Hebrews 1:3

Who being the brightness of his glory - This verse is designed to state the dignity and exalted rank of the Son of God, and is exceedingly important with reference to a correct view of the Redeemer. Every word which is employed is of great importance, and should be clearly understood in order to a correct apprehension of the passage. First, in what manner does it refer to the Redeemer? To his divine nature? To the mode of his existence before he was incarnate? Or to him as he appeared on earth? Most of the ancient commentators supposed that it referred to his divine dignity before he became incarnate, and proceed to argue on that supposition on the mode of the divine existence. The true solution seems to me to be, that it refers to him as incarnate, but still has reference to him as the incarnate “Son of God.” It refers to him as Mediator, but not simply or mainly as a man. It is rather to him as divine - thus, in his incarnation, being the brightness of the divine glory, and the express image of God. That this is the correct view is apparent, I think, from the whole scope of the passage. The drift of the argument is, to show his dignity as “he has spoken to us” Heb 1:1, and not in the period antecedent to his incarnation. It is to show his claims to our reverence as sent from God - the last and greatest of the messengers which God bas sent to man. But, then it is a description of him “as he actually is” - the incarnate Son of God; the equal of the Father in human flesh; and this leads the writer to dwell on his divine, character, and to argue from that; Heb 1:8, Heb 1:10-12. I have no doubt, therefore, that this description refers to his divine nature, but it is the divine nature as it appears in human flesh. An examination of the words used will prepare us for a more clear comprehension of the sense. The word “glory” - δόξα doxa - means properly “a seeming, an appearance;” and then:

(1)Praise, applause, honor:

(2)Dignity, splendor, glory;

(3)Brightness, dazzling light; and,

(4)Excellence, perfection, such as belongs to God and such as there is in heaven.

It is probably used here, as the word - כבוד kaabowd - is often among the Hebrews, to denote splendor, brightness, and refers to the divine perfections as resembling a bright light, or the sun. The word is applied to the sun and stars, 1Co 15:40-41; to the light which Paul saw on the way to Damascus, Act 22:11; to the shining of Moses’ face, 2Co 3:7; to the celestial light which surrounds the angels, Rev 18:1; and glorified saints, Luk 9:31-32; and to the dazzling splendor or majesty in which God is enthroned; 2Th 1:9; 2Pe 1:17; Rev 15:8; Rev 21:11, Rev 21:23. Here there is a comparison of God with the sun; he is encompassed with splendor and majesty; he is a being of light and of infinite perfection. It refers to “all in God” that is bright, splendid, glorious; and the idea is, that the Son of God is the “brightness” of it all.

The word rendered “brightness” - ἀπαύγασμα apaugasma - occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It means properly “reflected splendor,” or the light which emanates from a luminous body. The rays or beams of the sun are its “brightness,” or that by which the sun is seen and known. The sun itself we do not see; the beams which flow from it we do see. The meaning here is, that if God be represented under the image of a luminous body, as he is in the Scriptures (see Psa 84:11; Mal 4:2), then Christ is the radiance of that light, the brightness of that luminary - Stuart. He is that by which we perceive God, or by which God is made known to us in his real perfections; compare Joh 1:18; Joh 14:9. - It is by him only that the true character and glory of God is known to people. This is true in regard to the great system of revelation but it is especially true in regard to the views which people have of God. Mat 11:27 - “no man knoweth the Son but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.”

The human soul is dark respecting the divine character until it is enlightened by Christ. It sees no beauty, no glory in his nature - nothing that excites wonder, or that wins the affections, until it is disclosed by the Redeemer. somehow it happens, account for it as people may, that there are no elevating practical views of God in the world; no views that engage and hold the affections of the soul; no views that are transforming and purifying, but those which are derived from the Lord Jesus. A man becomes a Christian, and at once he has elevated, practical views of God. He is to him the most glorious of all beings. He finds supreme delight in contemplating his perfections. But he may be a philosopher or an infidel, and though he may profess to believe in the existence of God, yet the belief excites no practical influence on him; he sees nothing to admire; nothing which leads him to worship him; compare Rom 1:21.

And the express image - The word used here - χαρακτὴρ charaktēr - likewise occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It is that from which our word “character” is derived. It properly means a “engraving-tool;” and then something “engraved” or “stamped” - “a character” - as a letter, mark, sign. The image stamped on coins, seals, wax, expresses the idea: and the sense here is, that if God be represented under the idea of a substance, or being, then Christ is the exact resemblance of that - as an image is of the stamp or die. The resemblance between a stamp and the figure which is impressed is exact; and so is the resemblance between the Redeemer and God; see Col 1:15. “Who is the image of the invisible God.”

Of his person - The word “person” with us denotes an individual being, and is applied to human beings, consisting of body and soul. We do not apply it to anything dead - not using it with reference to the body when the spirit is gone. It is applied to man - with individual and separate consciousness and will; with body and soul; with an existence separate from others. It is evident that it cannot be used in this sense when applied to God, and that this word does not express the true idea of the passage here. Tyndale renders it, more accurately, “substance.” The word in the original - ὑπόστασις hupostasis - whence our word “hypostasis,” means, literally, a “foundation,” or “substructure.” Then it means a well-founded trust, firm expectation, confidence, firmness, boldness; and then “reality, substance, essential nature.” In the New Testament, it is rendered “confident,” or “confidence” 2Co 9:4; 2Co 11:17; Heb 3:14; “substance” Heb 11:1; and “person” in the passage before us. It is not used elsewhere. Here it properly refers to the essential nature of God - what distinguishes him from all other beings, and which, if I may so say, “constitutes him God;” and the idea is, that the Redeemer is the exact resemblance of “that.” This resemblance consists, probably, in the following things - though perhaps the enumeration does not include all - but in these he certainly resembles God, or is his exact image:

(1) In his original mode of being, or before the incarnation. Of this we know little. But he had a “glory with the Father before the world was;” Joh 17:5. He was “in the beginning with God, and was God;” Joh 1:1. He was in intimate union with the Father, and was one with Him, in certain respects; though in certain other respects, there was a distinction. I do not see any evidence in the Scriptures of the doctrine of “eternal generation,” and it is certain that that doctrine militates against the “proper eternity” of the Son of God. The natural and fair meaning of that doctrine would be, that there was a time when he had not an existence, and when he began to be, or was begotten. But the Scripture doctrine is, that he had a strict and proper eternity. I see no evidence that he was in any sense a “derived being” - deriving his existence and his divinity from the Father. The Fathers of the Christian church, it is believed, held that the Son of God as to his divine, as well as his human nature, was “derived” from the Father. Hence, the Nicene creed speaks of him as “begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made” - language implying derivation in his divine nature. They held, with one voice, that he was God (divine); but it was in this manner; see Stuart, Excursus III. on the Epistle to the Hebrews. But this is incredible and impossible. A derived being cannot in any proper sense be “God”; and if there is any attribute which the Scriptures have ascribed to the Saviour with special clearness, it is that of proper eternity; Rev 1:11, Rev 1:17; Joh 1:1.

(Perhaps the doctrine of Christ’s natural or eternal Sonship had been as well understood without the help of the term “generation,” which adds nothing to our stock of ideas on the subject, and gives rise, as the above remarks prove, to objections which attach altogether to the “word,” and from which the “doctrine” itself is free. In fairness however, it should be remembered that, like many other theological terms, the term in question, when applied to Christ’s Sonship, is not to be understood in the ordinary acceptation, as implying derivation or extraction. It is used as making some approach to a proper term only, and in this case, as in others of like nature, it is but just to respect the acknowledged rule that when human phraseology is employed concerning the divine nature, all that is imperfect, all that belongs to the creature, is to be rejected, and that only retained which comports with the majesty of the Creator. It is on this very principle that Prof. Stuart, in his first excursus, and Trinitarians generally, have so successfully defended the use of the word “person” to designate a distinction in the Godhead. Overlooking this principle, our author deduces consequences from the doctrine of eternal generation, which do not properly belong to it, and which its advocates distinctly repudiate.

That doctrine cannot militate against the proper eternity of the Son, since, while it uses the term “generation,” not “more human,” but with every thing of human informity separated from it, it supplies also the adjunct “eternal.” Whatever some indiscreet advocates of the eternal Sonship may have affirmed, it should never be forgotten, that the ablest friends equally with the author, contend that there is no “Derivation or communication of essence from the Father to the Son.” “Although the terms “Father” and “Son” indicate a relation analogous to that among people, yet, as in the latter case, it is a relation between two material and separate beings, and in the former, is a relation in the same Spiritual essence, the one can throw no light upon the other; and to attempt to illustrate the one by the other is equally illogical and presumptuous. We can conceive the communication of a material essence by one material being to another, because it takes place in the generation of animals; but the communication of a spiritual, indivisible, immutable essence is altogether inconceivable, especially when we add, that the supposed communication does not constitute a different being, but takes place in the essences communicating.”

Dick’s Theology, vol. 2, page 71. It is readily allowed that the Fathers, and many since their times, have written unguardedly on this mysterious subject: but their errors, instead of leading us to reject the doctrine entirely, should lead us only to examine the Scriptures more fully, and form our opinions on them alone. The excellent author already quoted has well remarked: “I cannot conceive what object they have in view who admit the Divinity, but deny the natural Sonship of our Saviour, unless it be to get rid of the strange notions about communication of essence and subordination which have prevailed so much; and in this case, like too many disputants, in avoiding one extreme, they run into the other.”)

It may have been that it was by him that the perfections of God were made known before the incarnation to the angelic world, but on that point the Scriptures are silent.

(2) On earth he was the brightness of the divine glory, and the express image of his person:

It was by him, eminently, that God was made known to human beings - as it is by the beams of the sun that that is made known. He bore an exact resemblance to God. He was just such a being as we should suppose God to be were he to become incarnate, and to act as a man.

He was the embodied representation of the Deity. He was pure - like God. He was benevolent - like God. He spake to the winds and storms - like God. He healed diseases - like God. He raised the dead - like God. He wielded the power which God only can wield, and he manifested a character in all respects like what we should suppose God would evince if he appeared in human flesh, and dwelt among people and this is saying much. It is in fact saying that the account in the Gospels is real, and that the Christian religion is true. Uninspired men could never have drawn such a character as that of Jesus Christ, unless that character had actually existed. The attempt has often been made to describe God, or to show how be would speak and act if he came down to earth.

Thus, the Hindus speak of the incarnations of Vishnu; and thus Homer, and Virgil, and most of the ancient poets, speak of the appearance of the gods, and describe them as they were supposed to appear. But how different from the character of the Lord Jesus! they are full of passion, and lust, and anger, and contention, and strife; they come to mingle in battles, and to take part with contending armies, and they evince the same spirit as men, and are merely “men of great power, and more gigantic passions; “but Christ is God in human nature. The form is that of man; the spirit is that of God. He walks, and eats, and sleeps as a man; he thinks, and speaks, and acts like God. He was born as a man - but the angels adored him as God. As a man he ate; yet by a word he created food for thousands, as if he were God. Like a man he slept on a pillow while the vessel was tossed by the waves; like God be rose, and rebuked the winds and they were still. As a man he went, with affectionate interest, to the house of Martha and Mary. As a man he sympathized with them in their affliction, and wept at the grave of their brother; like God he spoke, and the dead came forth to the land of the living. As a man he traveled through the land of Judea. He was without a home. Yet everywhere the sick were laid at his feet, and health came from his touch, and strength from the words of his lips as if he were God. As a man he prayed in the garden of Gethsemane; he bore his cross to Calvary; he was nailed to the tree: yet then the heavens grew dark, and the earth shook and the dead arose as if he were God. As a man he slept in the cold tomb - like God he rose, and brought life and immortality to light.

He lived on earth as a man - he ascended to heaven like God. And in all the life of the Redeemer, in all the variety of trying situations in which he was placed, there was not a word or action which was inconsistent with the supposition that he was the incarnate God. There was no failure of any effort to heal the sick or to raise the dead; no look, no word, no deed that is not perfectly consistent with this supposition; but on the contrary, his life is full of events which can be explained on no other supposition than that he was the appropriate shining forth of the divine glory, and the exact resemblance of the essence of God. There are not two Gods - as there are not two suns when the sun shines. It is the one God, in a mysterious and incomprehensible manner shining into the world in the face of Jesus Christ. See note on 2Co 4:6. As the wax bears the perfect image of the seal - perfect not only in the outline, but in the filling up - in all the lines, and features, and letters, so is it with the Redeemer. There is not one of the divine perfections which has not the counterpart in him, and if the glory of the divine character is seen at all by people, it will be seen in and through him.

And upholding all things by the word of his power - That is, by his powerful word, or command. The phrase “word of his power” is a Hebraism, and means his efficient command. There could not be a more distinct ascription of divinity to the Son of God than this. He upholds or sustains all things - that is, the universe. It is not merely the earth; not only its rocks, mountains, seas, animals and human beings, but it is the universe - all distant worlds. How can he do this who is not God? He does it by his word - his command. What a conception! That one simple command should do all this! So the world was made when God “spake and it was done; he commanded and it stood fast;” Psa 33:9. So the Lord Jesus commanded the waves and the winds, and they were still Mat 8:26-27; so he spoke to diseases and they departed, and to the dead land they arose; compare Gen 1:3. I do know how people can “explain away” this ascription of infinite power to the Redeemer. There can be no higher idea of omnipotence than to say that he upholds all things by his word; and assuredly he who can “hold up” this vast universe so that it does not sink into anarchy or into nothing, must be God. The same power Jesus claimed for himself; see Mat 28:18.

When he had by himself purged our sins - “By himself” - not by the blood of bulls and lambs, but by his own blood. This is designed to bring in the grand feature of the Christian scheme, that the purification made for sin was by his blood, instead of the blood which was shed in the temple-service. The word rendered here “purged” means “purified” or “expiated;” see notes on Joh 15:2. The literal rendering is, “having made purification for our sins.” The purification or cleansing which he effected was by his blood; see 1Jo 1:7 “The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all sin.” This the apostle here states to have been the great object for which he came, and having done this, he sat down on the right hand of God; see Heb 7:27; Heb 9:12-14. It was not merely to teach that he came; it was to purify the hearts of people, to remove their sins, and to put an end to sacrifice by the sacrifice of himself.

Sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high - Of God; see the notes on Mar 16:19; Eph 1:20-23.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Who being the brightness; the same gospel minister, God’s Son, was, as to his person, απαυγασμα, a brightness shining out: which word sets forth the natural eternal generation of God the Son, discovering both the rise and flux of his being, and the beauteous and glorious excellency of it. It is the same in the sight of it with the Father’s, the brightness of glory, light of light, glory of glory to perfection, streaming from his Father incessantly; as beams issue from the sun, or the mental word is the invisible brightness of that spiritual light the intellect.

Of his glory; essential glory. Light is a faint, visible resemblance of God’s essence, his manifestation of himself in glory hath been by light; to Moses, Exo 33:18-23; 34:5,29-31; to Isaiah, Isa 6:1-4; to Ezekiel, Eze 1:4-28, and Eze 10:1-22; to Daniel, Dan 10:5,6,8,16-19; to John, Rev 1:1-20,4:1-11, and Rev 5:1-14. And so Christ represented that of his person at his transfiguration, Mat 17:1-7. If created light be glorious in the sun, in angels; how much more God’s essential glory! Purity, beauty, light, how pleasant! But what are these to God? However the being of God be conceived, as wisdom, holiness, goodness, justice, power, the excellency of these above all created beings is this glory. No being is glory but God’s; this fundamental excellency shines no where as in this Son, Joh 1:14. By this are Father and Son declared distinct relations, subsisting together and co-eternal.

And the express image; as the beams are with the sun the same in time, yet are weaker, therefore the Holy Ghost adds, he is his very image; carakthr is an engraven image of the Father, every way like him; the word signifieth a sculpture, print, engraving, or seal; intimating its distinction from what impressed it, and its likeness or parity to it: so is the Son’s a distinct relation, yet naturally and integrally having all that might liken him to his Father, Col 1:15.

Of his person; thv upostasewv autou, of his subsistence. He is not the character of the Godhead, or of the Divine essence, but of the Father, the personal subsistence in the Deity. He is one and the same God with the Father, but his character as God is a Father, so that who seeth him seeth his Father, Joh 14:9; he is the visible representation of him, Col 2:9.

And upholding; the whole work of Providence is set out by upholding; ferwn imports sustaining, feeding, preserving, governing, throwing down, raising up, comforting, and punishing, &c. All would have fallen in pieces on man’s sin, had not he interposed, and stopped the world when it was reeling back into nothing, Col 1:17; and to this instant he preserveth and ruleth all, Isa 9:6; Joh 5:22.

All things; ta panta, a full, universal, comprehensive all, persons and things, angels, men, creatures good and bad, small and great, with all events, Act 17:24-31.

By the word of his power; not by an articulate voice, but his beck, will, or powerful command, whereby he doth whatsoever he pleaseth; his absolute, powerful, irresistible word; he acts as easily as others speak; there is no distinguishing between this word and power, they went together in the creation, Gen 1:3,6,7, and do so in his providence, Psa 33:9; 148:8.

