Hebrews Chapter One, An Exegesis, Part IV, (Verses 10-14)

 When in polemic discussion with Social Trinitarians, the book of Hebrews chapter one is often presented by the Pluralists as a proof for plural rational persons in the Godhead. Although I have written on most of all the passages of holy Scripture concerning Christology (including this one), it seems that not enough attention has been given to this section of Scripture by those of us who hold to a Modalistic view of the Godhead. With that in mind I feel as though a more exhaustive investigation of this text should be undertaken. Therefore, what follows is Part IV of my exegesis of Chapter One of the Book of Hebrews. In this final episode of our series we cover verses 10-14.

V10. καί, Σὺ κατ' ἀρχάς, κύριε, τὴν γῆν ἐθεμελίωσας, καὶ ἔργα τῶν χειρῶν σού εἰσιν

οἱ οὐρανοί: (And, “You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works of Your hands;)

V10. And, “You, Lord, (καί, Σὺ … κύριε,). The word "Lord" (κύριε) is vocative, masculine, singular. See the note on verse eight. This is an illustration of how θεός of verse 8 should have been given in the vocative "Θεέ " if, indeed, it was intended to be vocative.

 "This is a quote from the LXX  (Psalm 102:25). The word “LORD” (κύριε) is employed here as referencing Yahweh (the tetragrammaton - YHWH). This is seen by working ones way antecedently through Psalm 102 to identify the one being spoken unto; when this is done it is revealed by vv24, 22, 12 and 1 that the addressee is Yahweh. Once that is established it may be stated with certainty that our Author to the Hebrews has raised his focus from the servant Christ who had ‘fellows” and who was “made” better than the Angels, and has returned to his exaltation from v3; here, once again he shows us the Christ who was not “made” but was the MAKER: the Christ that was Emmanuel, the Christ that told Philip that if he had seen Him he had seen the Father, the Christ before whom Thomas bowed and cried in hush tones, “The Lord of me and the God of me” ( Ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου). 

in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works of Your hands (ἀρχάς, … τὴν γῆν ἐθεμελίωσας, καὶ ἔργατῶν χειρῶν σού εἰσιν  οἱ οὐρανο:). 

1. Θεέ could have been used as it was in Matthew 27:46. 
2. And two, if ὁ θεός 

Our Author to the Hebrews declares Jesus to have been the Creator of the heavens and the earth. Psalm 102:25 (of which this is a quote) is the voice for which Isaiah 44:24 is the echo: “Thus saith the LORD (YHWH), thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD (YHWH) that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;”  (KJV). Now, unless some get it mixed up and say both Jesus and the Father created, it should be pointed out that the prophet Malachi proscribes that understanding: “Have we not all one Father? hath not one God created us?” Malachi 2:10. So, then, whereas it is unbiblical to say that both Jesus and the Father created the heavens and earth, it is biblical to say: Jesus, as the Father, created the heavens and earth. The apostle John wrote it this way: “In the beginning was the Word, … and the Word was God.  …  All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. … And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth” (John 1:1-3, 14 KJV).

V11. αὐτοὶ ἀπολοῦνται, σὺ δὲ διαμένεις: καὶ πάντες ὡς ἱμάτιον παλαιωθήσονται, (They will perish, but You remain; And they all will wear out like a garment,).

V11. They will perish, but You remain (αὐτοὶ ἀπολοῦνται, σὺ δὲ 

διαμένεις:).  In a world where everything changes, Christ changes not. Our Author will later write, in this epistle, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, and forever.” (Hebrews 13:8). Here, our Author to the Hebrews is declaring the eternality of the Christ Jesus. The heavens and the earth will perish, is, in very fact, perishing; but, Jesus remains (διαμένεις,  diameneis, St’s #G1265): to stay permanently, remain permanently, continue (Thayer)—the opposite of ἀπολοῦνται. That our author is, here, writing of Jesus as God Almighty is seen from the Pauline statement found in 1 Timothy 6:16 where Jesus is said to be the only one with immortality (eternal). Speaking of Jesus, Paul wrote: “Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.”

V12. 

καὶ ὡσεὶ περιβόλαιον ἑλίξεις αὐτούς, ὡς ἱμάτιον καὶ ἀλλαγήσονται: σὺ δὲ ὁ αὐτὸς εἶ καὶ τὰ ἔτη σου οὐκ ἐκλείψουσιν. (And like a robe You will roll them up; Like a garment they will also be changed. But You are the same, And Your years will not come to an end.)

V12. And like a robe You will roll them up; (καὶ ὡσεὶ περιβόλαιον 

ἑλίξεις αὐτούς). The created works of the heavens and the earth are but garments that have clothed the Majesty of the Autotheos. They are His adornment but for a time. They are not eternal. He is. 

Like a garment they will also be changed. (ὡς ἱμάτιον καὶ ἀλλαγήσονται:). Though the present heavens and earth are to pass away, God has promised a New Heaven and a Hew Earth wherein dwells righteousness (Revelation 21:1).

But You are the same, And Your years will not come to an end (σὺ δὲ ὁ αὐτὸς εἶ 

καὶ τὰ ἔτη σου οὐκ ἐκλείψουσιν). “Thus, from Psalms 45 and Psalm 102 the writer has demonstrated that Christ, the Son of God, is greater than Angels. He is God; He is king; He is just; He has been especially anointed; He is creator; He is immutable; He is eternal. None of these  things are true of the Angels” (Renaissance New Testament).

V13. πρὸς τίνα δὲ τῶν ἀγγέλων εἴρηκέν ποτε, Κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου ἕως ἂν θῶ τοὺς ἐχθρούς σου ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν σου; (But to which of the angels has He ever said, “Sit at My right hand, Until I make Your enemies A footstool for Your feet”?)

