.
If the answer is no, then this contradicts the text itself, because the actions described in Hebrews 1:1–4 are clearly those of a hypostasis, that is, a personal subject.
In Hebrews 1:1–4, every description refers to a concrete, personal subject — the Son — not to an abstract or even personified attribute. The passage says that God has spoken to us “by His Son.” God spoke by a person, not an attribute. Then it says God “appointed him heir of all things.” One must ask plainly: did God appoint an attribute of Himself as heir, or did He appoint a literal person? Inheritance is a relational and personal category. Attributes do not inherit. Personal sons do. It says that after “making purification for sins,” He “sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.” Did an abstract quality make purification for sins? Did an attribute sit down at God’s right hand? The entire passage flows as a unified description of one person. He is appointed heir. He is the agent through whom God made the ages. He upholds all things. He made purification. He sat down. He inherited a more excellent name.
If every other action in the paragraph clearly applies to a literal person, then extracting just the phrase “through whom he made the ages” and redefining it as referring only to an abstract quality like wisdom without the person actually doing it (as is the case for every other action) is completely arbitrary and desperate. There is no grammatical marker suggesting a switch from personal subject to abstract attribute and then back again. The relative clause “through whom” naturally refers to the same Son already described as heir.
Even if one argues that the Son embodies divine Wisdom, embodiment does not eliminate personal agency. If the Son embodies Wisdom, then Wisdom’s activity is expressed through the Son as a person. It does not mean the Son is reduced to a poetic label for an attribute. Reading the passage as a continuous argument, it consistently treats the Son as a personal, active agent in every clause. Interpreting only the creation clause as impersonal requires introducing a shift that the text itself does not indicate.
Secondly, this appeal to embodiment, however, fails to account for how Scripture actually speaks. The New Testament provides a clear parallel case that exposes the problem: John the Baptist and Elijah.
In Luke 1:17 and Matthew 11:14, John the Baptist is described as coming “in the spirit and power of Elijah.” This language indicates continuity of role, mission, and prophetic authority. John, therefore, is the embodiment of Elijah’s spirit. Yet no reader understands this to mean that Elijah’s historical actions can be attributed to John. Nowhere does scripture says that John did called down fire from heaven, or that he divided the Jordan, or that he was taken bodily into heaven in a chariot of fire. To speak of John as having done these things—even as a manner of expression—would be false and deeply misleading. Embodiment or representational continuity does not license the transfer of concrete historical actions from one figure to another unless both parties have that action in common, and hence foreshadows and typologies.
This is precisely where the Unitarian argument breaks down. If Jesus is said to have created all things merely because he embodies Wisdom, then the creative activity of Wisdom is being transferred to Jesus in a way that Scripture itself does not allow in analogous cases. The Elijah–John relationship shows that embodiment does not justify attributing all prior acts to a later individual. Language that assigns actions implies agency, and agency implies the acting subject’s existence at the time of the action.
As we have already mentioned, Hebrews 1:2 does not say that creation merely corresponds to what the Son would later embody, nor does it speak of abstract continuity of ideas. It states that God made the ages “through whom” (di’ ou) the Son. That is instrumental cause in the stricter sense, and it attributes a real role in creation to the Son Himself.
Romans 11:36
With that said, Romans 11:36 says about God:
33 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!
34 “For who has known the mind of the Lord?
Or who has become His counselor?”
35 “Or who has first given to Him
And it shall be repaid to him?”36 For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen.
In First Epistle to the Corinthians 8:6, Paul says that all things are “from” the Father and that believers exist “for” him. He then says that all things are “through” Jesus Christ, and that believers live “through” him. In other words, Paul uses different relational phrases—“from,” “for,” and “through”—to describe how the Father and the Son are involved in creation and redemption.
Compare this with Epistle to the Romans 11:36, where Paul says, “For from him and through him and for him are all things.” There, all three prepositions are applied to God without distinction. This is known as “prepositional metaphysics” as Gregory Sterling points out. In the ancient Greek philosophical world, it was common to describe a god’s power using these kinds of prepositional phrases. They expressed different kinds of causality: source (“from”), means or agency (“through”), and goal (“for”). Paul is clearly speaking in a way his wider intellectual world would recognize.
What is striking is that in Romans 11:36 Paul attributes all three roles to God, but in 1 Corinthians 8:6 he distributes them—“from” and “for” to the Father, and “through” to Christ. In doing so, he takes a standard philosophical way of describing divine causality and divides it between the Father and the Son. Just as he reshapes Israel’s confession of one God (the Shema) to include Jesus, he also reshapes this philosophical language about divine causation to include Christ within it.