When he had by himself; when this God-man, as the great gospel High Priest, so styled, Heb 2:17, had by himself alone, being altar and sacrifice, as well as Priest, the sole efficient of this work without any assistance. He, by his eternal Spirit, offered up a sacrifice propitiatory to God, his human nature hypostatically united to his Divine, and expiring his soul, he immediately entered with the blood of the covenant the holy of holiest in heaven, and presenting it before the eternal Judge, made full satisfaction and expiation for sins, Heb 7:17; 9:11,12,14,24,26; 10:10,12,14.

Purged; by his satisfaction and merit, removing both the guilt and stain of sin; so as God, the injured Lawgiver, could be just as well as merciful in pardoning it; and justifying those who believe and plead it from the condemnation they were liable to for it, Rom 3:24-26; 1Jo 1:7,9; and mortifying and killing sin in them by his purchased Spirit, Rom 10:10,12,14,18; compare 1Co 6:11; Eph 5:25-27.

Our sins; the sins of men, and not of angels; and the consequents of them, removing guilt, stain, and punishment, which they would fasten on us by his self-sacrifice, Heb 2:16.

Sat down; after his atoning for sinners, at the forty days’ end he ascended in his human nature, immortal in body and soul, and entered the second time the holy of holiest in heaven; and then εκαθισεν, made himself to sit as High Priest in the most honourable and immovable state and condition. He did not stand, as the typical high priest before God’s ark, but sat; and in this co-operated with his Father, and obeyed him, Psa 110:1; angels, and men, and creatures, all subjected to him, Eph 1:20-22. He doth sit quietly, Act 3:21, and surely; there is no shaking him from his ever-interceding for his, Heb 7:25.

On the right hand; a similitude expressing the height of glory that this God-man is advanced to; alluding to the state of the greatest king on his throne in his majesty, Eze 1:4,26-28; Da 7:9-14; 1Ti 1:17. He is exalted by the royal Father as his eldest Son, invested with Godlike power, majesty, and glory, as Heb 8:1; Heb 10:12; 12:2; there enjoying all that happiness, blessedness, all those dignities and pleasures, Psa 16:11; fulness of honour and glory, Heb 2:7; of government, rule, and dominion, Mat 28:18; of all royal and glorious abilities and endowments for the managing all things; he enjoyeth all these as the Father himself doth, who ordereth all by him, so as no creature is capable of it, Heb 1:13. All the power of doing all things in all worlds is lodged in his hands.

Of the Majesty on high; in the highest heaven is this possessed by him, and there is he to display his glory in ordering all, Heb 7:26; Heb 8:1; Eph 4:10; as in the happiest, so in the highest place is he to rule for ever; our advantage is by it, Eph 2:6, as to best of places and states.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Heb 1:3. Who being the brightness — Απαυγασμα, the effulgence, or out-beaming, or splendour; of his — The Father’s; glory — In Scripture, the glory of God signifies the perfections of God. See Rom 1:23; and in and by the Son of God, the glorious nature and attributes of the Father have shone forth probably to angels, at least to men; as on mount Sinai, when his voice shook the earth, (Heb 12:26,) in the tabernacle and temple. Compare Exo 24:10 with Joh 1:18, and 1Ti 6:16. The divine glory, which was manifested to Isaiah in the vision recorded Isa 6:1-4, is expressly said, Joh 12:41, to have been the glory of Christ. This glory indeed was veiled in flesh when he became incarnate, yet he still possessed it, and it shone forth, in some degree, on many occasions, especially at his transfiguration, and even in his whole ministry; infinite wisdom manifesting itself in his discourses; almighty power in his miracles; unspeakable love in his benevolent actions; and holiness unparalleled in his spirit and conduct daily. So that he was fitly denominated the Holy One of God. And the express image — Stamp or delineation; of his person — Or substance, as υποστασεως signifies. That is, he is one who has the whole nature of God in him, as he is his eternal Son; and declares and represents, in a most conspicuous manner, the divine properties to our faith and contemplation as incarnate: whatever the Father is, is exhibited in the Son as a seal in the stamp on wax. For the word χαρακτηρ, here rendered express image, properly signifies an image made by engraving, such as that on a seal; also the image which the seal makes on wax by impression. Phavorinus says, it is διατυπωσις δηλουσα την υποστασιν, a form, or draught, manifesting the substance whence it was taken. And the word υποστασις, rendered person, he says, is ουσια μετα των ιδιωματων, the substance with the properties. So that the clause here, according to him, is a draught manifesting, or exhibiting the substance and properties of God. “According to the Greek commentators on the place,” says Whitby, “it is the same with our Lord’s being in the form of God before he took our nature on him.” See on Php 2:6; Col 1:15, where this is explained at large. And upholding — Φερων, sustaining, or preserving and governing; all things — Visible and invisible. This expression is parallel to 1 Col 1:17, τα παντα εν αυτω συνεστηκε, by him all things consist. According to Pierce, the meaning of both passages is, that as the Son gave being to all things, so he maintains them in being. By the word of his power — That is, by his powerful word: in the same divine manner in which all things were created; for he only spake, and they were done. When he had by himself — By the sacrifice of himself, (Heb 9:26,) without any Mosaic rites or ceremonies; purged our sins — Καθαρισμον ποιησαμενος, having effected a purification of them, or made atonement to satisfy the demands of divine justice. In order to which it was necessary he should for a time divest himself of his glory. This is the fourth fact treated of in this epistle, namely, that the Author of the gospel laid down his life a sacrifice for sin; of which, when offered, God declared his acceptance, by setting Jesus at his own right hand. The gospel, therefore, hath a priesthood and sacrifice more efficacious than the priesthood and sacrifices of the law taken together. For an expiation made by a person so great in himself, and so dear to God as his own Son, and made by the appointment of God, could not but be acceptable to him; consequently it must be a sure foundation for that hope of pardon, by which the gospel encourages sinners to repent. Sat down — The Jewish priests stood while they ministered: Christ’s being said to sit down, therefore, denotes the consummation of his sacrifice: on the right hand of the Majesty — Of God; on high — In the highest heavens. The apostle’s meaning is, that our Lord, after his ascension, was invested in the human nature with that visible glory and power which he enjoyed with God before the world, as mentioned by himself, Joh 17:5. Our Lord’s sitting down at the right hand of God is affirmed in this epistle no less than five different times, because it presupposes his resurrection from the dead, and implies his being put in possession of the highest authority in heaven, under the Father. Consequently it is a clear proof that he is really the Son of God. It must be observed, that in this chapter the apostle describes Christ’s glory chiefly as he is the Son of God; afterward, Heb 2:6, &c., the glory of the man Christ Jesus. He speaks indeed briefly of the former before his humiliation, but copiously after his exaltation; as from hence the glory he had from eternity began to be evidently seen. Both his purging our sins, and sitting on the right hand of God, are largely treated of in the seven following chapters.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1:3 The word translated radiates, found only here in the New Testament, includes an idea of intense brightness. God’s own glory is the glorious manifestation of his presence (Exod 16:7; 33:18; Isa 40:5). The Son’s glory is an expression of God’s glory—the Son of God manifests the person and presence of God (Luke 9:32; John 1:14; 2:11; 17:5; Rom 8:17). • The term translated expresses, used only here in the New Testament, was used of a distinguishing mark imprinted on an object such as a coin. The Son gives a clear picture of the very character of God (John 1:18; Phil 2:6; Col 1:15). • the mighty power of his command (literally his powerful word): God’s word is the powerful, dynamic force that created and governs the world (Heb 11:3; Ps 33:6-11). Elsewhere the Son is called “the Word of God” (Rev 19:13; see also John 1:1-18). • cleansed us from our sins: See Heb 9:11–10:18. • he sat down: This clause is an allusion to Ps 110:1 (see also Heb 1:13; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2), which foretold the exaltation of Christ after his suffering (see Matt 22:44; Acts 2:33; 1 Cor 15:25). The right hand of God indicates high honor, rank, and position (see 1 Kgs 2:19; Pss 16:11; 45:4, 9; 80:17).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Heb 1:3. Ὃς—ὑψηλο͂ς, who—on high) This is the third of those glorious predicates, He sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high. Again, three points of importance are introduced into this predicate, by the three participles. Paul mentions these points in the same order, Col 1:15; Col 1:17; Col 1:20. The first participle and likewise the second, from the finite verb ἐκάθισεν, sat down, being the aorist, have the meaning of an imperfect tense, and may be resolved into because, ὢν, φέρων τε, because (inasmuch as) He was, because (inasmuch as) He was upholding (comp. ὢν, ch. Heb 5:8); but the third, as being without the particle τὲ, and, cohering more closely with the same finite verb, is to be resolved into after that: ποιησάμενος, after that He made.—ὢν—φέρων τε, because [inasmuch as] He was—and upheld) That glory, on which the Son entered when He was exalted to the right hand of the Father, no angel was capable of taking, but the Son took it; for He also had it formerly in respect of God, whose glory shines refulgently in Him, and in respect of all things, which He upholds; Joh 6:62; Rev 1:18.—ἀπαύγασμα, the brightness) Wis 7:25-26: For she (wisdom) is the breath of the power of God, and a pure influence flowing from the GLORY (ΔΟΞΗΣ) of the Almighty: therefore no defiled thing falls into her. For she is the BRIGHTNESS (ΑΠΑΥΓΑΣΜΑ) of the everlasting light, and the unspotted mirror of the power of God, and the image of His goodness. Ἀπὸ has in this compound word an intensive power—as in ἀποστίλβω, ἀποκυέω, ἀποτίκτω, ἀπέχω,—not the power of diminishing. It does not imply less or greater, but propagation [extension of the Father’s glory].—τῆς δόξης, of the glory) Glory denotes the nature of God revealed in His brightness, the same as His eternal power and Godhead, Rom 1:20.—χαρακτὴρ, the impress, the express image) Whatever the hypostasis (personal essence) of the Father has, that is represented in the Son, as His express image.—ὑποστάσεως, of His hypostasis) [of His personal essence]. If we gather from the LXX. the meaning of this word, variously used by them—never however concerning GOD—it denotes here the immoveable everlastingness of the Divine life and power; comp. Heb 1:11. Therefore the parallels are δόξα, the glory, always undefiled [‘incorruptible’], Rom 1:23, and ὑπόστασις, the hypostasis or personal essence, which always holds as it were the same place. It was with this feeling that the old Rabbins, as it would seem, called God מקום, Place, or rather State.—τὰ πάντα, all things) [the universe]. The article is to be referred to πάντων, of all things, Heb 1:2. τῷ ῥήματι, by the word) The Son of GOD is a person; for He has the word.—αὑτοῦ) The same as ἑαντοῦ in the next clause.—διʼ ἑαυτοῦ) by Himself, i.e. without the external Levitical instrumentality or covenant. This power of His shines forth from the titles already given.—καθαρισμὸν, purification) There lies hidden here an anticipation.[5] When Christ lived in the flesh, it did not appear that so majestic things should be predicated of Him; but the apostle replies, that His sojourn in the weakness of the flesh was only for a time, for the purging of our sins. In this chapter he describes the glory of Christ, in that light chiefly, as He is the Son of GOD; then subsequently he describes the glory of Christ as man, ch. Heb 2:6. He mentions the actual glory of the Son of GOD before His humiliation in a summary manner; but His glory after His exaltation, most fully; for it was from this exaltation in particular, and not before, that the glory which He had from eternity began to be most clearly seen. And the purging of our sins, and subsequent sitting on the right hand of the Majesty, are most fully treated of in ch. 7, etc.—ἐκάθισεν, He sat down) by the will of the Father; comp. ἔθηκε, He appointed, Heb 1:2. On this sitting, see Heb 1:13-14. The ministering priests stood; the sitting therefore denotes the accomplishment of the sacrifice, and the glorious kingdom begun. By this finite verb, sat down, after the participles, is implied the scope, subject, sum of the epistle; comp. Heb 8:1.—τῆς μεγαλωσύνης) of the Majesty, i.e. of GOD.—ἐν ὑψηλοῖς, on high) in the heavens, Heb 8:1.

[5] ‘Occupatio.’ An anticipation of an objection that might be raised, and which is therefore answered beforehand. See Append.—ED.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Heb_1:3. Continued description of the dignity of the Son. The main declaration of the verse, ὃς ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν ὑψηλοῖς, is established on the grounds presented in the preceding participles ὢν … φέρων τε … ποιησάμενος. The grounding, however, is a twofold one, inasmuch as the participles present still relate to Christ as the Λόγος ἄσαρκος, and describe His nature and sway, while the participle aorist has as its contents the redeeming act of the Λόγος ἔνσαρκος. Of the two present participles, the first corresponds to the former half of the proposition, Heb_1:2, and the second to the latter half.

ὢ ἀπαύγασμα] not: quum esset, but: quum sit ἀπαύγ., or as ἀπαύγασμα. For the εἶναι ἀπαύγασμα κ.τ.λ. and φέρειν τὰ πάντα κ.τ.λ., which was appropriate to the Son of God in His prehuman form of existence, has, after the exaltation or ascension has taken place, become again appropriate to Him.[31]

ἈΠΑΎΓΑΣΜΑ] an Alexandrian word, occurring Wis_7:26, and frequently with Philo, but only here in the N. T. It is explained either (1) as a beaming forth or radiance, i.e. as a ray which flows forth from the light, e.g., of the sun. So Bleek, Bisping, Delitzsch, Maier, Kurtz, and Hofmann, after the example of Clarius, Jac. Cappellus, Gomar., Schlichting, Gerhard, Calov, Owen, Rambach, Peirce, Calmet, Heumann, Böhme, Reiche. Or (2) as image, reflected radiance, i.e. as a likeness formed by reflex rays, reflection. So Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Wittich, Limborch, Stein, Grimm (Theol. Literaturbl. to the Darmstadt A. Kirch.-Z. 1857, No. 29, p. 661, and in his Lexic. N. T. p. 36), Nickel (Reuters Repert. 1857, Oct., p. 17), Moll, and others; so substantially also Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 279). In favour of the former interpretation it may be advanced that Hesychius paraphrases ἀπαύγασμα by ἩΛΊΟΥ ΦΈΓΓΟς; and in Lexic. Cyrilli ms. Brem. are found the words: ἀπαύγασμα ἀκτὶς ἡλίου, ἡ πρώτη τοῦ ἡλιακοῦ φωτὸς ἀποβολή, as accordingly also Chrysostom and Theophylact explain ἈΠΑΎΓΑΣΜΑ by Φῶς ἘΚ ΦΩΤΌς, the latter with the addition ΤῸ ἈΠΑΎΓΑΣΜΑ ἘΚ ΤΟῦ ἩΛΊΟΥ ΚΑῚ ΟὐΧ ὝΣΤΕΡΟΝ ΑὐΤΟῦ; and Theodoret observes: ΤῸ ΓᾺΡ ἈΠΑΎΓΑΣΜΑ ΚΑῚ ἘΚ ΤΟῦ ΠΥΡΌς ἘΣΤΙ ΚΑῚ ΣῪΝ Τῷ ΠΥΡΊ ἘΣΤΙ· ΚΑῚ ΑἼΤΙΟΝ ΜῈΝ ἜΧΕΙ ΤῸ ΠῦΡ, ἈΧΏΡΙΣΤΟΝ ΔΈ ἘΣΤΙ ΤΟῦ ΠΥΡΌς· ἘΞ ΟὟ ΓᾺΡ ΤῸ ΠῦΡ, ἘΞ ἘΚΕΊΝΟΥ ΚΑῚ ΤῸ ἈΠΑΎΓΑΣΜΑ. But without reason does Bleek claim, in favour of this first interpretation, also the usage of Philo and Wis_7:26. For in the passage of Philo, de Speciall. legg. § 11 (ed. Mangey, II. p. 356), which Bleek regards as particularly clear (Τὸ δʼ ἐμφυσώμενον [Gen_2:7] ΔῆΛΟΝ Ὡς ΑἸΘΈΡΙΟΝ ἮΝ ΠΝΕῦΜΑ ΚΑῚ ΕἸ ΔΉ ΤΙ ΑἸΘΕΡΊΟΥ ΠΝΕΎΜΑΤΟς ΚΡΕῖΤΤΟΝ, ἍΤΕ Τῆς ΜΑΚΑΡΊΑς ΚΑῚ ΤΡΙΣΜΑΚΑΡΊΑς ΦΎΣΕΩς ἈΠΑΎΓΑΣΜΑ), there is found no ground of deciding either for or against this acceptation of the word. The other two passages of Philo, however, which are cited by Bleek, tell less in favour of it than against it. For in the former of these ἈΠΑΎΓΑΣΜΑ is explained by ἘΚΜΑΓΕῖΟΝ [impression] and ἀπόσπασμα [shred] as synonyms, in the latter by μίμημα [copy]. (De Opific. Mundi, p. 33 D, in Mangey, I. p. 35: πᾶς ἄνθρωπος κατὰ μὲν τὴν διάνοιαν ᾠκείωται θείῳ λόγῳ, τῆς μακαρίας φύσεως ἐκμαγεῖον ἢ ἀπόσπασμα ἢ ἀπαύγασμα γεγονώς, κατὰ δὲ τὴν τοῦ σώματος κατασκευὴν ἅπαντι τῷ κόσμῳ.