V13. But to which of the angels has He ever said, (πρὸς τίνα δὲ τῶν ἀγγέλων 

εἴρηκέν ποτε,) Here, our Author to the Hebrews returns to his routine from vv5 and 7 in contrasting the Son of God with the Angels. During this first chapter the author has moved, not so seamlessly, back and forth from presenting a Christ who is Almighty God the Creator, and a Christ who is all but in the category of created beings and who was a product of God’s making, who has fellows that are His equals. I say that our author has not moved seamlessly between this two natures of Christ, because when he crosses from one aspect of the Savior to the other the path is very clear. We may think the Jesus being presented by our author is a contradiction, a paradox: because He is said to be the very radiance of the glory of God and not a reflection of that glory (v3), and that He upholds all things by the word of His power (v3), yet He had to “become” better that the Angels (meaning: at some point He was not better) (v4), He is said to have received His name by inheritance (v4)—meaning someone had it before Him,  He is said to be begotten by Father God (v5), yet He is worshipped by the Angels (v6) when only God is to be worshipped (Matthew 4:10), He is said to have God for His throne (v8) and to have equals, fellows and companions (v9), but, yet, reported to have, Himself, created the heavens and the earth (v10) and who alone is the Eternal One (v11-12), then, here, our author ends his praise of the Son of Man with concluding remarks describing, again, his submissive role as being instructed by God to rest from His work until total victory over His enemies is realized through the act of God in the Son’s behalf. Although this may seem to be a paradox it is only describing the two natures of Christ: the God-man. In his opening remarks our author to the Hebrews introduces, to his readers, both the Deity of Christ and the humanity of Christ. He shows us a Jesus that has existence on two planes: God and man. He introduces the Son of God and the Son of man. Both are true and necessary for salvation of a fallen universe.

“Sit at My right hand, Until I make Your enemies A footstool for Your feet”? Κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου ἕως ἂν θῶ τοὺς ἐχθρούς σου ὑποπόδιον 

τῶν ποδῶν σου;). Our author is quoting from the Old Testament. This time the quote is from Psalm 110:1. To understand how this Old Testament quote is to be applied to Christ we should look to the first clause of the verse “The LORD said to my Lord:” (Notice the first LORD is all upper case: this is the tetragrammaton [YHWH]; the second Lord is with uppercase “L” but lowercase “ord”: this is the Hebrew Adonai, as lesser Lord.) Here David is prophetically referencing his future son, Mary’s Baby, as his human Adonai (Lord). The king reports, prophetically, that the Yahweh (“LORD” in the English text—all uppercase letters) said to his Adonai … . Although Jesus was the LORD (Yahweh) in His pre-existence, He became the human Lord over the human condition through living a human life, experiencing and overcoming every temptation know to man, and experiencing the Cross as our kinsman redeemer: thus, he was David’s Lord, in the human sense.  So, it must be understood that this statement placed in the month of Father God by David and echoed here by our Author to the Hebrews, is not one God-person speaking to a second god-person as the Pluralists suppose. No. Here Yahweh God is addressing a very human Son of man. Here, as in verse 5, the subject is the resurrection from the dead. As far as the Psalmist is concerned, the resurrection had not taken place, it was far into the future, but David speaks as though it had already happened, as though the Father had already said to the Son of man, “Sit at My right hand, Until I make Your enemies A footstool for Your feet.” This is speaking of the glorification of Christ to the “Right Hand of God.” The apostle Paul explains it (1 Timothy 6:16), and Stephen, the deacon, gave testimony to its realization (Acts 7:55ff). This is a proleptic statement. The Bible employs such figures of speech often, where something that has not yet taken place is referenced as though it has already happened. An example of prolepsis is found in John 17: 11, 12, 24. Jesus says, “I am no longer in the world,” and He prays that the disciples may “be with Me where I am.” He had not yet left the world, but spoke as if He had. Prolepsis.

V14. οὐχὶ πάντες εἰσὶν λειτουργικὰ πνεύματα εἰς διακονίαν ἀποστελλόμεναδιὰ τοὺς μέλλοντας κληρονομεῖν σωτηρίαν; (Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?)

v14. Are they not all ministering spirits, (οὐχὶ πάντες εἰσὶν λειτουρ-γικὰ πνεύματα). Our Author returns his focus to the Angels, at this point. This verse really belongs with chapter 2 and should be considered closely with 2:1ff.

sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation? (εἰς 

διακονίαν ἀποστελλόμεναδιὰ τοὺς μέλλοντας κληρονομεῖν σωτηρίαν;)  There have been other questions in chapter one ( vv5 and 13 in particular), but none that demonstrates the Pauline character of the Epistle to the Hebrews as strongly as does this question. While it is doubtful that Paul actually wrote Hebrews because our author indicates that he never saw nor heard the Lord (2:3) and Paul did see and hear the Lord on the road to Damascus. Yet, this entire epistle bears the markings of Pauline thought and doctrine. Here, is an example: In Paul’s letters he often cast a positive in the form of a negative. That is to say, he often used a question to teach an affirmative. An example (there are many) is his question, “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?” (1 Corinthians 13:6). So, here, the question is asked about Angels: “Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?” Meaning: Angels are ministering spirits, etc. Paul may not have written the words, but the question is surely his style.

Apostolically Speaking,

☩ Jerry L Hayes

Be sure to read the other parts of this essay at the following links:

Hebrews Chapter One, Part iI vv5-7.
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2021/05/hebrews-chapter-one-exegesis-part-ii.html

Hebrews Chapter One, Part I vv1-4

https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2021/05/hebrews-chapter-one-prologue-exegesis.html

Hebrews Chapter One, Part III (vv8-9)
http://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2021/05/hebrews-chapter-one-exegesis-part-iii.html

 Video of Hebrews 1:8-14

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S36EWfKFmt8&t=286s

Hebrews Chapter One, An Exegesis, Part III, (Verses 8-9)

When in polemic discussion with Social Trinitarians, the book of Hebrews, chapter one is often presented by the Pluralists as a proof for plural rational persons in the Godhead. Although I have written on most all the passages of holy Scripture concerning Christology (including this one) it seems that not enough attention has been given to this section of Scripture by those of us who hold to a Modalistic view of the Godhead. With that in mind I feel as though a more exhaustive investigation of this text should be undertaken. Therefore, what follows is part III of my exegesis of Chapter One of the Book of Hebrews. In this episode we cover verses 8-9.

V8. πρὸς δὲ τὸν υἱόν, Ὁ θρόνος σου, ὁ θεός, εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος, καὶ ἡ ῥάβδος τῆς εὐθύτητος ῥάβδος τῆς βασιλείας σου. (But regarding the Son He says,“Your throne, God, is forever and ever, And the scepter of righteousness is the scepter of His kingdom.) 