Romans 11:36 may be understood of 2 ways: (1) as a reference to the Father alone or (2) as a reference to the Trinity. I prefer the latter. We know Paul here is speaking of Trinity ad-extra (how the Trinity relates to creation instead of itself) because Paul says “Who has known the mind of the Lord?” and elsewhere says the Spirit does know the mind of God (1 Corinthians 2:11), the “no one” then must exclude the Spirit — which means Paul is speaking about creatures, not intra-divine relations (Trinity ad-intra). Hence to signify the 1 God by the same 3 prepositions he elsewhere divides between Father and Son, (and by extension the Spirit), it would mean that Christ is included on God’s side, as is the Spirit, not that Christ is excluded. It is no surprise that, when God contrasts creation (not how the Father relates to the Son but How Creator relates to creation), God would be the Trinity:
Augustine
24. We ought then to love God, the Trinity in unity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; for this must be said to be God Himself, for it is said of God, truly and in the most exalted sense, “Of whom are all things, by whom are all things, in whom are all things.” Those are Paul’s words. And what does he add? “To Him be glory.” Romans 11:36 All this is exactly true. He does not say, To them; for God is one. And what is meant by, To Him be glory, but to Him be chief and perfect and widespread praise?
Ambrosiaster
11:36 For from him and through him and in him are all things. To him be the glory. (1) The apostle has stated why the mind and thinking of God cannot be searched. For, he says, from him and through him and in him are all things. To him be the glory. With this comment the apostle has uncov-ered the mind that was concealed to the world. For since God is the creator of all things, from him are all things. Because they are from him, they began to exist through his Son, who is in truth of the same substance and whose work is the Father’s work. (2) Since, then, God worked through the Son, through him are all things. Because the things that are from God and through God were later reborn in the Holy Spirit, in him are all things, since the Holy Spirit, too, is from God the Father. This is why he also knows the things that are in God. The Father is, therefore, also in the Holy Spirit, for what is from God the Father cannot be anything other than God the Father. (3) Therefore, to him be the glory, since from him and through him and in him are all things. Accordingly, whatever came into being from him and through him and in him, so as to exist, cannot know his mind and thinking, whereas he knows all things, since absolutely all things are in him. The apostle has brought to light the mystery of God—the mystery, he said above, of which they should not be unaware (see Rom 11:25).
(Ambrosiaster, Commentary on Romans)
For a further explanation, I quote Robert M. Bowman Jr. & J. Ed Komoszewski in their book “The Incarnate Christ and His Critics: A Biblical Defense” regarding Romans 11:36 in my article 1 Corinthians 8:6 – One YHWH Jesus
Hebrews 1:3
who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, – Hebrews 1:3
Hebrews 1:3
“ἀπαύγασμα” (apaugasma)
‘In Hebrews 1:3, the term “ἀπαύγασμα” (apaugasma) appears, meaning “the brightness” or “the light that radiates from a source.” While the prophets merely reflected this divine light, the Son is that light itself. This relationship has been analogized by the Church Fathers as the Father being the Sun, the Son the light emanating from the Sun, and the Holy Spirit the heat generated. This mirrors the Nicene Creed’s affirmation:
“God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father.”
Scripture consistently reveals God as light (1 John 1:5; Psalm 27:1). Just as we say “the sun is in my eyes” when sunlight reaches us, but understand the light actually shines forth from the sun itself, so too Jesus is God because He is the light that proceeds from the Father’s very essence. In relation to creation and humanity, Jesus is the radiance of God’s glory; in relation to the Father, He is the Son or the Word.
Furthermore, Jesus is described as the “χαρακτήρ” (charakter), an exact representation, an engraved imprint. The exact expression (the image) of any person or thing, marked likeness, precise reproduction in every respect, i.e facsimile) of the Father’s “hypostasis”—Either His person or His essence, substance, nature, or being. If “person” is to be taken, Jesus is an exact imprint of the Father’s person. Apart from the fact that they’re distinct (representation of another) which is their relation properties, they have all things in common, and hence Jesus would be YHWH because the Father’s person is YHWH. If “essence” is to be understood by “hypostasis”, this means Jesus perfectly reflects and embodies the Father’s nature in every respect, like an engraved seal making a precise and faithful impression. This doesn’t mean 2 Gods because there’s no distinction in their essential properties, so the copy would be true of the hypostasis who has the essence. At the same time, the Bible affirms that no one compares to God in His fullness and totality (Psalm 86:8-10; Psalm 89:6-8; Isaiah 40:8, 25-26), emphasizing the uniqueness and supremacy of God while revealing the Son’s divine nature as the exact representation of that unique essence.