De plantat. Noë, p. 221 C, Mang. I. p. 337: Τὸ δὲ ἁγίασμα οἷον ἁγίων ἀπαύγασμα, μίμημα ἀρχετύπου· ἐπεὶ τὰ αἰσθήσει καλὰ καὶ νοήσει καλῶν εἰκόνες.) Finally, there are found also, Wis_7:26, as kindred expressions, besides ἈΠΑΎΓΑΣΜΑ, the words ἜΣΟΠΤΡΟΝ and ΕἸΚΏΝ. (ἈΠΑΎΓΑΣΜΑ ΓΆΡ ἘΣΤΙ ΦΩΤῸς ἈΪΔΊΟΥ ΚΑῚ ἜΣΟΠΤΡΟΝ ἈΚΗΛΊΔΩΤΟΝ Τῆς ΤΟῦ ΘΕΟῦ ἘΝΕΡΓΕΊΑς ΚΑῚ ΕἸΚῺΝ Τῆς ἈΓΑΘΌΤΗΤΟς ΑὐΤΟῦ.) The decision is afforded by the form of the word itself. Inasmuch as not ἈΠΑΥΓΑΣΜΌς, but ἈΠΑΎΓΑΣΜΑ is written, an active notion, such as would be required by Bleeks acceptation, cannot be expressed by it, but only a passive one. Not the ray itself, but the result thereof must be intended. For as ἀπήχημα denotes that which is produced by the ἈΠΗΧΕῖΝ, the resonance or echo, and ἈΠΟΣΚΊΑΣΜΑ that which is produced by the ἈΠΟΣΚΙΆΖΕΙΝ, the shadow cast by an object, so does ἈΠΑΎΓΑΣΜΑ denote that which is produced by the ἈΠΑΥΓΆΖΕΙΝ. ἈΠΑΎΓΑΣΜΑ is therefore to be rendered by reflected radiance, and a threefold idea is contained in the word(1) the notion of independent existence, (2) the notion of descent or derivation, (3) the notion of resemblance.

τῆς δόξης] of His (the divine) glory or majesty. For the following αὐτοῦ belongs equally to Τῆς ΔΌΞΗς as to Τῆς ὙΠΟΣΤΆΣΕΩς.

ΚΑῚ ΧΑΡΑΚΤῊΡ Τῆς ὙΠΟΣΤΆΣΕΩς ΑὐΤΟῦ] and as impress of His essential being, so that the essential being of the Father is printed forth in the Son, the Son is the perfect image and counterpart of the Father. Comp. Philo, de plantat. Noë, p. 217 A (ed. Mangey, I. p. 332), where the rational soul (ἡ λογικὴ ψυχή) is called a coin which stands the test, ΟὐΣΙΩΘΩΕῖΣΑ ΚΑῚ ΤΥΠΩΘΕῖΣΑ ΣΦΡΑΓΊΔΙ ΘΕΟῦ, Ἧς Ὁ ΧΑΡΑΚΤΉΡ ἘΣΤΙΝ ἈΐΔΙΟς ΛΌΓΟς. In the N. T. the word ΧΑΡΑΚΤΉΡ is found only in this place. To interpret ὙΠΌΣΤΑΣΙς, however, in the sense of ΠΡΌΣΩΠΟΝ, or Person (Thomas Aquinas, Cajetan, Calvin [in the exposition], Beza, Piscator, Cornelius a Lapide, Gerhard, Dorscheus, Calov, Sebastian Schmidt, Bellarmin, Braun, Brochmann, Wolf, Suicer), is permitted only by later usage, not by that of the apostolic age. For the rest, that which is affirmed by the characteristic ἈΠΑΎΓΑΣΜΑ Τῆς ΔΌΞΗς ΚΑῚ ΧΑΡΑΚΤῊΡ Τῆς ὙΠΟΣΤΆΣΕΩς ΑὐΤΟῦ, the Apostle Paul expresses, Col_1:15, by ΕἸΚῺΝ ΤΟῦ ΘΕΟῦ ΤΟῦ ἈΟΡΆΤΟΥ, and, Php_2:6 (comp. 2Co_4:4), by ἘΝ ΜΟΡΦῇ ΘΕΟῦ ὙΠΆΡΧΩΝ.

ΦΈΡΩΝ ΤΕ ΤᾺ ΠΆΝΤΑ Τῷ ῬΉΜΑΤΙ Τῆς ΔΥΝΆΜΕΩς ΑὐΤΟῦ] and as He who upholds the whole creation by the word of His power. Comp. Col_1:17 : καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν; Philo, de Cherub. p. 114 (ed. Mang. I. p. 145): ὁ πηδαλιοῦχος καὶ κυβερνήτης τοῦ παντὸς λόγος θεῖος.

τὰ πάντα is not to be limited, with the Socinians, to the kingdom of grace, but is identical with ΠΆΝΤΩΝ; and ΤΟῪς ΑἸῶΝΑς, Heb_1:2, thus denotes the complex of all created things. On ΦΈΡΕΙΝ in the signification: to uphold anything, so that its continued existence is assured, comp. Plutarch, Lucull. 6 : φέρειν τὴν πόλιν; Valerius Maximus, xi. 8. 5 : Humeris gestare salutem patriae; Cicero, pro Flacco, c. 38: Quam (rempublicam) vos universam in hoc judicio vestris humeris, vestris inquam humeris, judices sustinetis; Seneca, Ep. 31: Deus ille maximus potentissimusque ipse vehit omnia; Herm. Past. iii. 9. 14: Nomen Filii Dei magnum et immensum est et totus ab eo sustentatur orbis.

τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ] more emphatic than if Τῷ ῬΉΜΑΤΙ ΑὐΤΟῦ Τῷ ΔΥΝΑΤῷ were written, to which Wolf, Kuinoel, Stengel, Tholuck, Bloomfield would, without reason, make the words equivalent. Oecumenius: ῬῆΜΑ ΔῈ ΕἾΠΕ ΔΕΙΚΝῪς ΠΆΝΤΑ ΕὐΚΌΛΩς ΑὐΤῸΝ ἌΓΕΙΝ ΚΑῚ ΦΈΡΕΙΝ. Theophylact: ΤΗΛΙΚΟῦΤΟΥ ὌΓΚΟΝ Τῆς ΚΤΊΣΕΩς ΤῸΝ ὙΠΈΡΜΕΓΑΝ Ὡς ΟὐΔῈΝ ΑὐΤῸς ΔΙΑΒΑΣΤΆΖΕΙ ΚΑῚ ΛΌΓῼ ΜΌΝῼ ΠΆΝΤΑ ΔΥΝΑΜΈΝῼ.

Not the gospel, however, is meant by ῥῆμα τῆς δυνάμεως; but as by the word of Omnipotence the world was created (comp. Heb_11:3), so is it also by the word of Omnipotence upheld or preserved.

ΑὐΤΟῦ] goes back to Ὅς, thus to the Son, not to God (Grotius, Peirce, Reiche, Paulus).

ΚΑΘΑΡΙΣΜῸΝ ΤῶΝ ἉΜΑΡΤΙῶΝ ΠΟΙΗΣΆΜΕΝΟς] after He had accomplished a cleansing from the sins. Progress of the discourse to the dignity of the Son as the eternal Logos incarnate, or the Redeemer in His historic appearing on earth. The nearer defining of the sense conveyed by the declaration: καθαρισμὸν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ποιησάμενος,with regard to the grammatical expression of which LXX. of Job_7:21, 2Pe_1:9, may be compared,was naturally presented to the readers. As the object on which the ΚΑΘΑΡΙΣΜΌς was wrought was understood as something self-evident, the world of mankind, which until then was under the defiling stain of sins, without possessing the power for its own deliverance; as the means, however, by which the καθαρισμός was accomplished, the atoning death of Christ. [Owen compares the lustrations, i.e. purifications by sacrifice, and cites Lucians ῥίψομεν μὲν αὐτὸν τοῦ κρημνοῦ καθαρισμὸν τοῦ στρατοῦ ἐσόμενον, We shall cast him down headlong for an expiation of the army.] To conceive of the ἉΜΑΡΤΊΑΙ themselves as a direct object to ΚΑΘΑΡΙΣΜΌΝ, to which Bleek and Winer, Gramm. 5th ed. p. 214 (differently, 6th ed. p. 168, 7th ed. p. 176), were inclined, and in favour of which Delitzsch and Alford (comp. also Hofmann ad loc.) pronounce themselves with decision,in such wise that these are thought of as the disease of the human race, which is healed or put away by Christ,is not at all warranted by the isolated and less accurate form of expression: ἐκαθαρίσθη αὐτοῦ ἡ λέπρα, Mat_8:3. Nor is it requisite to supply ἈΠΌ before ΤῶΝ ἉΜΑΡΤΙῶΝ, and assume a pregnancy of expression, since ΚΑΘΑΡΌς and its derived words are not only connected by ἈΠΌ, but likewise, with equal propriety, by the bare genitive. See Kühner, II. p. 163.

ἘΚΆΘΙΣΕΝ ἘΝ ΔΕΞΙᾷ Τῆς ΜΕΓΑΛΩΣΎΝΗς ἘΝ ὙΨΗΛΟῖς] sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. Culminating point of the description. Characteristic of the dignity of the Son after the completed work of redemption, in the period of His return to the Father, which followed the period of His self-abasement. The sitting at the right hand of God is a well-known figure, derived from Psa_110:1, in order to designate supreme honour and dominion over the world (Rom_8:34, al.).

ἐν ὑψηλοῖς] Comp. Psa_93:4; Psa_113:5; tantamount to ἘΝ ΤΟῖς ΟὐΡΑΝΟῖς, Heb_8:1; or ἘΝ ΤΟῖς ἘΠΟΥΡΑΝΊΟΙς, Eph_1:20; or ἘΝ ὙΨΊΣΤΟΙς, Luk_2:14; Luk_19:38, al. The addition belongs not to μεγαλωσύνης (Beza, Böhme, Bleek, Ebrard, Alford),since otherwise the article would be repeated,but to ἘΚΆΘΙΣΕΝ. The plural ἘΝ ὙΨΗΛΟῖς is explained from the supposition of several heavens, in the highest of which the throne of the Divine Majesty was placed.

[31] Hofmann (Schriftbew. I. p. 159 f., 2d ed.; comp. also his remarks in the Commentary, p. 64 ff.) believes that the ὢν ἀπαύγασμα κ.τ.λ. and the φέρων τὰ πάντα κ.τ.λ. must be referred exclusively to the exalted Christ, but on untenable grounds. For from the consideration that φέρων τε τὰ πάντα forms the most unambiguous contrast to the condition of Christs life in the flesh, nothing is to be argued in favour of this view; because this contrast is equally to be supposed, when we understand these words alike of the premundane as of the exalted Christ. The further assertion, however, that in the case of a referring of ὢν ἀπαύγασμα κ.τ.λ. to that which Christ is apart from His humanity, the declaration ver. 3 must have been connected by means of ὅς ἐστιν instead of ὤν, is lacking in all grammatical support. For, so far as concerns the sense, there is no difference whatever between ὅς ἐστιν and ὤν; only regard for rhetorical euphony and the due rounding off of the periods determined the author upon expressing himself as he did.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Heb 1:3 . ὃς ὢ ἀπαύγασμα .… “Who being effulgence of His glory and express image of His nature.” The relative ὃς finds its antecedent in υἱῳ , its verb in ἐκάθισεν ; and the interposed participles prepare for the statement of the main verb by disclosing the fitness of Christ to be the revealer of God, and to make atonement. The two clauses, ὢν … φέρων τε , are closely bound together and seem intended to convey the impression that during Christ’s redemptive activity on earth there was no kenosis, but that these Divine attributes lent efficacy to His whole work. [On the difficulty of this conception see Gore’s Bampton Lec. , p. 266, and Carpenter’s Essex Hall Lec. , p. 87.] ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης … ἀπαύγασμα may mean either what is flashed forth, or what is flashed back: either “ray” or “reflection”. Calvin, Beza, Thayer, Ménégoz prefer the latter meaning. Thus Grotius has, “repercussus divinae majestatis, qualis est solis in nube”. The Greek fathers, on the other hand, uniformly adopt the meaning “effulgence”. Thus Theodoret τὸ γὰρ ἀπαύγασμα καὶ ἐκ τοῦ πυρός ἐστι , καὶ σὺν τῷ πυρί ἐστι · καὶ αἴτιον μὲν ἔχει τὸ πῦρ , ἀχώριστον δέ ἐστι τοῦ πυρός … καὶ τῷ πυρὶ δὲ ὁμοφυὲς τὸ ἀπαύγασμα : οὐκοῦν καὶ ὁ , υἱὸς τῷ πατρί . So in the Nicene Creed φῶς ἐκ φωτός . “The word ‘efflulgence’ seems to mean not rays of light streaming from a body in their connection with that body or as part of it, still less the reflection of these rays caused by their falling upon another body, but rather rays of light coming out from the original body and forming a similar light-body themselves” (Davidson). So Weiss, who says that the “Strahlenglanz ein zweites Wesen erzeugt”. Philo’s use of the word lends colour to this meaning when he says of the human soul breathed into man by God that it was are ἅτε τῆς μακαρίας καὶ τρισμακαρίας φύσεως ἀπαύγασμα . So in India, Chaitanya taught that the human soul was like a ray from the Divine Being; God like a blazing fire and the souls like sparks that spring out of it. In the Arian controversy this designation of the Son was appealed to as proving that He is eternally generated and exists not by an act of the Father’s will but essentially. See Suicer, s.v. As the sun cannot exist or a lamp burn without radiating light, so God is essentially Father and Son. τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ . God’s glory is all that belongs to him as God, and the Son is the effulgence of God’s glory, not only a single ray but as Origen says: ὅλης τῆς δόξης . Therefore the Son cannot but reveal the Father. Calvin says: “Dum igitur audis filium esse splendorem Paternae gloriae, sic apud te cogita, gloriam Patris esse invisibilem, donec in Christo refulgeat”. As completing the thought of these words and bringing out still more emphatically the fitness of the Son to reveal, it is added καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ . χαρακτήρ , as its form indicates, originally meant the cutting agent [ χαράσσειν ], the tool or person who engraved. In common use, however, it usurped the place of χάραγμα and denoted the impress or mark made by the graving tool, especially the mark upon a coin which determined its value; hence, any distinguishing mark, identifying a thing or person, character . “Express image” translates it well. The mark left on wax or metal is the “express image” of the seal or stamp. It is a reproduction of each characteristic feature of the original. ὑποστάσεως rendered “person” in A.V.; “substance,” the strict etymological equivalent, in R.V. To the English ear, perhaps, “nature” or “essence” better conveys the meaning. It has not the strict meaning it afterwards acquired in Christian theology, but denotes all that from which the glory springs and with which indeed it is identical. [We must not confound the δόξα with the ἀπαύγασμα as Hofmann and others do. The ὑπόστασις is the nature, the δόξα its quality, the ἀπαύγασμα its manifestation.] There is in the Father nothing which is not reproduced in the Son, save the relation of Father to Son. Menegoz objects that though a mirror perfectly reflects the object before it and the wax bears the very image of the seal, the mirror and the wax have not the same nature as that which they represent. And Philo more than once speaks of man’s rational nature as τύπος τις καὶ χαρακτὴρ θείας δυνάμεως , and the ἀπαύγασμα of that blessed nature, see Quod deter, insid. , c. xxiii.; De Opif. Mundi , c. li. All that he means by this is, that man is made in God’s image. But while no doubt the primary significance of the terms used by the writer to the Hebrews is to affirm the fitness of Christ to reveal God, the accompanying expressions, in which Divine attributes are ascribed to Him, prove that this fitness to reveal was based upon community of nature. The two clauses, ὂς to αὐτοῦ , have frequently been accepted as exhibiting the Trinitarian versus the Arian and Sabellian positions; the Sabellians accepting the ἀπαύγασμα as representing their view of the modal manifestation of Godhead, the Arians finding it possible to accept the second clause, but neither party willing to accept both clauses separate or individual existence of the Son being found in the figure of the seal, while identity of nature seemed to be affirmed in ἀπαύγασμα . [ ὑπόστασις was derived from the Stoics who used it as the equivalent of οὐσία , that which formed the essential substratum, τὸ ὑποκείμενον , of all qualities. The Greek fathers, however, understood by it what they termed πρόσωπον ὁμοούσιον and affirmed that there were in the Godhead three ὑποστάσεις . The Latin fathers translating ὑπόστασις by substantia could not make this affirmation. Hence arose confusion until Gregory Nazianzen pointed out that the difference was one of words not of ideas, and that it was due to the poverty of the Latin language. See Suicer, s.v.; Bleek in loc .; Bigg’s Christian Platonists , p. 164 5; Dean Strong’s Articles in J.T.S . for 1901 on the History of the Theological term Substance; Calvin Inst. , i., 13, 2; Loofs’ Leitfaden , p. 109 note and p. 134.]