V8. But regarding the Son He says (πρὸς δὲ τὸν υἱόν,).  This statement, in most all English Bibles, has an interpolation from the Greek text. The Greek text does not say “He says.” So we should not read it as so saying. This interpolation adds to the confusion to an already confused text. Our author to the Hebrews is, indeed, pulling a quote from Psalms 45:6-7 which references king David and his son Solomon. He (the Author to the Hebrews) is applying it to Christ. But what we should not do is place vv8 and 9 in the same category as vv5, 6 and 7 where clearly the Father “says” … . Here, in vv8 and 9 it is not the Father who is “saying”: instead it is our Author who is applying a word spoken concerning David and his son, Solomon (Psalms 45:6-7), to the Son of God — i.e., to Christ.

“Your throne, God,” (Ὁ θρόνος σου, ὁ θεός). This is another quote, the fifth, from the Old Testament (Psalms 45:6-7). This Psalm is a Royal Wedding Psalm and is addressing King David. In the statement introducing this verse, I mentioned that this text is a confused one. Here we see the evidence of its confusion from the Greek text and the way it has been translated in most English Bibles. From this text the NASB reads “Your throne, God”; the KJV reads “Thy throne, O God”: except it doesn’t. Our translators have translated “ὁ θεός” as vocative (as an address, or invocation) when it is actually nominative. Now, the translators recognize ὁ θεός as nominative (Wallace, Robertson), but suggest it should be treated as vocative; thus, a nominative acting as a vocative. When asked why this nominative should be considered a vocative, the reason, forthcoming, is a presupposed doctrinal disposition: “The Son is God,” we are told, “and this text, if vocative, has the Father addressing the Son as such.” 

However, the Pluralists are asking too much from this text. First off, the Father is not speaking here: we have already shown “He says” is an interpolation—it is not in the Greek text, neither here nor in the LXX (of which this is a quote). It would be a good thing if translators would approach the Greek text with an exegetical approach instead of the eisegetical one visible here. 

Because both nouns “throne” (Ὁ θρόνος) and “God” ( ὁ θεός) carry the article “the” (ὁ), according to Greek grammar they are convertible with “is” understood. So, then the statement Ὁ θρόνος σου, ὁ θεός is equally correct translated either: “Your throne is God,” or “God is your throne.” A. T. Robertson writes, “O God (ο τεος — ho theos). It is not certain whether ο τεος — ho theos is here the vocative … or ο τεος — ho theos is nominative (subject or predicate) with εστιν — estin (is) understood: “God is thy throne” or “Thy throne is God.” Robertson (the Prince of Greek scholars), is uncertain whether ὁ θεός is vocative or nominative. However, Hort and Nairne are certain that ὁ θεός should not be considered as vocative, and should, indeed, be translated as, “Your throne is God.” Westcott, Moffatt, J. P. Green Sr, RSV margin, NRSV margin, NEB margin, translate: “God is your throne.” 

There are three other very important points I want to make here: 

1. One, we would point out that if either the LXX or our Author to the Hebrews understood this clause to be vocative, the vocative form Θεέ could have been used as it was in Matthew 27:46. 
2. And two, if ὁ θεός is vocative, the Psalmist addresses David as God (Psalm 45:1, 6): that is unlikely, in the extreme. See Psalm 45:1 where the writer of the Psalm states that he is addressing his words to the king. 
3. And three, the remainder of the text only makes sense IF ὁ θεός is not manipulated, but left to its natural place as a nominative.

[is] forever and ever (εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος). Literally, “into the ages of the ages.” Here, as in the earlier part of the verse, there is no word for “is” (Greek, estin), it is properly added by the translators. This statement underlines the source of the Son’s authority and power. Militating against Social Trinitarianism, where each individual person of the societal Trinity is co-equal, this text informs that the Son has a seat of rule and authority that is other than Himself—it is God. Thus the Son has a God (John 20:17). To underline this subordinate position for the Son of Man for all eternity one should consider 1 Corinthians 15:24-28, “Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; … 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. … 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him …, that God may be all in all” (KJV). When the Son is cast in this light it is clear that it is the Son as a human being, as the son of David, that is in view. This is made crystal clear, since it is an Old Testament passage concerning David that is being quoted here (Psalms 45:6-7).

And the scepter of righteousness is the scepter of His kingdom. (καὶ ἡ ῥάβδος τῆς εὐθύτητος ῥάβδος τῆς βασιλείας αὐτοῦ.) ῥάβδος is an old word for walking stick (Hebrews 9:4; 11:21). The “scepter” is the symbol of the rule of the King. It is a righteous Kingship and rule. The “kingdom” 

(τῆς βασιλείας) is said, here, to be “his” kingdom (NASB, NEB, NJB, RSV margin, NRSV margin, . τῆς βασιλείας αὐτοῦ); not: “your” or “thy,” as some would suppose (KJV, NKJV, MEV, ). Because of the Greek pronoun αὐτοῦ (third person singular, genitive: of him, or of his) demonstrates why ὁ θεός, in the earlier part of the verse MUST be nominative (not vocative), for “God.” Thus, the God (ὁ θεός) is spoken about—not unto.

V9 

ἠγάπησας δικαιοσύνηνκαὶ ἐμίσησας ἀνομίαν: διὰ τοῦτο ἔχρισέν σε ὁ θεός, ὁ θεός σου, ἔλαιον ἀγαλλιάσεως παρὰ τοὺς μετόχους σου: (You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of joy above Your companions.”)

You have loved (ἠ-γά-πη-σας).  ἠ-γά-πη-σας: is a verb, aorist tense, indicative mood, active voice, second person singular. Our Author to the Hebrews is continuing his quotation from the Royal Wedding Psalm, Psalm 45:7). The words addressed to king David are raised to a higher key and applied to Christ.

righteousness and hated lawlessness (δικαιοσύνηνκαὶ ἐμίσησας

 ἀνομίαν}. “Christ Jesus is not neutral in the great struggle between right and wrong, good and evil, as warmly as He loves the one He abhors the other” (Spurgeon).

Therefore (διὰ τοῦτο). Because Jesus had loved righteousness and hated lawlessness God anointed (ἔχρισέν) Him with the oil of gladness ( ἔλαιον  ἀγαλλιάσεως). This anointing, no doubt, came upon Him at His baptism where the Spirit descended upon Him and remained (Matthew 3:16). Oil is a dominant symbol of the Holy Spirit in Scripture.