“ἀπαύγασμα” (apaugasma) has 1 other occurrence, in the Deuterocanonical Book of Wisdom. Please pay attention to how Wisdom is described and how it perfectly resembles what our Lord Jesus:
“22 for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me. For in her there is a spirit that is intelligent, holy, only-begotten (Hebrew. yachid/Greek. monogenes), manifold, subtle, mobile, clear, unpolluted, distinct, invulnerable, loving the good, keen, irresistible, 23 beneficent, humane, steadfast, sure, free from anxiety, all-powerful, overseeing all, and penetrating through all spirits that are intelligent and pure and most subtle.24 For wisdom is more mobile than any motion; because of her pureness she pervades and penetrates all things.25 For she is a breath of the power of God, and a pure emanation (APAUGASMA) of the glory of the Almighty; therefore nothing defiled gains entrance into her.26 For she is a reflection of eternal light, a spotless mirror of the working of God, and an image of his goodness.27 Though she is but one, she can do all things, and while remaining in herself, she renews all things; in every generation she passes into holy souls and makes them friends of God (Jn 15:14-15), and prophets;28 for God loves nothing so much as the man who lives with wisdom.29 For she is more beautiful than the sun, and excels every constellation of the stars. Compared with the light she is found to be superior,30 for it is succeeded by the night, but against wisdom evil does not prevail.”
Wisdom of Solomon 7:22-30
(For an answer to the objection that Wisdom is female and Christ is not, please see my Article on “Proverbs 8:22”). With that being said, it is very clear that Hebrews is appealing to Wisdom chapter 7 as Christ being that Only-begotten, all-powerful (“by the word of His power”), Creator (“through whom He created all the ages”) Wisdom who emanates (apaugasma) from the essence of the the Father (“she is the breath of the power of God” and “exact representation of His nature”).
“ὑπόστασις” (Being/Substance)
We have said a lot about the scriptural and historical use of this word in my other article, “Hypostasis and Ousia”. But for now, I’ll let Norman Tanner summarise this for us:
Our second example comes in the anathemas that the same first Council of Nicea appended to its creed. The anathemas were obviously directed against Arius even though he was not mentioned by name. One of them anathematizes anyone who asserts that the Son “came from another (i.e., other than the Father) ὑπόστασις (hypostasis) / οὐσία (ousia)”, etc.
Here the two words ὑπόστασις and οὐσία appear to be considered virtually synonymous, yet later they will be distinguished clearly and very significantly: οὐσία for the one “being” of God; ὑπόστασις for the three “persons” of the Trinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Both words had been used as semi-technical terms in Greek philosophy, yet their meanings were not restricted to philosophical usage. Liddell and Scott’s Lexicon makes the point very clearly in giving the following range of meanings for ὑπόστασις: support, resistance, lying in ambush, jelly or thick soup, sediment in liquids, origin, foundation, substructure, confidence, courage, resolution, steadfastness, promise, substance, reality or nature, wealth or property!
It would be wrong, therefore, to see the Council of Nicea as infatuated with the language of Greek metaphysics. Rather, the Council was edging forward quite cautiously with its terminology within the context of the now prevalent Greek language. Greek, indeed, was a rather flexible, even malleable, language. Such flexibility was an advantage for the early Church inasmuch as it provided time and space to adapt the language to the new demands of Christian theological vocabulary.
St. Athanasius
St. Athanasius is beautifully expounds on how Hypostasis can be translated as “person” instead of nature or substance and yet contextually still mean that the Son has the nature and substance of that person, ie. the Father.