φέρων τε τὰ πάντα … “and upholding all things by the word of His power”. The meaning of φέρως is seen in such expressions as that of Moses in Num 11:14 οὐ δυνήσομαι ἐγὼ μόνος φέρειν πάντα τὸν λαὸν τοῦτον , where the idea of being responsible for their government and guidance is involved. So in Plutarch’s Lucullus , 6, φέρειν τὴν πόλιν of governing the city. In Latin Cicero ( pro Flac. , 37) reminds his judges “sustinetis rempublicam humeris vestris”. See Bleek. In Rabbinic literature, as Schoettgen shows, God is commonly spoken of as “portans mundum,” the Hebrew word being סָבַל . In Philo, the Logos is the helmsman and pilot of all things ( De Cherub .) τῷ ῥήμαι , by the expression of His power, by making His will felt in all created nature. The present, φέρων , seems necessarily to involve that during the whole of His earthly career, this function of upholding nature was being discharged. Probably the clause is inserted not merely to illustrate the dignity of the Son, but to suggest that the whole course of nature and history, when rightly interpreted, reveals the Son and therefore the Father. The responsibility of bringing the world to a praiseworthy issue depends upon Christ, and as contributing to this work His earthly ministry was undertaken. For the notable thing He accomplished as God’s Son, the use He made of his dignity and power, is expressed in the words, καθαρισμὸν τ . ἁμαρτιῶν ποιησάμενος “having accomplished purification of the sins”. This was as essential to the formation of the covenant as the ability rightly to represent God’s mind and will. This itself was the supreme revelation of God, and it was only after accomplishing this He could sit down at God’s right hand as one who had finished the work of mediating the eternal covenant. ποιησάμενος , the mid. voice, supersedes the necessity of διʼ ἑαυτοῦ . The aorist part. implies that the cleansing referred to was a single definite act performed before He sat down, and in some way preparatory to that Exaltation. The word receives explanation in subsequent passages of the Ep. vii. 27, ix. 12 14. καθαρισμός as used in LXX suggests that the cleansing referred to means the removal of guilt and its consciousness. The worshippers were fitted by cleansing to appear before God.

ἐκάθισεν ἐνδεξιᾷ … “sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high”. ἐκάθισεν seems to denote that the work undertaken by the Son was satisfactorily accomplished; while the sitting down ἐν δεξιᾷ κ . τ . λ . denotes entrance upon a reign. The source of the expression is in Psa 110:1 (cited Heb 5:13 ) where the Lord says to Messiah κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου , and this not only as introducing Him to the place of security and favour, but also of dignity and power. “The King’s right hand was the place of power and dignity, belonging to the minister of his authority and his justice, and the channel of his mercy, the Mediator in short between him and his people” (Rendall). Cf. Psa 80:17 . In contrast to the ever-growing and never complete revelation to the fathers, which kept the race always waiting for something more sufficing, there came at last that revelation which contained all and achieved all. But the expression not only looks backward in approval of the work done by the Son, but forward to the result of this work in His supremacy over all human affairs. μεγαλωσύνη is ascribed to God in Jud 1:25 and in Deu 32:3 δότε μεγαλωσύνην τῷ Θεῷ ἡμῶν . Cf. also Clem., Ep. , xvi. Here it is used to denote the sovereign majesty inherent in God ( cf. Heb 12:2 ; Mar 14:62 ). The words ἐν ὑψήλοις are connected by Westcott and Vaughan with ἐκάθισεν . It is better, with Beza and Bleek, to connect them with μεγαλωσύνης , for while in Heb 10:12 and Heb 12:2 , where it is said He sat down on the throne of God , no further designation is needed; in Heb 8:1 , as here, where it is said that He sat down on the right hand of the Majesty, it is felt that some further designation is needed and ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς is added. No local region is intended, but supreme spiritual influence, mediation between God, the ultimate love, wisdom and sovereignty, and this world. This writer and his contemporary fellow-Christians, had reached the conviction here expressed, partly from Christ’s words and partly from their own experience of His power.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Being [ων] . Representing absolute being. See on Joh 1:1. Christ 's absolute being is exhibited in two aspects, which follow : The brightness of his glory [απαυγασμα της δοξης αυτου] . Of God 's glory. For brightness rend. effulgence. jApaugasma, N. T. o. LXX, only Wisd. 7 26. o Class. It is an Alexandrian word, and occurs in Philo. 165 Interpretation is divided between effulgence and reflection. 166 Effulgence or outraying accords better with the thought of the passage; for the writer is treating of the preincarnate Son; and, as Alford justly remarks, "the Son of God is, in this his essential majesty, the expression and the sole expression of the divine light; not, as in his incarnation, its reflection." The consensus of the Greek fathers to this effect is of great weight. The meaning then is, that the Son is the outraying of the divine glory, exhibiting in himself the glory and majesty of the divine Being. "God lets his glory issue from himself, so that there arises thereby a light - being like himself" (Weiss). Doxa glory is the expression of the divine attributes collectively. It is the unfolded fullness of the divine perfections, differing from morfh qeou form of God (Phi 2:6), in that morfh is the immediate, proper, personal investiture of the divine essence. Doxa is attached to deity. morfh is identified with the inmost being of deity Doxa is used of various visible displays of divine light and splendor, as Exo 24:17; Deu 5:24; Exo 40:34; Num 14:10, 15; Num 19:42; Eze 10:4; Eze 43:4. 5; Eze 50:28, in 23; Lev 9:23, etc. We come nearer to the sense of the word in this passage in the story of Moses 's vision of the divine glory, Exo 33:18 - 23; Exo 34:5, 7.

The express image of his person [χαρακτηρ της υποστασεως αυτου] Rend the very image (or impress) of his substance The primary sense of uJpostasiv substance is something which stands underneath; foundation, ground of hope or confidence, and so assurance itself. In a philosophical sense, substantial nature; the real nature of anything which underlies and supports its outward form and properties. In N. T., 2Co 9:4, 11, 17, Heb 3:14; Heb 11:1, signifying in every instance ground of confidence or confidence In LXX, it represents fifteen different words, and, in some cases, it is hard to understand its meaning notably 1Sa 13:21 In Rut 1:12, Psa 37:8, Eze 19:5, it means ground of hope. in Jud 6:4, Wisd. 16 21, sustenance in Psa 38:5; Psa 136:15, the substance or material of the human frame : in 1Sa 13:23; Eze 26:11, an outpost or garrison : in Deu 11:6; Job 22:20, possessions. The theological sense, person, is later than the apostolic age. Here, substantial nature, essence. Carakthr from carassein to engrave or inscribe, originally a graving - tool; also the die on which a device is cut. It seems to have lost that meaning, and always signifies the impression made by the die or graver. Hence, mark, stamp, as the image on a coin (so often) which indicates its nature and value, or the device impressed by a signet. N. T. o. LXX, Lev 13:28; 2 Macc. 4 10; 4 Macc. 14 4. The kindred caragma mark, Act 17:29; Rev 13:16, 17. Here the essential being of God is conceived as setting its distinctive stamp upon Christ, coming into definite and characteristic expression in his person, so that the Son bears the exact impress of the divine nature and character.

And upholding all things [φερων τε τα παντα] . Rend. maintaining. Upholding conveys too much the idea of the passive support of a burden. "The Son is not an Atlas, sustaining the dead weight of the world" (quoted by Westcott). Neither is the sense that of ruling or guiding, as Philo (De Cherub. § 11), who describes the divine word as "the steersman and pilot of the all." It implies sustaining, but also movement. It deals with a burden, not as a dead weight, but as in continual movement; as Weiss puts it, "with the all in all its changes and transformations throughout the aeons." It is concerned, not only with sustaining the weight of the universe, but also with maintaining its coherence and carrying on its development. What is said of God, Col 1:17, is here said or implied of Christ : ta panta ejn aujtw sunesthken all things (collectively, the universe) consist or maintain their coherence in him. So the Logos is called by Philo the bond [δεσμος] of the universe; but the maintenance of the coherence implies the guidance and propulsion of all the parts to a definite end. All things [τα παντα] collectively considered; the universe; all things in their unity. See ch. Heb 2:10; Rom 8:32; Rom 11:36; 1Co 8:6; Eph 1:10; Col 1:16.

By the word of his power [τω ρηματι της δυναμεως αυτου] . The phrase N. T. o., but comp Luk 1:37. and see note. The word is that in which the Son's power manifests itself. jAutou his refers to Christ. Nothing in the context suggests any other reference. The world was called into being by the word of God (ch. 11. 3), and is maintained by him who is "the very image of God 's substance."

When he had by himself purged our sins [καθαρισμον των αμαρτιων ποιησαμενος] . Omit by himself; 167 yet a similar thought is implied in the middle voice, poihsamenov, which indicates that the work of purification was done by Christ personally, and was not something which he caused to be done by some other agent. Purged, lit. having made purification The phrase N. T. o LXX, Job 7:21. Kaqarismov purification occurs in Mark, Luke John, 2nd Peter, o P., and only here in Hebrews. The verb kaqarizein to purify is not often used in N. T of cleansing from sin. See 2Co 7:1; 1Jo 1:7, 9 Of cleansing the conscience, Heb 9:14. Of cleansing meats and vessels, Mt 23:25, 26, Mr 7:19, Act 10:15; Act 11:9. Of cleansing the heart, Act 14:9. The meaning here is cleansing of sins. In the phrase "to cleanse from sin," always with ajpo from. In carrying on all things toward their destined end of conformity to the divine archetype, the Son must confront and deal with the fact of sin, which had thrown the world into disorder, and drawn it out of God 's order. In the thought of making purification of sins is already foreshadowed the work of Christ as high priest, which plays so prominent a part in the epistle.

Sat down on the right hand of the majesty on high [εκαθισεν εν δεξια της μεγαλωσυνης εν υψηλοις] Comp. Psa 110:1, ch. Heb 8:1; Heb 10:12; Heb 12:2; Eph 1:20; Rev 3:21. The verb denotes a solemn, formal act; the assumption of a position of dignity and authority The reference is to Christ 's ascension. In his exalted state he will still be bearing on all things toward their consummation, still dealing with sin as the great high priest in the heavenly sanctuary. This is elaborated later. See ch. Heb 8 Rev 9:12 ff. Megalwsunh majesty, only here, ch. 8 1; Jude 1:25. Quite often in LXX There is suggested, not a contrast with his humiliation, but his resumption of his original dignity, described in the former part of this verse. jEn uJyhloiv, lit. in the high places. Const. with sat down, not with majesty. The phrase N. T. o. LXX, Psa 92:4; Psa 112:5. jEn toiv uJyistoiv in the highest [πλαχεσ] , in the Gospels, and only in doxologies. See Mt 21:9; Mr 11:10; Luk 2:14. jEn toiv ejpouranioiv in the heavenly [πλαχεσ] , only in Ephesians See Heb 1:3, 20; Heb 2:6; Heb 3:10; Heb 6:12.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

He in whom that glory and Majesty of the Father shineth, who is otherwise infinite, and cannot be beholden.

His father’s person.

Sustaineth, defendeth and cherisheth.

The third part of the same proposition. The same Son executed the office of the high Priest in offering up himself, and is our only and most mighty Mediator in heaven.

This showeth that the savor of that his sacrifice is not only most acceptable to the Father, but also is everlasting, and furthermore how far this high Priest passeth all the other high Priests.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Who being--by pre-existent and essential being.

brightness of his glory--Greek, the effulgence of His glory. "Light of (from) light" [Nicene Creed]. "Who is so senseless as to doubt concerning the eternal being of the Son? For when has one seen light without effulgence?" [ATHANASIUS, Against Arius, Orations, 2]. "The sun is never seen without effulgence, nor the Father without the Son" [THEOPHYLACT]. It is because He is the brightness, &c., and because He upholds, &c., that He sat down on the right hand, &c. It was a return to His divine glory (Joh 6:62; Joh 17:5; compare Wisdom 7:25-26, where similar things are said of wisdom).

express image--"impress." But veiled in the flesh.

The Sun of God in glory beams

Too bright for us to scan;

But we can face the light that streams

For the mild Son of man. (Co2 3:18)

of his person--Greek, "of His substantial essence"; "hypostasis."

upholding all things--Greek, "the universe." Compare Col 1:15, Col 1:17, Col 1:20, which enumerates the three facts in the same order as here.

by the word--Therefore the Son of God is a Person; for He has the word [BENGEL]. His word is God's word (Heb 11:3).

of his power--"The word" is the utterance which comes from His (the Son's) power, and gives expression to it.

by himself--omitted in the oldest manuscripts.

purged--Greek, "made purification of . . . sins," namely, in His atonement, which graciously covers the guilt of sin. "Our" is omitted in the oldest manuscripts. Sin was the great uncleanness in God's sight, of which He has effected the purgation by His sacrifice [ALFORD]. Our nature, as guilt-laden, could not, without our great High Priest's blood of atonement sprinkling the heavenly mercy seat, come into immediate contact with God. EBRARD says, "The mediation between man and God, who was present in the Most Holy Place, was revealed in three forms: (1) In sacrifices (typical propitiations for guilt); (2) In the priesthood (the agents of those sacrifices); (3) In the Levitical laws of purity (Levitical purity being attained by sacrifice positively, by avoidance of Levitical pollution negatively, the people being thus enabled to come into the presence of God without dying, Deu 5:26)" (Lev. 16:1-34).

sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high--fulfilling Psa 110:1. This sitting of the Son at God's fight hand was by the act of the Father (Heb 8:1; Eph 1:20); it is never used of His pre-existing state co-equal with the Father, but always of His exalted state as Son of man after His sufferings, and as Mediator for man in the presence of God (Rom 8:34): a relation towards God and us about to come to an end when its object has been accomplished (Co1 15:28).

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 3. The brightness of his glory] Απαυγασμα της δοξης The resplendent outbeaming of the essential glory of God. Hesychius interprets απαυγασμα by ηλιουφεγγος, the splendour of the sun. The same form of expression is used by an apocryphal writer, Wisdom Wisdom 7:26, where, speaking of the uncreated wisdom of God, he says: "For she is the splendour of eternal light, απαυγασμα γαρ εστι φωτος αΐδιου, and the unsullied mirror of the energy of God, and the image of his goodness." The word αυγασμα is that which has splendour in itself απαυγασμα is the splendour emitted from it; but the inherent splendour and the exhibited splendour are radically and essentially the same.

The express image of his person] Χαρακτηρ της ὑποστασεως αυτου. The character or impression of his hypostasis or substance. It is supposed that these words expound the former; image expounding brightness, and person or substance, glory. The hypostasis of God is that which is essential to him as God; and the character or image is that by which all the likeness of the original becomes manifest, and is a perfect fac-simile of the whole. It is a metaphor taken from sealing; the die or seal leaving the full impression of its every part on the wax to which it is applied.

From these words it is evident, 1. That the apostle states Jesus Christ to be of the same essence with the Father, as the απαυγασμα, or proceeding splendour, must be the same with the αυγασμα, or inherent splendour.

2. That Christ, though proceeding from the Father, is of the same essence; for if one αυγη, or splendour, produce another αυγη or splendour, the produced splendour must be of the same essence with that which produces it.

3. That although Christ is thus of the same essence with the Father, yet he is a distinct person from the Father; as the splendour of the sun, though of the same essence, is distinct from the sun itself, though each is essential to the other; as the αυγασμα, or inherent splendour, cannot subsist without its απαυγασμα, or proceeding splendour, nor the proceeding splendour subsist without the inherent splendour from which it proceeds.

4. That Christ is eternal with the Father, as the proceeding splendour must necessarily be coexistent with the inherent splendour. If the one, therefore, be uncreated, the other is uncreated; if the one be eternal, the other is eternal.

Upholding all things by the word of his power] This is an astonishing description of the infinitely energetic and all pervading power of God. He spake, and all things were created; he speaks, and all things are sustained. The Jewish writers frequently express the perfection of the Divine nature by the phrases, He bears all things, both above and below; He carries all his creatures; He bears his world; He bears all worlds by his power. The Hebrews, to whom this epistle was written, would, from this and other circumstances, fully understand that the apostle believed Jesus Christ to be truly and properly God.

Purged our sins] There may be here some reference to the great transactions in the wilderness.

1. Moses, while in communion with God on the mount, was so impressed with the Divine glories that his face shone, so that the Israelites could not behold it. But Jesus is infinitely greater than Moses, for he is the splendour of God's glory; and,

2. Moses found the government of the Israelites such a burden that he altogether sank under it. His words, Nu 11:12, are very remarkable: Have I conceived all this people? Have I begotten them, that thou shouldest say unto me, CARRY them in thy BOSOM-unto the land which thou swearest unto their fathers? But Christ not only carried all the Israelites, and all mankind; but he upholds ALL THINGS by the word of his power.