God, Your God, (σε ὁ θεός, ὁ θεός σου,). Notice, that these words were spoken to David before they are, here, applied to Christ. Here, the human Christ, the Son of Man, is said to have a God (Just as king David was said to have a God). We saw this from His address to Mary just outside the tomb that first Easter morning when He told her: "Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, 'I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God’” (John 20:17). Thus, we have, here, another reason why ὁ θεός of v8 MUST be understood as nominative and not vocative. E.g., if vocative, then God has a God. If, indeed, the Messiah is addressed as God in v8, then from v9 the Messiah-God has a God. So, do we have Junior and Senior God? If it is insisted that ὁ θεός of v8 is vocative then it seems we would have a race of gods. Which point is even more apparent from the next statement from this verse.

above Your companions (παρὰ τοὺς μετόχους σου). μετόχους: (St’s #G3353), fellows, equals, partners or companions. Here, again, we have help from the text, itself, in determining whether or not ὁ θεός of v8 is nominative or vocative. If ὁ θεός of v8 is vocative and the Messiah is addressed as “God” then this v9 would be assigning fellows, equals, companions, partners to God. This would violate every thread in the fabric of monotheism. God is a lone, solitary, sentient and rational Being (Deuteronomy 6:4; 32:39; Isaiah 44:6 etc.). 

Apostolically Speaking,

☩ Jerry L Hayes

Be sure to read the other parts of this essay at the following links:

Hebrews Chapter One, Part iI vv5-7.
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2021/05/hebrews-chapter-one-exegesis-part-ii.html

Hebrews Chapter One, Part I vv1-4

https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2021/05/hebrews-chapter-one-prologue-exegesis.html

Hebrews Chapter One, Part IV

https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2021/05/hebrews-chapter-one-exegesis-part-iv.html

 Video of Hebrews 1:8-14

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S36EWfKFmt8&t=286s

Hebrews Chapter One, An Exegesis, Part II (Verses 5-7)

When in polemic discussion with Social Trinitarians, the book of Hebrews, chapter one is often presented by the Pluralists as a proof for plural rational persons in the Godhead. Although I have written on most all the passages of holy Scripture concerning Christology (including this one) it seems that not enough attention has been given to this section of Scripture by those of us who hold to a Modalistic view of the Godhead. With that in mind I feel as though a more exhaustive investigation of this text should be undertaken. Therefore, what follows is part II of my exegesis of Chapter One of the Book of Hebrews. In this episode we cover verses 5-7.

V5 Τίνι γὰρ εἶπέν ποτε τῶν ἀγγέλων, Υἱός μου εἶ σύ, ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε; καὶ πάλιν, Ἐγὼ ἔσομαι αὐτῷ εἰς πατέρα, καὶ αὐτὸς ἔσται μοι εἰς υἱόν; (For to which of the angels did He ever say, “You are My Son, Today I have begotten You”? And again, “I will be a Father to Him And He will be a Son to Me”?).

V5 For to which of the angels did He ever say, (Τίνι γὰρ εἶπέν ποτε 

τῶν ἀγγέλων). The previous verse stated that the Son of God has become much better than the Angels by virtue of the better name he had inherited. Here, our Author prepares to demonstrate the superiority of the Son of God over the Angels by a proclamation of the Father. Angel (ἀγγέλὸς): the word, strictly speaking, means "messenger." Sometimes, it may have reference to human beings who are messengers of God, as in Luke 7:24 and James 2:25, but most generally the term references an order of spirit beings. Originally all Angels were created holy and good; however, some followed Lucifer in his fall and have become his lieutenants in perdition. Thus, there are Angels of light and Angels of darkness. They are created beings who have free wills that must answer to the Creator for their deeds. Most are free and active in the world and in Heaven, some are imprisoned awaiting the judgment (2 Peter 2:4). The Angels are organized and arranged into ranks (Isaiah 6:1-3; Daniel 10: 13; Ephesians 3:10; Jude 9). Angels are ministering spirits: they ministered to Christ during His earthly life and will be present with Him at His return (Matthew 2:13; 4:11; 26:53; 28:2, 5; Luke 22:43; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-8). They serve believers (Hebrews 1:14), and are present in the assembly during worship (Hebrews 12:22). Michael, alone, holds the rank of archangel (Daniel 13, 21; Jude 9), Gabriel is the angel of message (Luke 1:19, 26). 

You are My son, today I have begotten You? ( Υἱός μου εἶ σύ, ἐγὼ  σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε;). Although Angels are called the sons of God (Genesis 6:2; Job 1:6) in the sense that they are beings of direct creation, only one is the Son of God with the article, because He is the Son in the sense of possessing all the essence and attributes of the One of Whom He is the Son: as Barnabas was the Son of Consolation (Acts 4:36), and James and John were Sons of Thunder (Mark 3:17).

today I have begotten you (ἐγὼ  σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε). This is a quote from Psalms 2:7 and may echo 2 Samuel 7:14. One thing is certain, however, Paul applied this prophecy to the resurrection of Jesus from the dead (Acts 13:32-34, And we preach to you the good news of the promise made to the fathers, 33 that God has fulfilled this promise to those of us who are the descendants by raising Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm: ‘You are My Son; today I have fathered You.’ 34 As for the fact that He raised Him from the dead, never again to return to decay, He has spoken in this way: ‘I will give you the holy and faithful mercies of David.’). Some (such as Charles C Ryrie) apply v33 to the incarnation, but when read in its context with vv32 and 34 that position can hardly be maintained. Such a claim could be made from v33 alone, but when verses 32 and 34ff are consulted, the meaning should be clear: It is a reference to the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.

and again (καὶ πάλιν,).  Here, and in v6, our author is giving a list that demonstrates Christ’s superiority over the Angels. 

I will be a Father to him and he shall be to me a Son? (Ἐγὼ ἔσομαι 

αὐτῷ εἰς πατέρα, καὶ αὐτὸς ἔσται μοι εἰς υἱόν;).  This is cast in the form of a question because it goes with a preceding clause "For to which of the angels did He ever say,…”. The Father had never said this to any Angel. This is, again, an Old Testament quote from 2 Samuel 7: 14. Yahweh spoke it as a promise to David, concerning David's son, Solomon. Our author takes the prophecy and raises its lyrics to a much higher key, and declared its ultimate fulfillment in Christ. While many will apply this to the incarnation, and surely it may well be understood in that light, I feel it would be a mistake to leave it there. I say this because of this text’s context which has the resurrection of Christ from the dead in view, and because of its obvious likeness to Romans 1:4 "and declare to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:…" So, then, because of the clause being located in a verse which clearly references the resurrection and because of it being in the same genre as Romans 1: 4, its reference to the resurrection of Christ from the dead should not be ignored. 