6. It may however be thought that the account here given of the hypostasis does not tally with the sense of the Apostle’s words, where he says concerning the Lord that He is the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His person, Hebrews 1:3 for if we have taught hypostasis to be the conflux of the several properties; and if it is confessed that, as in the case of the Father something is contemplated as proper and peculiar, whereby He alone is known, so in the same way is it believed about the Only-begotten; how then does Scripture in this place ascribe the name of the hypostasis to the Father alone, and describes the Son as form of the hypostasis, and designated not by His own proper notes, but by those of the Father? For if the hypostasis is the sign of several existence, and the property of the Father is confined to the unbegotten being, and the Son is fashioned according to His Father’s properties, then the term unbegotten can no longer be predicated exclusively of the Father, the existence of the Only-begotten being denoted by the distinctive note of the Father. 7. My opinion is, however, that in this passage the Apostle’s argument is directed to a different end; and it is looking to this that he uses the terms brightness of glory, and express image of person. Whoever keeps this carefully in view will find nothing that clashes with what I have said, but that the argument is conducted in a special and peculiar sense. For the object of the apostolic argument is not the distinction of the hypostases from one another by means of the apparent notes; it is rather the apprehension of the natural, inseparable, and close relationship of the Son to the Father. He does not say Who being the glory of the Father (although in truth He is); he omits this as admitted, and then in the endeavour to teach that we must not think of one form of glory in the case of the Father and of another in that of the Son, He defines the glory of the Only-begotten as the brightness of the glory of the Father, and, by the use of the example of the light, causes the Son to be thought of in indissoluble association with the Father. For just as the brightness is emitted by the flame, and the brightness is not after the flame, but at one and the same moment the flame shines and the light beams brightly, so does the Apostle mean the Son to be thought of as deriving existence from the Father, and yet the Only-begotten not to be divided from the existence of the Father by any intervening extension in space, but the caused to be always conceived of together with the cause. Precisely in the same manner, as though by way of interpretation of the meaning of the preceding cause, and with the object of guiding us to the conception of the invisible by means of material examples, he speaks also of express image of person. For as the body is wholly in form, and yet the definition of the body and the definition of the form are distinct, and no one wishing to give the definition of the one would be found in agreement with that of the other; and yet, even if in theory you separate the form from the body, nature does not admit of the distinction, and both are inseparably apprehended; just so the Apostle thinks that even if the doctrine of the faith represents the difference of the hypostases as unconfounded and distinct, he is bound by his language to set forth also the continuous and as it were concrete relation of the Only-begotten to the Father. And this he states, not as though the Only-begotten had not also a hypostatic being, but in that the union does not admit of anything intervening between the Son and the Father, with the result that he, who with his soul’s eyes fixes his gaze earnestly on the express image of the Only-begotten, is made perceptive also of the hypostasis of the Father. Yet the proper quality contemplated in them is not subject to change, nor yet to commixture, in such wise as that we should attribute either an origin of generation to the Father or an origin without generation to the Son, but so that if we could compass the impossibility of detaching one from the other, that one might be apprehended severally and alone, for, since the mere name implies the Father, it is not possible that any one should even name the Son without apprehending the Father. 8. Since then, as says the Lord in the Gospels, John 14:9 he that has seen the Son sees the Father also; on this account he says that the Only-begotten is the express image of His Father’s person. That this may be made still plainer I will quote also other passages of the apostle in which he calls the Son the image of the invisible God, Colossians 1:15 and again image of His goodness; not because the image differs from the Archetype according to the definition of indivisibility and goodness, but that it may be shown that it is the same as the prototype, even though it be different. For the idea of the image would be lost were it not to preserve throughout the plain and invariable likeness. He therefore that has perception of the beauty of the image is made perceptive of the Archetype. So he, who has, as it were mental apprehension of the form of the Son, prints the express image of the Father’s hypostasis, beholding the latter in the former, not beholding in the reflection the unbegotten being of the Father (for thus there would be complete identity and no distinction), but gazing at the unbegotten beauty in the Begotten. Just as he who in a polished mirror beholds the reflection of the form as plain knowledge of the represented face, so he, who has knowledge of the Son, through his knowledge of the Son receives in his heart the express image of the Father’s Person. For all things that are the Father’s are beheld in the Son, and all things that are the Son’s are the Father’s; because the whole Son is in the Father and has all the Father in Himself. Thus the hypostasis of the Son becomes as it were form and face of the knowledge of the Father, and the hypostasis of the Father is known in the form of the Son, while the proper quality which is contemplated therein remains for the plain distinction of the hypostases.
Let’s examine Athanasius’ geniusness.
In Hebrews 1:3, the Son is described as “the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person (hypostasis).” This passage has sometimes led to confusion about what hypostasis means and how it relates to the distinct persons of the Father and the Son. Athanasius provides a clear explanation that addresses misunderstandings and defends orthodox doctrine.