3. The Israelites murmured against Moses and against God, and provoked the heavy displeasure of the Most High; and would have been consumed had not Aaron made an atonement for them, by offering victims and incense. But Jesus not only makes an atonement for Israel, but for the whole world; not with the blood of bulls and goats, but with his own blood: hence it is said that he purged our sins δι αυτου, by himself his own body and life being the victim. It is very likely that the apostle had all these things in his eye when he wrote this verse; and takes occasion from them to show the infinite excellence of Jesus Christ when compared with Moses; and of his Gospel when compared with the law. And it is very likely that the Spirit of God, by whom he spoke, kept in view those maxims of the ancient Jews, concerning the Messiah, whom they represent as being infinitely greater than Abraham, the patriarchs, Moses, and the ministering angels. So Rabbi Tanchum, on Isa 52:13, Behold my servant shall deal prudently, says, זה מלך המשיח Zeh melek hammashiach, this is the King Messiah; and shall be exalted, and be extolled, and be very high. "He shall be exalted above Abraham, and shall be extolled beyond Moses, and shall be more sublime than the ministering angels-."See the preface.

The right hand of the Majesty on high] As it were associated with the supreme Majesty, in glory everlasting, and in the government of all things in time and in eternity; for the right hand is the place of the greatest eminence, 1Kgs 2:19. The king himself, in eastern countries, sits on the throne; the next to him in the kingdom, and the highest favourite, sits on his right hand; and the third greatest personage, on his left.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

3. Who being the brightness of his glory, etc. These things are said of Christ partly as to his divine essence, and partly as a partaker of our flesh. When he is called the brightness of his glory and the impress of his substance, his divinity is referred to; the other things appertain in a measure to his human nature. The whole, however, is stated in order to set forth the dignity of Christ.

But it is for the same reason that the Son is said to be “the brightness of his glory”, and “the impress of his substance:” they are words borrowed from nature. For nothing can be said of things so great and so profound, but by similitudes taken from created things. There is therefore no need refinedly to discuss the question how the Son, who has the same essence with the Father, is a brightness emanating from his light. We must allow that there is a degree of impropriety in the language when what is borrowed from created things is transferred to the hidden majesty of God. But still the things which are indent to our senses are fitly applied to God, and for this end, that we may know what is to be found in Christ, and what benefits he brings to us.

It ought also to be observed that frivolous speculations are not here taught, but an important doctrine of faith. We ought therefore to apply these high titles given to Christ for our own benefit, for they bear a relation to us. When, therefore, thou hear that the Son is the brightness of the Father’s glory, think thus with thyself, that the glory of the Father is invisible until it shines forth in Christ, and that he is called the impress of his substance, because the majesty of the Father is hidden until it shows itself impressed as it were on his image. They who overlook this connection and carry their philosophy higher, weary themselves to no purpose, for they do not understand the design of the Apostle; for it was not his object to show what likeness the Father bears to the Son; but, as I have said, his purpose was really to build up our faith, so that we may learn that God is made known to us in no other way than in Christ: for as to the essence of God, so immense is the brightness that it dazzles our eyes, except it shines on us in Christ. It hence follows, that we are blind as to the light of God, until in Christ it beams on us. It is indeed a profitable philosophy to learn Christ by the real understanding of faith and experience. The same view, as I have said is to be taken of “the impress;” for as God is in himself to us incomprehensible, his form appears to us only in his Son.

The word ἀπαύγασμα means here nothing else but visible light or refulgence, such as our eyes can bear; and χαρακτὴρ is the vivid form of a hidden substance. By the first word we are reminded that without Christ there is no light, but only darkness; for as God is the only true light by which it behoves us all to be illuminated, this light sheds itself upon us, so to speak, only by irradiation. By the second word we are reminded that God is truly and really known in Christ; for he is not his obscure or shadowy image, but his impress which resembles him, as money the impress of the die with which it is stamped. But the Apostle indeed says what is more than this, even that the substance of the Father is in a manner engraven on the Son.

The word ῦποστάσις which, by following others, I have rendered substance, denotes not, as I think, the being or essence of the Father, but his person; for it would be strange to say that the essence of God is impressed on Christ, as the essence of both is simply the same. But it may truly and fitly be said that whatever peculiarly belongs to the Father is exhibited in Christ, so that he who knows him knows what is in the Father. And in this sense do the orthodox fathers take this term, hypostasis, considering it to be threefold in God, while the essence (οὐσία) is simply one. Hilary everywhere takes the Latin word substance for person. But though it be not the Apostle’s object in this place to speak of what Christ is in himself, but of what he is really to us, yet he sufficiently confutes the Asians and Sabellians; for he claims for Christ what belongs to God alone, and also refers to two distinct persons, as to the Father and the Son. For we hence learn that the Son is one God with the Father, and that he is yet in a sense distinct from him, so that a subsistence or person belongs to both.

And upholding (or bearing) all things, etc. To uphold or to bear here means to preserve or to continue all that is created in its own state; for he intimates that all things would instantly come to nothing, were they not sustained by his power. Though the pronoun his may be referred to the Father as well as to the Son, as it may be rendered “his own,” yet as the other exposition is more commonly received, and well suits the context, I am disposed to embrace it. Literally it is, “by the word of his power;” but the genitive, after the Hebrew manner, is used instead of an adjective; for the perverted explanation of some, that Christ sustains all things by the word of the Father, that is, by himself who is the word, has nothing in its favor: besides, there is no need of such forced explanation; for Christ is not wont to be called ῥη̑μα, saying, but λόγος, word. Hence the “word” here means simply a nod; and the sense is, that Christ who preserves the whole world by a nod only, did not yet refuse the office of effecting our purgation.

Now this is the second part of the doctrine handled in this Epistle; for a statement of the whole question is to be found in these two chapters, and that is, that Christ, endued with supreme authority, ought to be head above all others, and that as he has reconciled us to his Father by his own death, he has put an end to the ancient sacrifices. And so the first point, though a general proposition, is yet a twofold clause.

When he further says, by himself, there is to be understood here a contrast, that he had not been aided in this by the shadows of the Mosaic Law. He shows besides a difference between him and the Levitical priests; for they also were said to expiate sins, but they derived this power from another. In short, he intended to exclude all other means or helps by stating that the price and the power of purgation were found only in Christ.

Sat down on the right hand, etc.; as though he had said, that having in the world procured salvation for men, he was received into celestial glory, in order that he might govern all things. And he added this in order to show that it was not a temporary salvation he has obtained for us; for we should otherwise be too apt to measure his power by what now appears to us. He then reminds us that Christ is not to be less esteemed because he is not seen by our eyes; but, on the contrary, that this was the height of his glory, that he has been taken and conveyed to the highest seat of his empire. The right hand is by a similitude applied to God, though he is not confined to any place, and has not a right side nor left. The session then of Christ means nothing else but the kingdom given to him by the Father, and that authority which Paul mentions, when he says that in his name every knee should bow. (Philippians 2:10) Hence to sit at the right hand of the Father is no other thing than to govern in the place of the Father, as deputies of princes are wont to do to whom a full power over all things is granted. And the word majesty is added, and also on high, and for this purpose, to intimate that Christ is seated on the supreme throne whence the majesty of God shines forth. As, then, he ought to be loved on account of his redemption, so he ought to be adored on account of his royal magnificence.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(3) Who being the brightness . . .—Who being the effulgence of His glory and the exact image of His substance. The first figure is familiar to us in the words of the Nicene Creed (themselves derived from this verse and a commentary upon it), “God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God.” Again striking parallels to the language present themselves in Philo, who speaks of the spirit breathed into man at his creation as an “effulgence of the Blessed and Thrice-blessed Nature”; and in the well-known passage of the Book of Wisdom, “She (Wisdom) is the effulgence of the everlasting light, the unspotted mirror of the power of God, and the image of His goodness” (Wis_7:26). In the Old Testament the token of the divine presence is the Shechinah, the “cloud of glory” (called “the glory” in Rom_9:4; comp. Heb_9:5 in this Epistle); here it is the divine nature itself that is denoted by the “glory.” Of the relation between this word and that which follows (“substance”) it is difficult to speak, as the conceptions necessarily transcend human language; but we may perhaps say (remembering that all such terms are but figurative) that the latter word is internal and the former external,—the latter the essence in itself, the former its manifestation. Thus the “Son” in His relation to “God” is represented here by light beaming forth from light, and by exact impress—the perfect image produced by stamp or seal. These designations, relating to the essential nature of the Son, have no limitation to time; the participle “being” must be understood (comp. Php_2:6; Joh_1:1) of eternal, continuous existence. The word “person” is an unfortunate mistranslation in this place. Most of the earlier English versions have “substance,” person being first introduced in the Genevan Testament in deference to Beza.

By the word.—The thought seems suggested by Genesis 1. (Psa_33:9); the spoken word was the expression of His power. What is said above of “being” applies to “upholding,” except that the latter implies a previous creative act.

When he had by himself purged our sins.—The older MSS. omit “by Himself” and “our,” so that the words must be rendered, when He had made purification of sins. At first the change may seem a loss; but it is easily seen that the simpler statement is more majestic, and also more suitable in this place; the more complete explanation of the truth belongs to a later stage (Hebrews 9). To “make purification of sins” is an unusual phrase (comp. Mat_8:3, “his leprosy was cleansed”), meaning, to make purification by the removal of sins (Joh_1:29; 1Jn_3:5; 2Pe_1:9).

Sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.—See Heb_8:1; Heb_12:2; Mat_26:64; Mar_14:62; also Heb_1:13, and Heb_10:12. This figure, which we meet with more than twenty times in the New Testament, is throughout derived from the first words of Psalms 110, which are descriptive of the exaltation of the Messiah. Jehovah’s investiture of the Son of Man with unlimited dominion (Dan_7:14) and supreme dignity (Eph_1:20-21); the Saviour’s rest after the accomplishment of His work on earth (Heb_8:1); His waiting for the complete and final subjection of His enemies, are the ideas signified. On the Psalm see below (Heb_1:13).

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

3. the brightness] The substitution of “effulgence” for “brightness” in the Revised Version is not, as it has been contemptuously called, “a piece of finery,” but is a rendering at once more accurate and more suggestive. It means “efflux of light”—“Light of (i.e. from) Light” (“effulgentia” not “repercussus”) Grotius. It implies not only resemblance—which is all that is involved in the vague and misleading word “brightness,” which might apply to a mere reflexion:—but also “origin” and “independent existence.” The glory of Christ is the glory of the Father just as the sun is only revealed by the rays which stream forth from it. So the “Wisdom of Solomon” (Heb_7:26)—which offers many resemblances to the Epistle to the Hebrews, and which some have even conjectured to be by the same author—speaks of wisdom as “the effulgence of the everlasting light.” The word is also found in Philo where it is applied to man. This passage, like many others in the Epistle, is quoted by St Clement of Rome (ad Cor. 36).

of his glory] God was believed in the Old Dispensation to reveal Himself by a cloud of glory called “the Shechinah,” and the Alexandrian Jews, in their anxious avoidance of all anthropomorphism and anthropopathy—i.e. of all expressions which attribute the human form and human passions to God—often substituted “the Glory” for the name of God. Similarly in 2Pe_1:17 the Voice from God the Father is a Voice “from the magnificent glory.” Comp. Act_7:55; Luk_2:9. St John says “God is Light,” and the indestructible purity and impalpable essence of Light make it the best of all created things to furnish an analogy for the supersensuous light and spiritual splendour of the Being of God. Hence St John also says of the Word “we beheld His glory” (Joh_1:14); and our Lord said to Philip “he who hath seen Me hath seen the Father” (Joh_14:9). Comp. Luk_9:29.

the express image] Rather, “the stamp” (charactçr). The R. V. renders this word by “very image” (after Tyndale), and in the margin by “impress.” I prefer the word “stamp” because the Greek “charactçr” like the English word “stamp,” may, according to its derivation, be used either for the impress or for the stamping-tool itself. This Epistle has so many resemblances to Philo that the word may have been suggested by a passage (Opp. i. 332) in which Philo compares man to a coin which has been stamped by the Logos with the being and type of God; and in that passage the word seems to bear this unusual sense of a “stamping-tool,” for it impresses a man with the mark of God. Similarly St Paul in the Epistle to the Colossians (Col_1:15)—which most resembles this Epistle in its Christology—called Christ “the image (eikôn) of the invisible God;” and Philo says, “But the word is the image (eikôn) of God, by Whom the whole world was created,” De Monarch, (Opp. ii. 225).

of his person] Rather, “of His substance” or “essence.” The word hypostasis, substantia (literally that which “stands under”) is, in philosophical accuracy, the imaginary substratum which remains when a thing is regarded apart from all its accidents. The word “person” of our A. V. is rather the equivalent to prosôpon. Hypostasis only came to be used in this sense some centuries later. Perhaps “Being” or “Essence,” though it corresponds more strictly to the Greek ousia, is the nearest representative which we can find to hypostasis, now that “substance,” once the most abstract and philosophical of words, has come (in ordinary language) to mean what is solid and concrete. It is only too possible that the word “substance” conveys to many minds the very opposite conception to that which was intended and which alone corresponds to the truth. Athanasius says, “Hypostasis is essence” (οὐσία); and the Nicene Council seems to draw no real distinction between the two words. In fact the Western Church admitted that, in the Eastern sense, we might speak of three hypostaseis of the Trinity; and in the Western sense, of one hypostasis, because in this sense the word meant Essence. For the use of the word in the LXX. see Ps. 38:6, 88:48. It is curiously applied in Wis_16:21. In the technical language of theology these two clauses represent the Son as co-eternal and co-substantial with the Father.

upholding all things] He is not only the Creative Word, but the Sustaining Providence. He is, as Philo says, “the chain-band of all things,” but He is also their guiding force. “In Him all things subsist” (Col_1:17). Philo calls the Logos “the pilot and steersman of everything.”

by the word of his power] Rather, “by the utterance (rhemati) of His power.” It is better to keep “word” for Logos, and “utterance” for rhema. We find “strength” (κράτος) and “force” (ἰσχύς) attributed to Christ in Eph_6:10, as “power” (δύναμις) here.

when he had by himself purged our sins] Rather, “after making purification of sins.” The “by Himself” is omitted by some of the best MSS. (א, A, B), and the “our” by many. But the notion of Christ’s independent action (Php_2:7) is involved in the middle voice of the verb. On the purification of our sins by Christ (in which there is perhaps a slight reference to the “Day of Atonement,” called in the LXX. “the Day of Purification,” Exo_29:36), see Heb_9:12, Heb_10:12; 1Pe_2:24; 2Pe_1:9 (comp. Job_7:21, LXX.).

sat down] His glorification was directly consequent on His voluntary humiliation (see Heb_8:1, Heb_10:12, Heb_12:2; Psa_109:1), and here the whole description is brought to its destined climax.

on the right hand] As the place of honour comp. Heb_8:1; Psa_110:1; Eph_1:20. The controversy as to whether “the right hand of God” means “everywhere”—which was called the “Ubiquitarian controversy”—is wholly destitute of meaning, and has long fallen into deserved oblivion.

of the Majesty] In Heb_10:12 he says “at the right hand of God.” But he was evidently fond of sonorous amplifications, which belong to the dignity of his style; and also fond of Alexandrian modes of expression. The LXX. sometimes went so far as to substitute for “God” the phrase “the place” where God stood (see Exo_24:10, LXX.).

on high] Literally, “in high places;” like “Glory to God in the highest,” Luk_2:14 (comp. Job_16:19); and “in heavenly places,” Eph_1:20 (comp. Psa_93:4; Psa_112:5). The description of Christ in these verses differed from the current Messianic conception of the Jews in two respects. 1. He was divine and omnipotent. 2. He was to die for our sins.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Who being the brightness of his glory,.... Or "of glory"; of God the Father, the God of glory, and who is glory itself; so called on account of his glorious nature and perfections and because of the glorious manifestations of them in his works of creation and providence, and in the various dispensations of his grace, and especially in his Son; and because he is the author of all glory, in the creatures, in the whole world, in Christ as man and Mediator, and in his own people. Now Christ is the "brightness" of this, as he is God; he has the same glorious nature and perfections, and the same glorious names, as Jehovah, the Lord of glory, &c. and the same glory, homage, and worship given him: the allusion is to the sun, and its beam or ray: so some render it "the ray of his glory"; and may lead us to observe, that the Father and the Son are of the same nature, as the sun and its ray; and that the one is not before the other, and yet distinct from each other, and cannot be divided or separated one from another: so the phrase , "the brightness of his glory", is used of the divine Being, in the Chaldee paraphrases (r); see the Apocrypha.

"For she is the brightness of the everlasting light, the unspotted mirror of the power of God, and the image of his goodness.'' (Wisdom 7:26)

And the express image of his person; this intends much the same as the other phrase; namely, equality and sameness of nature, and distinction of persons; for if the Father is God, Christ must be so too; and if he is a person, his Son must be so likewise, or he cannot be the express image and character of him; See Gill on Col 1:15.

