Featured Hebrews 1:3

One of my favorite books of the Bible to teach. We spent over a year working through Hebrews and never finished.

It is interesting that the word ἀπαύγασμα (translated “radiance”) and the word χαρακτήρ (“exact representation”) are only used in the bible in this passage. The presentation of the Son as the “radiance” of God’s glory and the “exact representation” of His being are statements affirming the same truth.

When the author of Hebrews speaks that the Son is the “radiance” or “reflection” of God’s glory and the “representation “ of his being it is easy in a modern context to see this as presenting Jesus Christ in some way inferior to God. I believe this is far from the truth because the Arthur consistently ascribes to Jesus actions and a nature that identifies Him with God. And just a few verses later the writer confirms this conclusion in verse 8. At the same time this “exact representation” presents a distinction between God the Father and God the Son.

I do not believe that the Son radiates the Father’s glory but that the Son radiates glory that is His own because He is God.

I believe you are right about the Son sustaining every created thing by the word of His power. I believe this corresponds with John’s statement that “in Him was life” and “nothing was made apart from Him”, and perhaps Paul’s comments in Colossians 1:17 that “He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together”

Here is how I view the phrases (how I would arrange for a study):

Who
..... Being the radiance of God’s gloryT
............... The exact representation of his being
..... Sustaining all things by his powerful word
................ Having provided purification for sins
...... Sat down at the right hand of the Majesty
............ Having become as much superior to the angles

 

God chose to use the word ἀπαύγασμα, so I personally do not question its use. The issue is what the word meant to the audience.

For example, is Christ really the χαρακτήρ (representation) of God or is He God?

Misapplication has led to errors on both sides. But the context determines the interpretation.

Christ's glory was not borrowed. It was His own. "reflection" does not mean (and should not be taken) as reflecting the Father's glory but having the glory of God.

I agree that Scripture interprets Scripture.

 

I think that we have to go back to what it would have meant to the audience rather than what it means in our time. For our time Jesus calling Himself "Son of God" would not be a major statement. For the time Jesus made the statement it was a claim of equality with God.

The context of John tells us, IMHO, that Christ is the representation of God, the reflection or radiance of God's glory, to proclaim that Jesus IS God. God's glory IS Jesus' glory.

That's how I read it anyway.

 

I agree, it is not. Technically declaring oneself to be a son is not the same as claiming equality to the father.

I agree with the doctrine that you hold. Jesus is the Light. The reason I do not mind words like "reflection" is that I believe it is necessary (regardless of the word used) to study Scripture and understand what is actually being communicated. Is Christ an exact "representation"? Yes. But not in the sense that He is a "copy" or less than the original. Is Christ a reflection of the glory of God? Yes. But not in the sense that that glory was not His own. (Some view "reflection" to be like a mirror reflecting light; others may consider that the son is a reflection of the father).

It is important to consider Scripture as a whole and to understand that the way we would superficially take the translated words in English may not accurately convey what the biblical writers intended to convey (we see this often with John 3:16 and the word "so"). Study is important, and I believe you hit the meaning perfectly.