Some have argued that hypostasis applies only to the Father because it refers to the unique set of divine properties exclusive to Him. They claim that since the Son is described as the “brightness” and “image” of the Father’s hypostasis, the Son cannot have His own distinct hypostasis or divine being. This objection suggests that if the Son merely reflects the Father’s properties, then the unique nature of the Father would be compromised, and the Son’s identity would be dependent or derivative in a way that undermines His divinity.
Athanasius counters this by explaining that the Apostle’s words in Hebrews are not intended to describe the metaphysical distinction between the Father’s and Son’s hypostases in philosophical terms, but rather to highlight the inseparable and natural relationship between them. The terms “brightness” and “express image” emphasize how the Son perfectly and eternally derives His existence from the Father without any separation or interruption. Like the light that shines from a flame, the Son is eternally united with the Father—distinct in person, yet never apart in essence.
He uses the analogy of form and body to illustrate this unity and distinction. While form and body can be conceptually separated, in reality they are inseparable. Similarly, the Son’s hypostasis is distinct from the Father’s, but the two are so closely united that seeing the Son is to see the Father. This reflects the perfect and continuous relation of the Son to the Father, where the Son reveals the Father fully without losing His own unique personhood.
Importantly, Athanasius insists that this does not confuse or merge the persons. The Father remains “unbegotten,” and the Son remains “only-begotten,” maintaining their proper qualities. The union is so complete, however, that the very notion of the Son’s hypostasis presupposes the Father’s hypostasis. This explains why Scripture calls the Son the “express image” of the Father’s hypostasis—not because the Son is less or subordinate, but because His being is eternally related to the Father’s.
To further clarify, Athanasius refers to other Scripture, such as John 14:9 (“He that has seen Me has seen the Father also”) and Colossians 1:15, where the Son is described as the “image of the invisible God.” These passages confirm that the Son fully expresses the Father’s nature without being identical in person, maintaining both distinction and unity.
In conclusion, Athanasius teaches that Hebrews 1:3 reveals the profound mystery of the Son’s divine nature as the “brightness” and “express image” of the Father’s hypostasis. This language affirms the eternal generation and perfect unity of the Son with the Father while preserving their personal distinction. His explanation refutes objections that misunderstand hypostasis as a term applying exclusively to the Father or that imply the Son’s divinity is diminished by being described as the Father’s “image.”
“On High” (ἐν ὑψηλοῖς) in Hebrews 1:3
Hebrews 1:3 describes Jesus as having “sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high” (ἐν ὑψηλοῖς). The Greek phrase ἐν ὑψηλοῖς (en ipsilis) literally means “in the heights” or “on high,” a term loaded with theological significance in both the Old and New Testament contexts.
This phrase echoes the Septuagint’s rendering of Psalm 112:5 LXX (Psalm 113:5 in the Hebrew numbering), which declares:
“Who is like the LORD our God, Who dwells on high (ἐν ὑψηλοῖς)?”
Other Scriptures reinforce this understanding of God’s exalted presence:
Isaiah 33:5 (NKJV): “The LORD is exalted, for He dwells on high; He will fill Zion with justice and righteousness.”
Psalm 68:18 (NKJV): “You have ascended on high, You have led captivity captive; You have received gifts among men…”
Jeremiah 25:30 (NKJV): “Therefore prophesy against them all these words, and say to them: ‘The LORD will roar from on high, And utter His voice from His holy habitation…’”
Isaiah 32:15 (NKJV): “Until the Spirit is poured upon us from on high, And the wilderness becomes a fruitful field…”
Luke 1:78 (NKJV): “Through the tender mercy of our God, With which the Dayspring from on high has visited us…”
Ephesians 4:8 (NKJV): “Therefore He says: ‘When He ascended on high, He led captivity captive, And gave gifts to men.’”
These passages show that “on high” signifies more than just a physical place—it denotes the divine realm of God’s sovereign authority, glory, and reigning power. God alone is enthroned on the throne of Heaven, which distinguishes Him from all the ministers of the angelic realm. This is why it says that God alone is “dwelling on high,” because He alone sits on heaven’s throne.
Addressing the Objection from Isaiah 26:5
Some objectors cite Isaiah 26:5 (NKJV):
“For He brings down those who dwell on high, The lofty city, He lays it low…”
to argue that the phrase “dwell on high” can apply to beings or entities other than God, thereby diminishing the uniqueness of Jesus’ exalted position in Hebrews 1:3. However, the rhetorical question of Psalms 113:5 emphasizes the uniqueness of God’s enthronement of the royal throne—the seat of His heavenly authority and reign. No one else sits “on high” in the sense of occupying God’s sovereign throne, yet Hebrews affirms that Jesus shares this exalted position, seated at the right hand of the Majesty on high, confirming His divine authority and kingship. This objection misunderstands the biblical usage and context of “dwell on high.” In Isaiah 26:5, the phrase refers metaphorically to proud or rebellious human cities or rulers who exalt themselves. The “dwellers on high” here aren’t even inhabitants of heaven, but earthly powers arrogantly positioning themselves as if on the heights. The verse is a prophecy of God’s judgment against such prideful elevation.