And upholding all things by the word of his power; the Syriac version renders it, "by the power of his word", to the same sense, only inverting the words. The Targumist on Ch2 2:6 uses a phrase very much like this, of God, whom the heaven of heavens cannot contain; because, adds he, , "he bears", or "sustains all things by the arm of his power"; and the words are to be understood not of the Father, upholding all things by his essential and powerful Word, his Son; but of the Son himself, who upholds all creatures he has made; bears up the pillars of the universe; preserves every creature in its being, and supports it, and supplies it with the necessaries of life; rules and governs all, and providentially orders and disposes of all things in the world, and that by his all powerful will; which makes it manifest, that he is truly and properly God, and a very fit person to be a priest, as follows:

when he had by himself purged our sins; the Arabic and Ethiopic versions seem to refer this to God the Father, as if he, by Christ, made the expiation of sin, and then caused him to sit down at his right hand; but it belongs to the Son himself, who of himself, and by himself alone, and by the sacrifice of himself, made atonement for the sins of his people; which is meant by the purgation of them: he took their sins upon himself, and bore them, and removed them far away, and utterly abolished them, which the priests under the law could not do: and when he had so done,

he sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; by "Majesty" is meant God the Father, to whom majesty belongs; who is clothed with it, and which is before him: and his "right hand" designs his power, greatness, and glory, and is expressive of the high honour Christ, as man, is possessed of; for his sitting here denotes the glorious exaltation of him in human nature, after his sufferings, and death, and resurrection from the dead; and shows that he had done his work, and was accepted, and was now enjoying rest and ease, honour and glory, in which he will continue; and the place of his session, as well as of the habitation of God, at whose right hand he sits, is on high, in the highest heavens.

(r) Targum in 2 Sam xxii. 13. & in Cant. v. 10.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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 on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Ver. 3. Who being the brightness of his glory, &c.] A beam of that sun, and the express image of his person, a stamp of that seal. This is somewhat, but who can declare his generation? Some glimpses we may have by such similitudes; the full understanding of this inconceivable mystery we must wait for till we come to heaven. The word απαυγασμα signifieth the glittering refulgency.

Upholding all things] Both in respect of being excellencies and operations. Seneca, rendering the reason why Jupiter was by the ancient Romans surnamed Stator, saith it was quia eius beneficio stant omnia, because all things are upheld by him. How much better may this be said of Christ! Sin had hurled confusion over the world, which would have fallen about Adam’s ears (saith one) had not Christ undertaken the shattered condition thereof, to uphold it. He keeps the world together, as the hoops do the barrel. He also keeps all in order; disponens etiam membra culicis et pulicis, disposing of everything even to the least and lightest circumstance. (Aug.) Hence that of our Saviour, "The Father worketh hitherunto, and I also work," Joh 5:17; hence that of the orator, Curiosus est et plenus negotii Deus, God taketh care of all, and is full of business. (Cic. lib. 1 de Nat. Deor.)

Purged our sins] By his merit and spirit.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Who being the spendour,[3] or brightness of his glory, not as beams or rays are derived from a lightsome body, but by a necessary and eternal communication of the same substance, and of the whole light; in which sense the council of Nice [Nicaea] understood the eternal Son of God to be light from light. This partly helps us to conceive the eternal generation of the Son from the Father, because the brightness is at the same time with the sun, though all comparisons fall short of this mystery. (Witham) --- We may here observe the two natures of Christ. As God, he is the Creator of all things; as man, he is constituted heir of the goods of God. Not content to possess the inheritance of his Father in his own person, he will have us as coheirs to share it also with him. May we so live as to hear one day that happy sentence: Come, ye blessed of my Father, &c. --- And the figure of his substance.[4] In the Greek is the character of his substance; which might be translated, the express image. There are different ways by which a thing may be said to be a figure or image of another: here it is taken for such a representation of the substance of the Father, that though the Father and the Son be distinct persons, and the Son proceed from the Father, yet he is such a figure and image, as to have the same nature and substance with the Father, as the Catholic Church always believed and declared against the ancient heretics, and particularly against the Arians. Their words may be partly seen in Petavius, lib. ii. de Trin. chap. 11.; lib. iv. chap. 6.; lib. vi. chap. 6. being too prolix for these short notes. And this may be understood by the following words concerning the Son: and upholding or preserving all things by the word of his power. As he had said before, that all things were made by him, so all things are preserved by him, equally with the Father. See Colossians i. 16, 17. See also ver. 10. of this chapter, and the annotations on John i. 3. (Witham) --- Figure. This does not exclude the reality. So Christ’s body in the eucharist, and his mystical death in the mass, though called a figure, image, or representation of Christ’s visible body and sacrifice upon the cross, yet may be and is the self-same substance. (Bristow) ---Sitteth on the right hand of God, both here, in St. Mark, chap. xvi. and in the apostles’ creed, express what agrees with Christ, as our Redeemer, God made man by his incarnation, and who as man is made the head of his Church, the judge of the living and the dead; and so St. Stephen said, (Acts vii.) I see the heavens open, and the Son of man standing at the right hand of God. (Witham)

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

Splendor gloriæ, Greek: apaugasma, refulgentia, effulgentia, &c.

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

Figura substantiæ, Greek: charakter tes upostaseos. Hypostasis signifies persona, subsistentia, and also substantia.

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

3. Brightness… glory—The relation of the Father to the Son is indicated as that of an essential glory to a brightness, or forth-beaming radiation. Hence the Nicene Creed styles the Son, “Light of light,” (φως εκ φωτος, literally, light out from light,) and pronounces the Father and Son to be of one substance, “consubstantial,” as light and light are one. Stuart asks if the sun and the rays proceeding from him are “consubstantial?” The reply is, that the body of the sun is material, whereas the glory, the pure “light,” is the very essence of God, and its radiations being also luminosity, are consubstantial with it. In place of the dark, material, central body of the sun, issuing its rays, is the central divine Essence, which, in the Miltonic phrase, is “dark with excessive bright,” yet unfolding its visible effulgence in the Son.

Brightness—The Greek thus rendered is απαυγασμα, which may signify either, 1. A ray actually darting forth from the glory or luminosity; 2. A bright spot shed upon a surface upon which it alights; or, 3. A light-form; being the shape assumed by the collected beams in combination: a second emanative luminosity repeating the first luminosity. That this last is the meaning here is clear from such phrases as, (Col_1:4,) “image of the invisible God;” (Php_2:5,) “form of God,” on which passages see notes. This emanative nature of the απαυγασμα is ground for the use of the terms Son, Word, and, in the present epistle, Apostle. Heb_3:1, where see note.

Express image—The image, here, is literally the figure or letters made upon a surface by a stamp. Hence, the relation between the Father and Son is here indicated by that between the stamp and the impress it fixes. This illustration, of course, touches only the two points of derivation and oneness.

Person—More properly, substance; same word as in Heb_11:1, where see note. The eternal Son is the express image of the Father’s basis-reality, his essential being. The one is God permanent, and the other is God emanant.

Upholding—As the ineffable Essence is the background, so the Word is its revelation in executive action. This Word is the eternal medium between the Essence and all external creations, both in bringing and maintaining them in existence.

Word of his power—A more energetic phrase than “his powerful word,” as it is sometimes rendered.

The emphasis is on his power, and its word is its expression in act. The Socinian explanation, referring it to the “Gospel,” is entirely out of place. As executive of the divine essential God, the Word is “the plastic Power” by which all the natural and typical forms of things in nature are shaped and endowed with properties and powers; and, assuming humanity, the Word becomes the shaping agent of all the primary realities of the moral realm. In the former he is incarnated as immanent deity in the material world; in the latter he is incarnated as immanent deity in the material body of a human person. Mr. Bushnell somewhere says, in effect, it is no more impossible for God to be incarnated in Christ than for him to be in-worlded in the cosmos. As Word, the divine Apostle is Lord of nature; as Son, he is King of nations and Head of the Church.

Purged… sat—Transition now from the Son’s pre-existent state and being, to his incarnate manifestation and doings. Thus far the Son has been an emanation, an eternal apostle; now he becomes not only incarnate apostle, but HIGH PRIEST, Heb_3:1. Purged, more literally, having wrought a purification; that is, a purifying by his atonement as our priest. That purification is wrought by him potentially, once for all; it is actually appropriated in the individual by act of faith.

By himself—And not, as symbolically under the old dispensation, by victims and sacrifices.

Right hand—Note on Rom_8:34 and Act_7:55. The image, derived, doubtless, from Psalms 110, alludes to the Oriental custom by which a prince or premier, or other most exalted subject, sits at the right side of the throne. The phrase is never applied to the pre-existent Son, but always implies his incarnation and his exaltation in his glorified humanity.

On high—Greek, ‘Εν ‘υψηλοις, in high regions, the third heavens. On the heavens, see our note on 2Co_12:2. On relative locality of Father and Son, note, Act_7:55-56.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Who, being, etc. The participle wn not genomenov , as in ver. 4 denotes (as does still more forcibly uparcwn in the cognate passage, Php_2:6) what the Son is in himself essentially and independently of his manifestation in time. This transcendent idea is conveyed by two metaphorical expressions, differing in the metaphors used, but concurrent in meaning. The brightness of his glory. The word doxa (translated "glory"), though net in classical Greek carrying with it the idea of light, is used in the LXX for the Hebrew dwObK, which denotes the splendor surrounding God; manifested on Mount Sinai, in the holy of holies, in the visions of Ezekiel, etc.; and regarded as existing eternally above the heavens". (cf. Exo_24:15 Exo_40:34 1Ki_8:11 Eze_8:4 Psa_24:7, Psa_24:8, etc.) But the full blaze of this glory, accompanying" the face" of God, even Moses was not allowed to see; for no man could see him and live. Moses was hidden in a cleft of the rock while the God"s glory passed by, and saw only its outskirts, i.e. the radiance left behind after it; had passed; hearing meanwhile a proclamation of the moral attributes of Deity, by a perception of which he might best. (see Exo_33:18, etc.) Similarly in the New Testament. There also, as on Sinai, in the tabernacle, and in prophetic vision, the glory of God is occasionally manifested under the form of an unearthly radiance; as in the vision of the shepherds, (Luk_2:9) the Transfiguration, (Luk_9:28, etc.) the ecstasy of Stephen. (Act_7:55) But in itself, as it surrounds "the face" of God, it is still invisible and unapproachable; cf. Joh_1:18, No man hath seen God at any time;" 1Jn_1:5, "God is Light;" 1Ti_6:16, Dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto ( fwv aprositon), whom no man hath seen nor can see." It denotes really, under the image of eternal, self-existent, unapproachable light, the ineffable Divine perfection, the essence of Deity, which is beyond human ken. "Sempiterna ejus virtus et divinitas" (Bengel). Of this glory the SON is the apaugasma a word not occurring elsewhere in the New Testament, but used by the Alexandrian writers. The verb apaugazw means to radiate," "to beam forth brightness;" and apaugasma , according to the proper meaning of nouns so formed, should mean the brightness beamed forth this rather than its reflection from another object, as the sun"s light is reflected from a cloud. So the noun is used in RAPC Wis 7:26, as applied to Sofia , which is there personified in a manner suggestive of the doctrine of the Logov: Atmi thv tou Yeou dunamewv kai aporroia thv tou pantokratorov doxhv eilikrinhv... apaugasma ga fwtoou And Philo speaks of the breath of life breathed lute man (Gen_2:7) as thv makariav kai trismakariav fuseuv apaugasma ("De Spec. Leg.," As, then, the eradiated brightness is to the source of light, so is the SON, in his eternal being, to the Father. It is, so to speak, begotten of the source, and of one substance with it, and yet distinguishable from it; being that through which its glory is made manifest, and through which it enlightens all things. The Person of the Son is thus represented, not as of one apart from God, irradiated by his glory, but as himself the sheen of his glory; cf. Joh_1:14, "We beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father;" also Joh_1:4 Joh_1:9. The above is the view taken by the Fathers generally, and expressed in the Church"s Creed, fwv ek fwtov . And express Image of his substance; not "of his person," as in the A.V The latter rendering is due to the long-accepted theological use of the word upostasiv in the sense of personal subsistence, as applied to each of the Three in One. What the Latins called persona the Greeks at length agreed to call hypostasis, while the Greek ousia (equivalent to essentia) and the Latin substantia (though the latter word etymologically corresponds with hypostasis) were used as equivalents in meaning. But it was long after the apostolic age that this scientific use of the word became fixed. After as well as before the Nicene Council usia was sometimes used to denote what we mean by person, and hypostasis to denote what we mean by the substance of the Godhead; and hence came misunderstandings during the Arian controversy. Bull ("Def. Fid. Nic.," 2:9. 11) gives a catena of instances of this uncertain usage. The definite doctrine of the Trinity, though apparent in the New Testament, had not as yet come under discussion at the time of the writing of this Epistle, or been as yet scientifically formulated; and hence we must take the word in its general and original sense, the same as that now attached to its etymological equivalent, substantia. It means literally, "a standing under," and is used

(1) in a physical sense, for "foundation," as in Psa_69:2, "I sink in deep mire where there is no standing," where the LXX has upostasiv :

(2) metaphorically, for "confidence" or "certainty," as below, Heb_3:15 and 2Co_9:4;