V6 ὅταν δὲ πάλιν εἰσαγάγῃ τὸν πρωτότοκον εἰς τὴν οἰκουμένην, λέγει, Καὶ προσκυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελοι θεοῦ. ( And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says, “And let all the angels of God worship Him.”)

V6. And when He again brings (ὅταν δὲ πάλιν εἰσαγάγῃ).  If "again", is used with “brings" (εἰσαγάγῃ) then the second coming is in view (9:28). If, however, "again" is only introducing another quote from the Old Testament then the incarnation is in view (A. T.  Robertson Word Pictures of the Greek New Testament). I suppose Psalms 97:7 could be referenced here, but I do not think likely; therefore I take “again” (πάλιν) as belonging with “brings.”  I based my opinion on the way in which the New Testament writers (Paul, John and our Author) employed the term "firstborn" (“first begotten,” KJV) (πρωτότοκος, St’s #G4416). The word is used 9 times in the New Testament: once, both in Matthew (1:25) and Luke (2:7) to reference Jesus as Mary's firstborn; once by our Author to reference the firstborn of the Egyptian's killed by the angel of death (Hebrews 11:28); the other 6 uses of πρωτότοκος are shared by Paul, John and our Author.  Paul employees πρωτότοκος in Romans 8:29, Colossians 1:15 and again in v18. In Romans 8:29 and Colossians 1:18, he is clearly referencing Jesus's resurrection from the dead. E.g., it is stated clearly that Jesus is the “firstborn from the dead.” (Past resurrections are not counted, because all who were resurrected [the man who touched the bones of Elijah, Lazarus, the widow of Nain’s son] died again.) The apostle Paul's other citation of πρωτότοκος (Colossians 1:15) could possibly be referencing His rank in the creation order, but being found in the context of v18 where the very word has reference to the resurrection, it is most likely that its meaning in v15 has the resurrection in view as well. Our Author uses πρωτότοκος three times (1:6; 11:28; 12:23). Once, as already mentioned, he is referencing the firstborn of the Egyptians killed at the beginning of the Exodus. The other two uses are referencing Christ. We take 1:6 (here being discussed) to be referencing the Second Coming (9:28), but even if it does not reference the Second Coming and does reference the incarnation, it remains likely that the author is identifying Jesus as the firstborn from the dead, and is, therefore, speaking proleptically. Hebrew’s third citation of πρωτότοκος is found at 12:23: here, the reference is to the “Church of the Firstborn.” Such a reference is to the Church of Him that was dead, but is alive forevermore (Revelation 1:18): thus, a reference to His resurrection. The last New Testament usage of πρωτότοκος is found in Revelation 1:5; here, Jesus is referenced as the “firstborn from the dead.” Given Paul’s, John’s and our Author’s use of πρωτότοκος it is reasonable to understand it to reference the resurrected Christ, unless the context demands different.

into the world (εἰς τὴν οἰκουμένην,). Oἰκουμένην has as its meaning “the habitable world”) or, that part of the world fit for human habitation: that part under Roman governance. If, here, as Robertson suggests, the Holy Spirit, through the pin of our Author, could be referencing the Second Coming of Christ, then οἰκουμένην is referencing the Christianized world to which Jesus will return: thus, “the habitable world”. 

He says (λέγει).  God says.

And let all the angels of God worship Him (Καὶ προσκυνησάτωσαν 

αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελοι θεοῦ).  While it is true the Angels worshipped at the first advent of the Christ (Luke 2:13-14), this is a reference to the Second Coming (9:28). Our Author is pulling from two Old Testament passages for his reference here: both are from the Septuagint (Psalms 96:7 and Deuteronomy 32:43). Our Greek text, here, is an exact quote from the Septuagint at Deuteronomy 32:43. The context of Deuteronomy 32:43, from the Septuagint, is a time when the Hebrews and Gentiles will be one people (Deuteronomy 32:44): thus, the Second Coming is referenced because such a state did not exist at the time of the Messiah’s birth, but does and will exist at the time of His Second coming to a triumph church.

V7 

καὶ πρὸς μὲν τοὺς ἀγγέλους λέγει, Ὁ ποιῶν τοὺς ἀγγέλους αὐτοῦ 

πνεύματα, καὶ τοὺς λειτουργοὺς αὐτοῦ πυρὸς φλόγα: (And regarding the angels He says, “He makes His angels winds, And His ministers a flame of fire.”)

And regarding the angels (καὶ πρὸς μὲν τοὺς ἀγγέλους). Is best understood as: “With reference to” (Robertson).

He says (λέγει). God says. The statement that follows is said concerning the Angels.

He makes His angels winds (Ὁ ποιῶν τοὺς ἀγγέλους αὐτοῦ 

πνεύματα,), And His ministers a flame of fire (καὶ τοὺς λειτουργοὺς 

αὐτοῦ πυρὸς φλόγα).  Moffatt comments that God is the one who can make His angels and ministers into the elemental forces of wind and fire. However, this is a quote from Psalms 104:4 ("He makes the winds His messengers, flaming fire His ministers." NASB). Since the meaning of ἀγγέλος is "messenger" and since our text is a quote from Psalms104:4 we should understand our text, here, to be saying: “God makes wind His messenger and fire His servant” (which speaks to the majesty of God) – thus, the exact rendering of Psalms 104:4 (NASB) of which our text is a quote (Gottlieb Lunemann agrees). However, not only does this text speak to the Majesty of God in making the wind His messenger and fire His servant, but also, we are to understand that just as the Angels are servants of God (as is wind and fire), they are also subordinate to the Son of God. This last point is in keeping with the context of the prologue to Hebrews, in showing the superiority of the Son over the Angels.