Therefore, the use of “dwell on high” in this context does not negate or contradict the unique divine sovereignty implied in Hebrews 1:3 or the other passages cited above. Instead, it highlights a contrast: God alone truly dwells “on high” in divine majesty, while others who “dwell on high” in arrogance or rebellion will be brought low by His judgment.
Conclusion
The phrase ἐν ὑψηλοῖς (“on high”) in Hebrews 1:3 powerfully asserts Jesus’ divine exaltation and authority, placing Him at the right hand of the Majesty in the highest realm of God’s presence. Scriptural parallels consistently show that “dwelling on high” belongs uniquely to God, underscoring Jesus’ divine nature and status.
Objections based on Isaiah 26:5 misunderstand the term’s use and fail to recognize the distinction between God’s sovereign “dwelling on high” and the metaphorical, prideful “dwellers on high” condemned in the Old Testament. Thus, the objection does not undermine the biblical affirmation of Jesus’ divine exaltation.
Some critics of the Trinity—particularly Unitarians and other non-Trinitarian groups—argue that Hebrews 1:4, which says Jesus “inherited a name superior to the angels,” implies that He was not always superior and therefore not divine. However, when this verse is understood in its context—especially in light of Hebrews 2:5–9—it becomes clear that the “name” refers not to Jesus becoming divine, but to His exaltation as man, having already been divine from eternity.
Hebrews 1:4
having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. – Hebrews 1:4
In Hebrews 2:5–9, the author reflects on God’s design for humanity. Quoting Psalm 8, it’s made clear that humanity was originally created with a glorious status—crowned with glory and honor, and placed above the rest of creation, with all things “under their feet.” However, because of sin, this exalted position was lost. Humanity was demoted to a rank “lower than the angels,” not in essence, but in position and dominion.
Jesus entered this fallen state—not by ceasing to be divine, but by taking on human nature and submitting to the limitations of fallen humanity, including a position “lower than the angels” (Hebrews 2:9). This does not suggest inferiority in nature, but a temporary submission in role, necessary for redemption.
Even while on earth, Jesus remained fully God—equal with the Father in essence (John 1:1; Philippians 2:6)—but He humbled Himself in position, becoming obedient even to death (Philippians 2:7–9). Thus, His “lower status” was economic (functional), not ontological (essential).
God the Son wasn’t always above angels?
Hebrews 1:4 says Jesus “inherited a name superior to the angels.” Some take this to mean Jesus wasn’t always superior. But context is key. The Greek word translated “name” (onoma) carries more than just a literal label—it also means authority, reputation, and status (see Strong’s Concordance) . Therefore, the “name” Jesus inherited after His resurrection refers to the public declaration and exercise of His exalted authority as the risen Messiah, not the beginning of His divinity.
This is confirmed by how Scripture speaks of Christ post-resurrection:
- Seated at God’s right hand (Heb. 1:3)
- All things under His feet (Heb. 2:8)
- Given the name above every name (Phil. 2:9–11)
This is not a gain in essence, but a vindication and glorification of His incarnate role. As both God and Man, Christ now reigns with the full authority of heaven.
Jesus didn’t just come to redeem us from sin, but to restore humanity to its original glory—and beyond. Because He united Himself with humanity, His glorification becomes ours. Revelation 3:21 promises that believers will sit with Him on God’s throne, and Hebrews 1:14 reveals that angels will serve those who inherit salvation.
In other words, Christ’s exaltation is also our exaltation, because we are “in Him.” The same status once lost due to sin is now fully regained and elevated through our union with Jesus. We, too, will be higher than the angels—not in nature, but in our redeemed and glorified position.
So the “name” He inherits at His resurrection is the ‘authority’ He had, which made Him superior to angels:
And the Son became so much greater than the other messengers, such as angels, that he received a more important title than theirs. – Hebrews 1:4 Common English Bible (CEB)
far higher than any angel in rank and rule. – Hebrews 1:4 Message Bible (MSG)