(3) metaphysically, for that which underlies the phenomena of things and constitutes their essential being. Of the substance, understood in the last sense, of God the Son is the carakthr , which word expresses a similar kind of relation to the Divine substance as apaugasma does to the Divine glory. Derived from carassw (equivalent to "mark," "grave," or "stamp," with an engraven or imprinted character), its proper meaning is the perceptible image on the material so stamped or engraved, of which it thus becomes the carakthr . Thus the "image and superscription" on a coin is its carakthr , manifesting what the coin is. The instance of the tribute (Mat_22:20) at once occurs to us: our Lord pointed to the carakth on the coin as manifesting its upostasiv , as being Caesar"s money. Thus also the lineaments of a countenance are called its carakthr , as in Herod., 1:116, O carakthpou . A passage in Philo is illustrative of the sense intended; and it is to be observed (both with regard to the expression before us and to the preceding apaugasma) that the Alexandrian theologians are important guides to the interpretation of phrases in this Epistle, their influence on its modes of thought and expression being perceptible. He says ("De Plant. Nee.," that Moses called the rational soul the image (eikona) of the Divine and Invisible, as being ousiwyeisan kai tupwyeisan sfragidi Yeou hv o carakthgov . Here, be it observed, carakth is used for the form or lineament of the Divine seal itself, not for the copy stamped on the plastic material. And it is applied, as here, to the "Eternal Word," as being the manifestation of what the unseen Godhead is. Hence it would be wrong to understand the word, as some have done, as denoting the form impressed by one substance on another as though the impression left on the wax were the carakth of the seal. This misconception would mislead (as might also apaugasma , if rendered "reflection") in that it would seem to represent the Son as distinct from God, though stamped with his likeness and irradiated by his glory. Arian views about the SON, or even mere humanitarian views about the Christ, might thus seem countenanced. The two words apaugasma and carakthr , as has been said, express a similar relation to doxa and uposrasiv respectively, and convey the same general idea of the Son"s eternal relation to the Father. But both are, of course, but figures, each necessarily inadequate, of the inscrutable reality. If we may distinguish between them, it may be said that the former especially intimates the view of the operation and energy of the Godhead being through the Son, while the latter more distinctly brings out the idea of the Son being the Manifestation of what the God- head is, and especially of what it is to us. And upholding all things. We have here still the present participle, denoting the intrinsic operation of him who was revealed as Son. Though the word ferein , in the sense of upholding or sustaining creation, does not occur elsewhere in the, New Testament, it can hardly have any other meaning here, considering the context. We find a similar use of it in Num_11:14 Deu_1:9, to bear (ferein) all this people alone." And in the later Greek and rabbinical writers parallels are found. Chrysostom interprets ferwn as meaning kubernwn ta diapiptonta sugkratwn , which comes to the same thing as "upholding" or "sustaining." The meaning is that not only were the worlds" made through him; in his Divine nature he ever "upholds" the "all things" which were made through him, and of which, as SON, he was appointed "Heir;" el. Col_1:17, "And in him all things consist." And this upholding operation must not be supposed to have been in abeyance during the period of his humiliation. He was still what he had been eternally, though he had "emptied himself" of the state and prerogatives of Deity; (Php_2:7) el. (though the text is somewhat doubtful) Joh_3:13, "The Son of man, which is (wn) in heaven." By the word (rhmati) of his power is an expression elsewhere used of the voluntas efficax of Deity the utterance of Divine power; cf. Heb_11:3, "The worlds were framed by the Word (rhmati) of God." The writer could hardly have used it in this connection, if speaking of a created being. As to the reference of "his" before" power," whether to the subject of the sentence or to God, there is the same ambiguity in the Greek as in the English translation. Even if autou be intended, and not autou (and the former is most likely, since the pronoun, though it be reflective, is not emphatically so), it may with grammatical propriety refer either, like the previous autou , to God, or to him who thus upholds all things. In either case the general meaning of the clause remains the same. Enough has been said on the whole series of phrases which is thus concluded to show the untenableness of the Socinian interpretation, which would refer them only to Christ in the flesh and to the Christian dispensation. On such interpretation of the first of them Bull remarks, "Interpretatio Socinistarum, Deum nempe dici per Filiam saecula condidisse, quod per ipsum genus humanum reformavit et restauravit, et in novum quemdam statum transtulit, prodigiosum est commentum. Sane juramento aliquis tuto affirmare possit, ex Hebraeis, ad quos scripta fuit ilia epistola, ne unum quidem fuisse, qui scriptoris verba hoc sensu intellexerit, aut vel per somnium cogitaverit, per tou , saeculaa, significarum fuisse tantum genus humanum, nedum ejus pattem illam, cui tunc temporis evangelii lux effulserat" ("Jud. Eccl. Cath.," 5:8). When he had made purification of sins. (So, according to the best-supported "rod now generally accepted text.) The aorist is now resumed, denoting an act in time the act accomplished by him as incarnate SON, previous to and necessary for his entering on the inheritance appointed to him as such. This act, the grand purpose of the Incarnation, was atonement. There can be no doubt that the cleansing effected by atonement, and not the mere moral reformation of believers, is meant hero by purification of sins. The sequel of the Epistle, being, as aforesaid, the lull expression of the drift of the exordium, is sufficient proof of this. For in it Christ is exhibited at great length as the true High Priest of humanity, accomplishing truly what the Jewish priesthood signified; and as having "sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens," in virtue of his accomplished atonement. (Heb_8:1 Heb_10:12) Nor would the Hebrew readers to whom the Epistle was addressed be likely to understand kayarismo ("purification") in any other sense than this. The verb kayarizein is the LXX equivalent for the Hebrew rhmi, frequent in the Old Testament for ceremonial cleansing, the result of atoning sacrifice; in which sense it is accordingly used in Heb 10 of this Epistle. The theory of the Jewish ceremonial law was that the whole congregation, including the priests themselves, were too much polluted by sin to approach the holy God who dwelt between the cherubim. Therefore sacrifices were ordained to make atonement for them. The word for "making atonement for" (Greek, ilaskesyai) is in Hebrew rpk, which means properly "to cover;" i.e. to cover sin from the sight of God. And the result of such atonement was called "purification," or "cleansing." This appears clearly in Le 16, where the ceremonies of the great Day of Atonement are detailed. After an account of the various sacrifices of atonement, for the high priest and his house, for the people, and for the holy place itself polluted by their sins, we read (ver. 19), "And he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it i.e. the altar with his finger seven times, and cleanse it (kayariei), and hallow it from the uncleanness (twn akayarsiwn) of the children of Israel." And finally (ver. 30), "For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you (kayarisai), that ye may be clean from all your sins before the Lord." It is to be observed, further, that it is especially the meaning of the ceremonial of the Day of Atonement that Christ is spoken of afterwards in the Epistle as having fulfilled. For the phrase, poihsamenov kayarismon , cf. Job_7:21, Diati ouk epoihsw thv anomiav lhyhn kai kayarismoav mou . Its meaning in the Epistle may be that Christ, by his death, brought into being and established a permanent purification of sins fountain open for sin and for uncleanness" (Zec_13:1) in his blood, which is regarded as now ever offered at the heavenly mercy-seat (Heb_9:12) and sprinkled on the redeemed below. (Heb_9:14, Heb_9:22) Thus the distinction, observed above, between the atonement (ilasmov), of sacrifice and its application for cleansing (kayarismov) would be preserved. (cf. 1Jn_1:7 and Rev_7:14) Sat down; i.e. entered on his inheritance of all things; not simply in the sense of resuming his pristine glory, but of obtaining the preeminence denoted in prophecy as appointed to the Son, human as well as Divine, and won by obedience and accomplished atonement. And this his supreme exaltation (as will be seen hereafter) carries with it the idea of an exaltation of humanity, of which he was the High Priest and Representative. But be it observed that there is no change in the subject; of the sentence. He who "sat down on high" after making purification is the same with him through whom the worlds were made, and whose eternal Divinity has been expressed by the present participles. This identification supports the orthodox position of there being but one personality in Christ, notwithstanding the two natures, and justifies, against Nestorian-ism, the term yeotokov as applied to the blessed Virgin, with other cognate expressions accepted in orthodox theology, such as, "God suffered," though in his human, not his Divine, nature; "God shed his blood". (cf. Php_2:9, etc.) On the right hand of the Majesty on high. The expression is taken from Psa_110:1, afterwards cited in this Epistle, and prominently referred to in like manner by St. Paul. The figure is suggested by the custom of Oriental kings, who placed at the right hand of the throne a son whom they associated with themselves in the prerogatives of royalty. Occurring as it does first in a Messianic psalm, the phrase is never applied to the Son"s original relation to the Father "before the ages," but only to his exaltation as the Christ (on which see Bleek). The same idea seems expressed by our Lord"s own words, "All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and in earth". (Mat_28:18) But in the end, according to St. Paul, (1Co_15:24, 1Co_15:28) this peculiar "kingship" of the SON will cease, the redemptive purpose being accomplished. It is to be observed that, both here and afterwards, (Heb_8:1) a fine periphrasis is used for "right hand of God;" "the right hand of the Majesty on high" and "the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens." This may be regarded, not only as characteristic of the eloquent style of the Epistle, but also as implying an avoidance of too local or physical a view of the session spoken of. It is apparent elsewhere how the writer sees in the figures used to denote heavenly things only signs, level to our comprehension, of corresponding realities beyond our ken.

Jesus Inheritor of all things.

One position suggests another. The idea of sonship naturally leads on to the idea of inheritance. Among the Israelites especially would this be so, for inheritance is much spoken of in the Old. Testament. The son looks forward to inherit and control the father"s possessions. Thus, while the individual cannot defy death, the race can in a modified kind of way. And so this passion of man for transmitting his property to his posterity is here used to begin that glorifying description of Jesus which runs through this Epistle. Jesus is a Son, and if a Son, then an Heir. Moreover, inheritance is according to the father"s possessions. Jesus is Heir of all things, because his Father is Maker of all things. We shall do well also, in considering this word "heir" inserted in this particular place, to bear in mind the parable of the wicked husbandmen. (Mat_21:33) There is little doubt that it was in the mind of the writer, and the slightest hint to the wise is enough. Thoughtful readers of the Epistle who knew their Gospels would be quick enough to take the hint. For when thus a mention had been made of God speaking in the prophets, and then speaking in the Son, there was obviously further suggested how these prophets had been treated, and finally how the Son himself had been treated. As to how the prophets were treated, read onward from Heb_11:32. And. now the Heir comes forward. Thus we are at once brought face to Face with a claim. We are not allowed time to plume ourselves on privileges, in that, while former generations had only prophets to speak to them, we have a Son. The claim is the same, whether it be made through the humblest of the prophets even through a murmuring Jonah or through Jesus, the Son of God. It is a claim on us for the result of our work in the great inheritance. Jesus is Heir of all things, therefore Heir of that little section in which we have been working. Let it also be recollected that Jesus, in being Heir of all things, makes us as children of God joint-heirs. Every one who lives for Christ enriches all the sons of God. Jesus is Heir of all things that he may make believers in him sharers with trim according to the widest of their capacities and. opportunities. What a glorious picture of deep, exhaustless satisfaction is here, and how much beyond the dreams, generous as they are often reckoned to be, of an earthly communism! Y.

Jesus as the Brightness of God"s glory.

I THE GLORY OF GOD IS MANIFESTED TO MEN. Our relations of dependence upon God are exalted by our perception of him upon whom we depend. It is not as if a hand stretched out of the unseen, laying before us our daily bread, and then withdrawing itself, as if it concerned us nothing to know the Giver provided only we got the gift. God. is desirous that we should both know him, the Giver, and as much of his glory as it is possible for man to know. "The glory of God." could not have been an unfamiliar phrase to Hebrew Christians. The glory of Jehovah appeared to the children of Israel just before the giving of the manna. (Exo_16:10) Also on Mount Sinai, at the giving of the Law. Also when the tabernacle was completed the glory of Jehovah so filled it that Moses was not able to enter. (Exo_40:35) When Solomon built a house for Jehovah, the glory of Jehovah so filled the house that the priests could not stand to minister. Consider also the crowns of Isaiah and. Ezekiel. Every created thing has its glory, and though there are times when that glory may be in retirement, yet there are other times when the glory comes forth into full manifestation. How much more, then, must there be a suitable and sufficient manifestation of the glory of God himself!

II THE FULL MANIFESTATION OF GOD"S GLORY IS IN JESUS. The expression here, "brightness," or rather "effulgence," is in harmony with all those numerous passages in which light is connected with the revelation of God in Christ Jesus. The light which we see is but the expression of an invisible existence behind it. We speak of the rays of the sun; but what is the sun itself but condensed radiance? And so when we come to Jesus and. think of the light streaming forth from him upon human ignorance, misery, and despair, we are reminded by the way in which he is here spoken of that Jesus is not to be considered by himself. By him the invisible is made visible. The love of the Father becomes a radiant, communicable emotion in the incarnate life of the Son. All those bursts of intolerable light which filled the tabernacle were but symbols of that true light, the effulgence of the Divine glory, which lighteth every man coming into the world, and. which has dwelt among us in flesh as in a tabernacle. Blessed are those who can see this Divine effulgence, and discern the difference between it and the effulgence of other lights. The dwellers in the immediate district where Jesus had been brought up never thought of explaining the wonders of his life by the fact that he was the apaugasma of the Divine glory. Many thought it a sufficient explanation to say that he was Elijah, or Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. Consider in connection the words of Paul in 2Co 4, where he speaks of the god of this world blinding the minds of unbelievers, so that there should not shine unto them the illumination of the gospel of the glory of Christ who is the Image of God; and then he goes on to speak of how the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness has shined in our hearts, to illuminate them with the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. Y.

Jesus as the express Image of the Divine substance.

The more we ponder the various terms used for describing Jesus in the introduction to this Epistle, the more we see how the writer is striving to glorify Jesus by separating him from the common mass of men and presenting him to our thoughts in the most intimate relation with God. It is meant to be regarded as a relation of the closest correspondence in all possible ways. To say that God is the Father and Jesus the Son is not enough; for the son does not always resemble the father; indeed, the deep differences between son and father are but too often emphasized by the natural relation between them. Hence the multiplication of terms to indicate the closeness of correspondence between Jesus and God. They are bound in one, even as the ray of light with the source from which that ray emanates. And then comes this peculiarly difficult expression concerning the carakthr and the upostasiv . Evidently no English words can set forth exactly the meaning either of the Greek words themselves or of the relation indicated by them. We can only make a guess at the writer"s drift. He is referring, we may take it, to the connection between form and essence. Every essence has its approximate form, and every form indicates a peculiar essence. Thus we always find the essence of humanity along with a certain kind of body, a certain shape, a certain arrangement of organs, a certain quality of intelligence; and wherever we see these signs we infer a peculiar essence underneath. We can know nothing of the essence apart from the form it takes, nor can we imagine the form continuing without the essence. Form and essence make up the unity. Even so the writer of this Epistle seems to look upon the unity which is constituted when God, the Essence, flows out to us in the form furnished by the person of Jesus. Y.

Reality over against phenomena.

It is very striking to notice in this third verse that the assertions with respect to Jesus are not at all the assertions that would have been made by the bulk of his contemporaries. They did not see all this glory being manifested, this essence of divinity shaping itself, this mighty sustaining of all things, this cleansing away of sin, this assumption of a seat at the right hand of the Majesty on high. Have we not to notice again and again in the level of ordinary life that what a man seems to the multitude to be doing is not at all the thing he is really doing? Many of the Cumberland peasants could see in Wordsworth only an idle man, who spent much of his time rambling about and muttering to himself. All the poems that came out of his musings and mutterings they would reckon as nothing at all. And assuredly the most conspicuous instance of this lack of understanding is to be found in the view that many have of Jesus. They see nothing of the glorious nature, the far-reaching power, the cleansing sacrifice, the lofty exaltation; and yet all these are realities. Take, for instance, that which is here spoken of Jesus: "He made through himself a purification of our sins." The Hebrew was in the habit of connecting purification of sin with certain outward appearances. He expected to see a priest known by his garments, an altar known by its construction. If Jesus had been bound, like a human sacrificial victim, on an altar and slain by a priest, then many would have had no difficulty in thinking of him as a sacrifice. If we would get to truth, we must break away from appearances and get to the essence of everything Christ has said and done. Things are not what they seem. Have we not the best of evidence in our senses every day that the sun goes round the earth? Yet it can be proved by flawless logic, to him that will understand, that the earth goes round the sun. Realities contradict appearances. The natural man has his standard of life, movement, possibility; and the spiritual man, taught and guided by the Spirit of God, has his standard. Y.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Who sat down - The third of these glorious predicates, with which three other particulars are interwoven, which are mentioned likewise, and in the same order, Colossians i, 15, 17, 20. Who, being - The glory which he received in his exaltation at the right hand of the Father no angel was capable of; but the Son alone, who likewise enjoyed it long before. The brightness of his glory - Glory is the nature of God revealed in its brightness. The express image - Or stamp. Whatever the Father is, is exhibited in the Son, as a seal in the stamp on wax. Of his person - Or substance. The word denotes the unchangeable perpetuity of divine life and power. And sustaining all things - Visible and invisible, in being. By the word of his power - That is, by his powerful word. When he had by himself - Without any Mosaic rites or ceremonies. Purged our sins - In order to which it was necessary he should for a time divest himself of his glory. In this chapter St. Paul describes his glory chiefly as he is the Son of God; afterwards, ver. 6, &c., the glory of the man Christ Jesus. He speaks, indeed, briefly of the former before his humiliation, but copiously after his exaltation; as from hence the glory he had from eternity began to be evidently seen. Both his purging our sins, and sitting on the right hand of God, are largely treated of in the seven following chapters. Sat down - The priests stood while they ministered: sitting, therefore, denotes the consummation of his sacrifice. This word, sat down, contains the scope, the theme, and the sum, of the epistle.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

Our apostle here proceeds in describing the Divinity of Christ’s person, by whom the Father has made known his will to us under the gospel. He declares, 1. What he is. 2. What he does, or did. 3. The consequent of both, or what he now enjoyeth.

Observe, 1. Our apostle declares who, and what Christ was, and is, namely, The brightness of the Father’s glory, and the express image of his person. As the brightness of the sun is of the same nature with the sun, and of as long continuance as the sun and cannot be separated from the sun and yet the sun, and the brightness of the sun, are really distinct from each other.

In like manner the Father and the Son are of one and the same essence, co-eternal and inseparable, yet the person of the one is distinct from the other. And as the sun communicates its light and influence to us by its beams, so doth God communicate his goodness, and manifest himself to us by Jesus Christ.

Learn hence, That the Son is of the same essence with the Farther, yet a person really distinct from the Father brightly shines forth in Christ his Son.

That is, the express character of God the Father’s person, his natural image, and essential likeness; all the perfections shining forth in God the Father, are substantially in Christ the Son: Is the Father eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent? so is the Son, whose Character he is, whose resemblance and imager he bears; Joh 10:38

The father is in me and I in him; the same essential properties and nature being in each person, by virtue thereof their persons are said to be in each other. All the glorious perfections of the nature of God do belong unto, and dwell in the person of the Son of God.

Observe 2. Our apostle having declared what Christ is, next declares what he does; namely, that he up holdeth all things by the word of his power; that is, he exerts and puts forth the some omnipotent power in the work of preservation, which he did in the work of creation, keeping it from sinking into its original chaos of confusion. This work of conservation, say some, is a greater act of omnipotency than that of creation; by the former, all things were brought out of nothing, by the latter, they are preserved from returning into nothing, which their own nature, and their perpetual conflict, by contrariety of qualities, would necessarily precipitate them into.

Learn hence, 1. That such is the nature and condition of the universe, that it cannot subsist one moment without continual support; such is the dependent condition of the whole creation.

Learn, 2. That our Lord Jesus Christ has the weight of the whole creation on his hand, he upholdeth what himself created: and as well as creation of all things by the word of his power, do prove him truly and really God.

Observe, 3. A further evidence and proof of the Divinity of Christ, produced here by our apostle; as he made the world by his omnipotent power, and upholds it by his wonderful providence, so he redeemed it by his blood, He by himself purged our sins. He that made the heavens, bowed the heavens, and came down from heaven, and became a sacrifice for sin on earth, and by himself alone, by himself without a partner, by himself without a comforter, expiated the guilt of sin, and satisfied the justice of God for sin, suffering as he was man, and satisfying as he was God, who by himself purged our sins.