To be continued:


Apostolically Speaking

☩ Jerry L Hayes

Further reading on this topic:

Be sure to read the other episodes on Hebrews Chapter One, An Exegesis:

Hebrews Chapter One, An Exegesis, The Prolouge
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2021/05/hebrews-chapter-one-prologue-exegesis.html

Hebrews Chapter One Part III, vv8-9

https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2021/05/hebrews-chapter-one-exegesis-part-iii.html

Hebrews Chapter One, Part IV

https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2021/05/hebrews-chapter-one-exegesis-part-iv.html

View tbe video where Bishop Hayes is teaching from this text:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=os8lIeqeDjE&t=154s

Hebrews Chapter One, The Prologue (An Exegesis)

When in polemic discussion with Social Trinitarians the book of Hebrews, chapter one, is often presented by these Pluralists as a proof for plural rational persons in the Godhead. Although I have written on most all the passages of holy Scripture concerning Christology (including this one) it seems that not enough attention has been given to this section of Scripture by those of us who hold to a Modalistic view of the Godhead. With that in mind I feel as though a more exhaustive investigation of this text should be undertaken. Therefore, what follows is my exegesis of The Prologue (first four verses) to the Book of Hebrews.

First, we should notice that verses 1-4 are one sentence in the Greek and is the prologue to the book. Here, the major themes of the book are introduced. These verses also take the form of the introduction to a sermon. 

V1. 

Πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως πάλαι ὁ θεὸς λαλήσας τοῖς πατράσιν ἐν 

τοῖς προφήταις (God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways,)

V1. God (ὁ θεὸς ). God with the article, thus, the autotheos, namely, the Father. Throughout the New Testament the term "God" designates the Father, but especially when Theos (ὁ θεὸς ) carries the article as here. That Theos (θεὸς), here, designates the Father is emphasized by the mentioning of this God’s Son in verse two.

long ago (πάλαι).  In the times of the Old Testament.

spoke to the fathers (λαλήσας τοῖς πατράσιν ἐν τοῖς προφήταις). Here, the "fathers" referenced by the Author are the forefathers of the Hebrews, unto whom the book of Hebrews is written. 

in many portions, in many ways (Πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως ). In the many epochs of Israel's history (in their covenants and dispensations) and in various manners, both spoken and written, instructions as well as the prophets’ very lives being object lessons to the nation. As to the latter manner, one would think of Hosea's marriage to Homer (Hosea 1: 2), and Isaiah being instructed by God not to wear clothing for a period of three years (Isaiah 20: 2-3). 

James Hastings wrote: "The first truth which the author of this epistle emphasizes is that God has spoken. God has been speaking to our world. Human nature has suffered many degradation's, but it has never utterly lost the capacity of seeing the presence and hearing the voice of the Father in heaven. And although the capacity [has been] abused, degraded, [it has] never [been] quite destroyed, God has ever been making His appeal. Now He has flashed forth His glory in the pomp of the sunset, and made the majesty of silent stars to speak His greatness. Now, He has called forth, from His solitude which none could penetrate, a holy man into whose very spirit He has inwrought His mind and heart, and has sent him to utter His thoughts and manifest His name. And now He has wrought in the very eyes of the people, vindicated the right and crushing the wrong, making paths through trackless waste and solid walls of mobile waters, lifting a veil here and speaking a tone there. But everywhere and at all times and in all ways it has been the same God, revealing His life, declaring His will, manifesting His glory, calling to His children. The light was ever adapt to the eye, the revelation to the capacity, the idea to the spirit. Bit by bit the veil has been lifted, the disclosure made, the glory flashed out, that men might be prepared for the complete vision. The final discovery, the full manifestation.”

V2. ἐπ' ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν υἱῷ, ὃν ἔθηκεν κληρονόμον πάντων, δι' οὗ καὶ ἐποίησεν τοὺς αἰῶνας: (in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom He also made the world.).

V2. In these last days (ἐπ' ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν ). Here, the “last days”, from the Author of Hebrews’ point of view has the last days of the Jewish economy in mind: beginning with the advent of Jesus’ baptism. For Christians reading this text today the “last days” means the entire Gospel dispensation extending from the first to the second advent of Christ.

has spoken to us in His Son (ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν υἱῷ,). Of note here is the following: First, there is no Greek word for “his" in the text, it has been correctly added by the translators. Second, the Greek “ἐν” is used with two cases (locative and instrumental); here it is instrumental and identifies the means or instrument by which the Father is speaking. Thus, the Son is the Father's "instrument" of revelation. Third, another point that is very important is the Author’s implication that it was God the Father only that spoke through and by the prophets in Old Testament times. When we say "God the Father only" it is stressed that at no time did the Son of God speak through the prophets of the Old Testament as some Pluralists insist. The writer to the Hebrews takes care to point out that it was the Father who spoke through the Old Testament prophets. Now, he says, the same Father is speaking through His Son in these last days. From this text it is intimated that no heavenly person of deity has EVER spoken, either in the Old Testament or the New Testament, but the Father: it was the Father speaking in the old times through the prophets and it remains the Father that is speaking through the Son in the last days (John 7:16; 8:26; 12:49; 14:10, 24; 17:18). Fourth, Vincent stresses that the “prophets” with the article defines a definite class. Fifth, we would point out, however, that  although υἱῷ (Son) is without the article it is not referencing a class (such as: one who is a son, or, one who has the quality of a son) but references the Son of God. Sixth, this is a classic example of a Greek noun not having the article but still being definite. (The Pluralists should give this text special notice because it militates against the manner in which they wish to translate John 1:1c καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (and Theos [God] was the word). I.e. because Theos does not have the article and logos does, the Pluralists like to say that logos is the subject and Theos is qualitative. Therefore, they reverse John’s word order to “And the Word was God.” Meaning: The Word was divine. But Hebrews 1:2, has spoken to us in His Son (ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν υἱῷ,) demonstrates the error of this approach.)

whom he appointed heir of all things (ὃν ἔθηκεν κληρονόμον πάντων). The reference, here, is to the human Christ who is seated upon the Father’s throne (Hebrews 1:4; Revelation 3:21; 22:1-4; Ephesians 5:27). This is the first of seven propositions made about Christ in this the first sentence of the book. 

through whom also He made the world (KJV, worlds) ( δι' οὗ καὶ 

ἐποίησεν τοὺς αἰῶνας:).  (This is the second proposition concerning Christ in this text.) First, we should mention how the Pluralists’ doctrine of Logos Christology understands this phrase and demonstrate why it is the wrong understanding. Logos Christology sees the Son of God as the intermediary between God the Father and the created universe: the cosmos. God, Logos Christology states, is too transcendent to come into personal contact with matter. So, since His universe is made up of matter, His logos (or Word), which is seen as a distinct rational individual, was given the task of actual hands-on creation in behalf of Father God. (This idea comes into Christianity from platonic thought. The biblical Father was Plato's First Principle, the Logos (Word) was his Second Principle. By the third century A.D. this Hellenic concept had hijacked the creation story and re-identified the Hebrew Messiah. This, however, is an unbiblical re-interpretation of holy Scripture, because it presents to the world a creator other than Father God (Isaiah 44:24) and places another god-person with the Father before creation (see Deuteronomy 32:39), who was also god – albeit, a lesser one. Here, man's propensity to multiply gods is seen in technicolor; and especially so, when the personifications of wisdom and understanding (see Proverbs 3:19) are brought into the Pluralists’ pantheon of god-persons as the Son and Holy Spirit. 

It is true, the Author to the Hebrews states that the worlds were made by (Greek, δι’-dia)  the Son. Our task, as Bible students, is to interpret this statement in such a manner that does no violence to Old Testament monotheism and that preserve the integrity of the Creator God. 

The text tells us that Father God, who is introduced in verse 1, created δι’ (dia - by) the Son. Here, the Greek word δι’ is the preposition modifying the noun which is in the genitive case. Thus, δι’ means “by" (instrumental). (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon, Edinburg 1901, pages 133 and 134.) We know, then, that the Father created "by" the Son, or, with the Son in view. Although the Son is prophetically referenced in the Old Testament, He did not actually have existence until the incarnation. And yet, in the mind and foreknowledge of the Father He had existence, and was crucified for the fallen creation before God ever said "Let there be." Thus, our Author is saying that the Father created through/by the Son just as a master carpenter would build a house through/by a set of blueprints that were conceived of in the mind and forethought of the architect. This becomes even more evident when the English reader discovers that "the world" (in NASB), or, "the world(s)” (KJV) which the Father created through/by the Son is the Greek word αἰῶνας (aiōnas): ages. The idea, here, is not so much the physical universe as it is the epochs of time with their pre-ordained covenants, systems, etc. Thus, all temporal existence was predicated on the Son of God that was to come, but did not yet exist outside the mind and intentions of the Father, yet, must exist for creation to be a justifiable event. For, how could an omniscient God be justified in creating a universe populated with sentient beings, since He knew beforehand of the fall, if He had not already provided the redemption? So, Father God created with the Son (and all He meant to accomplish through that Son’s existence) in view.

When Jesus prayed "Father glorify thou me with your own self with the glory I had with you before the world was in,” it was the glory the Son held in the mind and forethought of the Father as the redeemer of fallen creation, for which he prayed (John 17: 5).

V3. 

ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ, 

φέρων τε τὰ πάντα τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ, καθαρισμὸν τῶν 

ἁμαρτιῶν ποιησάμενος ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν ὑψηλοῖς, (And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, ).

V3. who being [the] radiance of the glory (ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς 

δόξης). The word radiance (ἀπαύγασμα) means outshining—not reflection. The idea of ἀπαύγασμα  (St’s #G541) is that Jesus emits the brightness of the glory of God as a self possessed quality and not as reflection of that glory. The significance is effulgence or radiance (as distinguished from refulgence or reflection) (Kurts, Cremer as referenced by Thayer). This speaks of the deity which is incarnated in the Son of God as being the actual autotheos. Jesus said of Himself that He proceeded forth from the Father (John 8: 42). Moreover, when the apostle Phillip asked to see the Father; Jesus replied to Philip, "He that has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9). Surely, just as the ray radiates from the sun and is not a reflection, so also does Jesus radiate from the Father and is the Father in another way of being. To agree with Karl Barth: the Father is the God who is far, the Son is that self same God who is near. Not another who reflects the source; Jesus is the source who stepped into His world through the matrix of a woman's womb, clothing Himself with flesh as He passed through. 

and the exact representation (image, KJV) of His essence (person, KJV) (καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ). (The third proposition concerning Christ in the text.) The Greek, χαρακτὴρ (charaktâr St’s #G5481), is properly the instrument used in engraving or carving (Thayer). Also, a stamp or die. Thus, here, translated "exact representation" (in NASB); and the "expressed image” (KJV). In modern times we should think in terms of a photograph. The writer to the Hebrews is here stating that Jesus was a facsimile of God’s ὑποστάσεως (hypostasis, St’s #G5287). The KJV reads "person," the NASB reads "nature"; the RV reads "substance" which we think the best English rendering. In theology we would say that the substance of a thing is that which is fundamental and has actual existence, standing alone, depending on no other thing for existence. So, then, our author is stating that the Son of God "Jesus" was/is the exact expression of deity. There can hardly be a clearer declaration of the Godhead of Jesus of Nazareth. 

upholds all things by the word of his power (φέρων τε τὰ πάντα τῷ 

ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ). (Fourth proposition of this text concerning Christ). φέρων (pherōn, St’s #G5342): upholding, bearing up, sustaining. This verb is in the perfect tense and speaks of continued action. Christ is continuing to sustain all things (τὰ πάντα) by the ῥήματι (rhâmai), which is His spoken word. There is something more than the logos being referenced here. Rhâma (Rhema) is that word spoken by the living voice. Without a doubt, the spoken word of God uttered at the creation is in view here;  the power (δυνάμεως, dunameōs) of the uttered voice of God which brought the universe forth from nothing is the same power that sustains the created. Scientist, such as Einstein, have affirmed that all matter is in a state of decay (Second Law of Thermodynamics) and yet, the word of God states that God’s universe is eternal (Psalms 148: 3–6). So, then, militating against the Second Law of Thermodynamics is the "decree" of the Almighty: the Rhema of God that sustains all things visible and invisible. Now, the undeniable truth presented by φέρων τε τὰ πάντα τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ (sustaining all things by the power of His spoken word), is that this Rhema is spoken by the One we know in the incarnation as Jesus, but Who, in His pre-existence, spoke the worlds into existence, and even now upholds/sustains those same worlds by His spoken word – still. 

when he had made purification of sins, (καθαρισμὸν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν 

ποιησάμενος ). (This is the fifth proposition made concerning Christ in the prologue.) καθαρισμὸν (St’s #G2512), a word that is used 7 times in the New Testament (Mark 1:44; Luke 2:22; 5:14; John 2:6; 3:25; here; 1 Peter 1:9) and always means purification or cleansing. The Received Text from which the KJV is translated has an added dimension when it reads δι’ εαυτοῦ καθαρισμὸν …  “through himself cleansing …”: Jesus was much more than a perfect man who had come to show us how to live, He was the perfect Lamb (without spot or blemish) who had come to purify from sin (by the shedding of His sinless blood) all those who would believe upon His name. This He did by Himself. He walked the path to Calvary alone, He suffered the cross alone. We hear the voice of his loneliness "let this cup pass from me” and “My God, my God why has thou forsaken me?" Here, for all the world to see, and hear, is the human Christ apart from His deity, redeeming a fallen creation alone, by Himself: Mary's son, the Carpenter from Nazareth. There was no God visible on the cross that day, as the blood puddled at the base of the timber: only our Kinsman Redeemer. And yet (when it comes to Jesus, there seems to always be an "and yet") the blood that was shed that day was the blood of two contracting parties, God and man, which facilitated an actual blood covenant. But even more profound is that this solitary life has existence on two planes and is the federal head of earth and heaven: the God-man. 

He sit down at the right hand of the Majesty on high (ἐκάθισεν ἐν 

δεξιᾷ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν ὑψηλοῖς). (This is the sixth proposition make concerning Christ in the prologue.) Literally: “He sat down on the right of the Majesty on high.” The picture of Christ being seated indicates the finished character of His once-for-all sacrifice for sin (Hebrews 10:10, 12). The position on the "right" of Majesty is not to be understood as a literal position to the right hand of God. This is a Hebrew idiom that references the glorification of Christ to the throne of His Father (Revelation 3:21), thereby, becoming the power and glory of God. Paul describes this as dwelling in light unapproachable (1 Timothy 6:16). The apostle Paul, also, elaborates on the right hand of God in his letter to the Ephesians: "And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him on his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come. (Ephesians 1:19-21, KJV).

Unless some misguided mind would think in terms that is too literal – that is, of a literal righthand position, we would ask: How far, I mean, to what distance one must go to be at the right hand of Omni-presence? Really ! Also, if a literal "right hand" position is being referenced it would demand that God literally have a right hand, if the Father has a literal right hand it would follow (Would it not?) that He also has a right knee. If we reasoned in such a literal vein, we arrive at the unthinkable event of the Father humbling Himself before the Son, because the scripture states that every knee in heaven will bow to Jesus the Christ (Philippians 2:10,… At the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth,). If this seems absurd reasoning it is so only because two god-persons is absurd in the extreme. 

V4 τοσούτῳ κρείττων γενόμενος τῶν ἀγγέλων ὅσῳ διαφορώτερον παρ' αὐτοὺς κεκληρονόμηκεν ὄνομα. (having become so much better than the angels, to the extent that He has inherited a more excellent name than they.).

V4. Having become ( γενόμενος). (St’s G#1096). Though Christ has been presented as the human version of the glory of Yahweh (v3), it is the human Christ that v3 says is exalted to the right hand position of power and favor, that is here presented as “having become” (γενόμενος: aorist tense, participle mood, middle voice) better than the angels. The human Christ, by being obedient to the Spirit was raised, by Himself (see John 2:19ff, where Jesus stated that He would raise Himself from the dead)  to a position greater than the Angels of God. 

better (κρείττων). (St’s G#2909). More excellent (Thayer).

than the angels (τῶν ἀγγέλων). In the incarnation the Creator became wedded to His creation when He took on human flesh, soul and spirit in the womb of Mary. The human Christ was made of a woman (Galatians 4:4). Although perfect and without sin yet a little lower than the angels (see vv6-8; Psalms 8:4-5 cf Luke 2:52). Now, our Author is assuring his readers that as a result of the resurrection and glorification of Christ he has "become" ( γενόμενος) better (κρείττων) than the Angels. By this text, those who wrongly identified Jesus with the Angels, and even say He is Michael or Gabriel, are refuted. By γενόμενος being in the middle voice it is indicated that the 'becoming" was an action performed by Christ on Himself; thus, demonstrating His identity as the autotheos, as to His deity.

He has inherited a more excellent name than they (ὅσῳ διαφορώ-τερον παρ' αὐτοὺς κεκληρονόμηκεν ὄνομα). (This is the seventh proposition made concerning Christ in the prologue.) Our Author has told us in v2 that the Son was appointed to be the heir of all things. Here, we are told that the Son had inherited a more excellent name than the Angels. While the Pluralists like to say this is the name "Son," I do not think that correct. The Christ was not named “Son”; that is the title of an office He possesses. But when He was conceived the Angel announced that His name would be "Jesus." The Angel was clear as to why He was so named: "For he shall save his people from their sins" (Matthew 1:21). Now, just as a son inherits the fathers name, so, too, the Son of Mary. The God of the Old Testament’s name is Yahweh. When that One and Only God stepped into our world by undergoing generation, and in affect became His own Son, the name He inherited was Yeshua (Jesus, in English), meaning: Yahweh Savior. It is not for nothing that the Greek text reads ὅσῳ διαφορώτερον … ὄνομα - “a more excellent name.” The sense: Christ has become better than the Angels "by so much… as" (Thayer) he has inherited the better name. We cannot ignore the "name" by which we are saved (Acts 4:12) and into which we are water baptized (Matthew 28:19; Acts 2:38 etc.). When we, of the Modalist faith argue for the name "Jesus", the Pluralists argue for the more excellent name being "Son." By the way the Pluralists’ content for the name "Son" one would think the Angel told Joseph, "She (Mary) shall bring forth a Jesus, and you shall call His name Son" instead of "She (Mary) shall bring forth a Son, and you should call His name Jesus" (Matthew 1: 21): which is what the Angel actually said. Hebraically,  one's name is much more than the syllables that formed the sound of it: it is the essence of the name and all it implies. Thus, the Son of Mary inheriting more than the phonics of a name – He inherited the very essence of Yahweh-becoming-Savior — which is the meaning of His more excellent name.

Apostolically Speaking

☩ Jerry L Hayes

Read more on this topic:

Be sure to read the other parts of this essay at the following links:
Hebrews Chapter One, Part II, vv5-7

https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2021/05/hebrews-chapter-one-exegesis-part-ii.html

Hebrews Chapter One, Part III, vv8-9

https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2021/05/hebrews-chapter-one-exegesis-part-iii.html

Hebrews Chapter One, Part IV

https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2021/05/hebrews-chapter-one-exegesis-part-iv.html

View a video where Bishop Hayes is teaching from this passage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=os8lIeqeDjE&t=154s