Learn hence, That so great was the work of expiation of sin, that it could no otherwise by really effected and accomplished, than by the sacrifice and satisfaction of Christ, who was truly and really God.

Observe, 4. THe consequent of all that Christ did or his glorious condition after his humiliation, having purged our sins, he sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

That is, God the Father clothed him with the highest honour, and endowed him with the greatest power that heaven itself could afford; the right hand is the place both of dignity and honour, and also of superiority and power: Christ’s sitting at God’s right hand imports his exaltation to the highest authority and most supreme dominion.

Learn hence, That when our Lord Jesus Christ had finished his sufferings upon earth, he was placed in the seat of the highest honour and authority at the right hand of God his Father in heaven, even to be the object of adoration both to angels and men, as the following verses declare in which our apostle thus speaks:

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

3. “Who being the brightness of His glory and the character of His person.”... The Greek word for “express image” is character. Since that word has been transferred into the English language, it should not be translated. Hence, in the life of Jesus, faithfully delineated by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, his inspired biographers, we see the very character of God. Therefore, we find that God is “meek and lowly in heart,” going about doing good. Therefore, if you would go up and live with God in heaven you must be like Him, i.e., meek and lowly in heart, doing good, and no harm. “Having made the expurgation of sins He sat down on the right hand of the majesty on high.” You see from this statement that Jesus completely and forever settled the awful sin-problem, so far as this world is concerned. When He died on the cross He perfectly and eternally satisfied the violated law, and swept every conceivable difficulty completely out of the way; so the vilest sinner on the whole earth has nothing to do but totally, radically and unconditionally abandon sin and Satan world without end, look away to Calvary, and shout victory over the world, the flesh and the devil, now and through all eternity. Nothing but stubborn unbelief can ever keep a soul out of heaven. The very fact of the Father’s royal congratulation and glorious coronation of Jesus on the mediatorial throne a His right hand is an indisputable and eternal recognition of His perfect and satisfactory approval of the expiation and redemption Jesus came on the earth to execute. He is this day Mediatorial King, interceding at God’s right hand, in behalf of a guilty world.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

3. Who being the brightness of his glory. A manifestation of the glory of God. The very image of his substance. In Christ we have a tangible, visible representation of the substance of God. We see God in him. “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father” (John 14:9). By the word of his power. The Son hath all power, and his power was always manifested by his word. He spoke and it was done, whether it was to still the winds or to raise the dead. So in creation, the word was spoken and it was done. When he had by himself purged our sins. Made an atonement for them. Sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. Of God. The right hand was always the place of honor. See note on Eph. 1:20.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

3. καθαρισμόν. The preceding διʼ ἑαυτοῦ (EKLM) of the rec. is not found in אAB Vulg. Arm. It may have risen from the preceding αὐτοῦ, but would not have been added by so “faultlessly rhetorical” a writer, and is involved in the middle ποιησάμενος.

τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν. The ἡμῶν in the rec. is a needless dogmatic intrusion and is not found in אABDEM Vulg. Copt., &c.

3. ἀπαύγασμα, “effulgence,” a ἅπαξ λεγόμενον in the N. T. The substitution of “effulgence” for “brightness” in the Revised Version is not, as it has been contemptuously called, “a piece of finery,” but is a rendering at once more accurate and more suggestive. It means “efflux of light”—φῶς ἐκ φωτὸς, i.e. Light from Light, as in the Nicene Creed (“effulgentia” not “repercussus,” Grotius). It implies not only resemblance—which is all that is involved in the vague and misleading word “brightness,” which might apply to a mere reflexion:—but also “origin” and “independent existence.” The glory of Christ is the glory of the Father just as the sun is only revealed by the rays which stream forth from it. So the “Wisdom of Solomon” (Heb 7:26)—which offers many resemblances to the Epistle to the Hebrews, and which some have even conjectured to be by the same author—speaks of wisdom as “the effulgence of the everlasting light.” The word is also found in Philo where it is applied to man. This passage, like many others in the Epistle, is quoted by St Clement of Rome (ad Cor. 36). Many on the analogy of ἀπήχημα “echo,” and ἀποσκίασμα “a cast shadow,” support the rendering “reflexion,” especially because Philo uses ἐκμαγεῖον and μίμημα as illustrations of it, as the Book of Wisdom uses εἰκὼν and ἔσοπτρον. But “effulgence” gives a truer theological sense, and Hesych. explains ἀπαύγ. by ἡλίου φέγγος and Lex. Cyrilli by ἀκτὶς ἡλίου.

τῆς δόξης. God was believed in the Old Dispensation to reveal Himself by a cloud of glory called “the Shechinah,” and the Alexandrian Jews, in their anxious avoidance of all anthropomorphism and anthropopathy—i.e. of all expressions which attribute the human form and human passions to God—often substituted “the Glory” for the name of God. Similarly in 2Pe 1:17 the Voice from God the Father is a Voice ὑπὸ τῆς μεγαλοπρεποῦς δόξης “from the magnificent glory.” Comp. Act 7:55; Luk 2:9. St John says “God is Light,” and the indestructible purity, impalpable essence, and infinite diffusiveness of Light make it the best of all created things to furnish an analogy for the supersensuous light and spiritual splendour of the Being of God. Hence St John also says of the Word “we beheld His glory” (Joh 1:14); and our Lord said to Philip “he who hath seen Me hath seen the Father” (Joh 14:9). Comp. Luk 9:29.

χαρακτήρ, “the stamp.” The word only occurs in the LXX. of Lev 13:28. The R.V. renders this word by “very image” (after Tyndale), and in the margin by “impress.” (Comp. Col 1:15; Php 2:6.) I prefer the word “stamp” because the Greek χαρακτήρ, like the English word “stamp,” may, according to its derivation, be used either for the impress or for the stamping-tool itself. This Epistle has so many resemblances to Philo that the word may have been suggested by a passage (De plant. Noe, Opp. I. 332) in which Philo compares man to a coin which has been stamped by the Logos with the being and type of God; and in that passage the word seems to bear this unusual sense of a “stamping-tool,” for it impresses a man with the mark of God. Similarly St Paul in the Epistle to the Colossians (Col 1:15)—which most resembles this Epistle in its Christology—called Christ “the image (εἰκὼν) of the invisible God”; and Philo says, “But the Word is the image (εἰκὼν) of God, by Whom the whole world was created,” De Monarch. (Opp. II. 225).

τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ. Not “of His person” but “of His substance” or “essence.” The word ὑπόστασις, substantia (literally that which “stands under”), is, in philosophical accuracy, the imaginary substratum which remains when a thing is regarded apart from all its accidents. The word “person” of our A. V. is rather the equivalent to πρόσωπον. Ὑπόστασις only came to be used in this sense some centuries later. Perhaps “Being” or “Essence,” though it corresponds more strictly to the Greek οὐσία, is the nearest representative which we can find to hypostasis, now that “substance,” once the most abstract and philosophical of words, has come (in ordinary language) to mean what is most solid and concrete. It is only too possible that the word “substance” conveys to many minds the very opposite conception to that which was intended, and which alone corresponds to the truth. Athanasius says, “Hypostasis is essence” (οὐσία); and the Nicene Council seems to draw no real distinction between the two words. In fact the Western Church admitted that, when ὑπόστασις is used for πρόσωπον, we might speak of three hypostaseis of the Trinity; and in the Western sense, of one hypostasis, because in this sense the word meant Essence. For the use of the word in the LXX. see Ps. 38:6, 88:48. It is curiously applied in Wis 16:21. In the technical language of theology these two clauses represent the Son as co-eternal and co-substantial with the Father.

φέρων τε τὰ πάντα. He is not only the Creative Word, but the Sustaining Providence. He is, as Philo says, “the chain-band of all things,” but he is also their guiding force. “In Him all things subsist” (Col 1:17). Philo calls the Logos “the pilot and steersman of everything.” Plutarch also uses the word φέρω in the sense of upbear, i.e. rule. (Comp. Cic. pro Flacco, 38, “Rempublicam vestris humeris sustinetis.” Sen. Ep. 31. “Deus ille optimus … ipse vehit omnia.”)

τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ, “by the utterance of His power.” It is better to keep “word” for Logos, and “utterance” for ῥῆμα. We find “strength” (κράτος) and “force” (ἰσχύς) attributed to Christ in Eph 6:10, as “power” (δύναμις) here.

καθαρισμὸν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ποιησάμενος, “after making purification of sins.” The διʼ ἑαυτοῦ is omitted by some of the best MSS. (א, A, B), and the ἡμῶν by many. But the notion of Christ’s independent action (Php 2:7) is involved in the middle voice of the verb, which the διʼ ἑαυτοῦ merely expands and emphasizes. On the purification of our sins by Christ (in which there is perhaps a slight reference to the “Day of Atonement,” called in the LXX. “the Day of Purification,” Exo 29:36), see Heb 9:12, Heb 10:12; 1Pe 2:24; 2Pe 1:9 (comp. Job 7:21, LXX.). The καθαρισμὸς is the result of the ἱλασμός. The objective gen. τῶν ἁμ. implies that the “purification” is the “cleansing” of our sins. Some prefer to render it “from our sins.” Winer, p. 233.

ἐκάθισεν. His glorification was directly consequent on His voluntary humiliation (see Heb 8:1, Heb 10:12, Heb 12:2; Psa 110:1), and here the whole description is brought to its destined climax.

ἐν δεξιᾷ. As the place of honour, comp. Heb 8:1; Psa 110:1; Eph 1:20. The controversy as to whether “the right hand of God” means “everywhere”—which was called the “Ubiquitarian controversy”—is wholly destitute of meaning, and has long fallen into deserved oblivion.

τῆς μεγαλωσύνης. In Heb 10:12 he says “at the right hand of God.” But he was evidently fond of sonorous amplifications, which belong to the dignity of his style; and also fond of Alexandrian modes of expression. The LXX. sometimes went so far as to substitute for “God” the phrase מקום makom, “the place” where God stood (see Exo 24:10, LXX.).

ἐν ὑψηλοῖς. Literally, “in high places”; like “Glory to God” ἐν ὑψίστοις, Luk 2:14 (comp. Job 16:19); and ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις, Eph 1:20 (comp. Psa 93:4; Psa 113:5). The description of Christ in these verses differed from the current Messianic conception of the Jews in two respects. 1. He was Divine and Omnipotent. 2. He was to die for our sins. The analogy between these two verses and Col 1:15-20 is too close to be accidental.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

3.] “The Son of God now becomes Himself the subject. The ‘verbum finitum’ belonging to the relative ὅς is not found till ἐκάθισεν at the end of the verse. But the intermediate participial clauses do not stand in the same relation to the main sentence. The first members, ὢν ἀπαύγασμα … δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ, still set forth those attributes of the Son of God which are of a permanent character, and belonging to Him before the Incarnation: whereas the following member, the last participial clause, stands in nearer relation to the main sentence, expressing as it does the purification of mankind from sin, wrought by the incarnate Son of God, as one individual historical event,—as the antecedent of that exaltation of Him to the right hand of God, which the main sentence enounces.” Bleek.

Who (the ὅς represents, it will be evident, rather the præ-existent than the incarnate Logos. But it is perhaps a mistake to let this distinction be too prominent, and would lead to the idea of a change having taken place in the eternal relation of the Son to the Father, when He subjected himself to the conditions of space and time. Even then He could say of himself, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ. See Ebrard’s note), being (cf. ὑπάρχων, Php 2:6, also of His præ-existent and essential being. This comparison seems decisive against Hofmann, who (Schriftbeweis, i. 140 ff.) takes ὤν and φέρων according to his theory that all the attributes of the Son of God spoken of in the N. T. are adduced in connexion with and as manifested by His work of Redemption. See against this view Delitzsch, h. l. p. 7. But it must also be remembered that ὤν and φέρων are present participles. They must not be rendered utpote qui, or cum esset and ferret, but kept to their essential and timeless sense,—‘being,’ and ‘bearing’) the brightness (effulgentia, not “repercussus, qualis est in nube quæ dicitur παρήλιος,” as Grot., Calv. (“splendor ex illius lumine refulgens,—refulgentia”), al. This latter would be legitimate, but does not seem to have been the ordinary usage. Bl. cites from Philo de Concupiscent. § 11, vol. ii. p. 356, τὸ δὲ ἐμφυσώμενον (Gen 2:7) δῆλον ὡς αἰθέριον ἦν πνεῦμα καὶ εἰ δή τι αἰθερίου πνεύματος κρεῖττον, ἅτε τῆς μακαρίας καὶ τρισμακαρίας φύσεως ἀπαύγασμα,—where the sense clearly is, that the breath breathed into man was as it were a ray of the divine nature itself. See also id. de Opif. Mund. § 51, vol. i. p. 35; de Plant. Noë, § 12, p. 154. Cf. Wisd. 7:26, where wisdom is called an ἀπαύγασμα φωτὸς ἀϊδίου. And this (which, as Delitzsch remarks, is represented by the φῶς ἐκ φωτός of the Church) seems to have been universally the sense among the ancients: no trace whatever being found of the meaning ‘reflexion.’ Nor would the idea be apposite here: the Son of God is, in this his essential majesty, the expression, and the sole expression, of the divine Light,—not, as in his Incarnation, its reflexion. So Thdrt.: τὸ γὰρ ἀπαύγασμα καὶ ἐκ τοῦ πυρός ἐστι, καὶ σὺν τῷ πυρί ἐστι· καὶ αἴτιον μὲν ἔχει τὸ πῦρ, ἀχώριστον δέ ἐστι τοῦ πυρός.… καὶ τῷ πυρὶ δὲ ὁμοφυὲς τὸ ἀπαύγασμα· οὐκοῦν καὶ ὁ υἱὸς τῷ πατρί. (Cf. Athanasius contra Arianos Orat. i. (ii.) § 12, vol. ii. (Migne) p. 328: τίς οὕτως ἐστὶν ἀνόητος, ὡς ἀμφιβάλλειν περὶ τοῦ αἰεὶ εἶναι τὸν υἱόν; πότε γάρ τις εἶδε φῶς χωρὶς τῆς τοῦ ἀπαυγάσματος λαμπρότητος;) And Thl.: καὶ γὰρ τὸ ἀπαύγασμα τῷ ἀπαυγάζοντι συνεμφαίνεται. οὔτε γὰρ ἥλιος ὡράθη ποτὲ χωρὶς ἀπαυγάσματος· οὔτε πατὴρ νοεῖται χωρὶς υἱοῦ. ὅταν οὖν ἀκούσῃς τῶν Ἀρειανῶν λεγόντων, ὅτι εἰ ἐκ πατρὸς ὁ υἱός, λοιπὸν ὕστερος αὐτοῦ· ἀντίθες αὺτοῖς, ὅτι καὶ τὸ ἀπαύγασμα ἐκ τοῦ ἡλίου, καὶ οὐχ ὕστερον αὐτοῦ. ἅμα γὰρ ἥλιος, ἅμα ἀπαύγασμα. And Origen, tom. xxxii. in Joann. § 18, vol. iv. p. 450: ὅλης μὲν οὖν οἶμαι τῆς δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ αὐτοῦ ὰπαύγασμα εἶναι τὸν υἱόν, κατὰ τὸν εἰπόντα Παῦλον Ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης· φθάνειν μέντοι γε ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀπαυγάσματος τούτου τῆς ὅλης δόξης μερικὰ ἀπαυγάσματα ἐπὶ τὴν λοιπὴν λογικὴν κτίσιν· οὐκ οἶμαι γάρ τινα τὸ πᾶν δύνασθαι χωρῆσαι τῆς ὅλης δόξης τοῦ θεοῦ ἀπαύγασμα, ἢ τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ. Hesychius gives as the meaning of ἀπαύγασμα, ἡλίου φέγγος: and the MS. Lexicon of Cyril, ἀκτὶς ἡλίου ἡ πρώτη τοῦ ἡλιακοῦ φωτὸς ἀποβολή. See also Clem-rom. in reff. and several other authorities cited in Bleek) of His glory (not simply His light: nor need ἀπαύγασμα be confined to such literal sense: cf. Clem.-rom. as above. His glory, in its widest and amplest reference.

It has been attempted to give to ἀπ. τῆς δόξης the meaning splendor gloriosus, and to make αὐτοῦ below refer, not to the Father, but to ἀπαύγασμα. But to this Bleek answers after Seb.-Schmidt, that ἀπαύγασμα never is found without a genitive of the ἀπαυγαζόμενον, which genitive here can be no other than τῆς δόξης (αὐτοῦ, i. e. τοῦ θεοῦ). Again, Owen (vol. i. p. 85 f.) supposes the Shechinah to be alluded to;—Akersloot, the Urim and Thummim. It is hardly probable that in a preliminary description, couched in the most general and sublime terms, any such particular allusion should be intended. Notice again the anarthrous predicate, to which the same remarks will apply as to υἱῷ above.

Delitzsch remarks, Es ist kein nimbus um Gott, welchen, hier δόξα genannt wird, sondern die übersinnliche geistige Feuer und Lichtnatur Gottes selber, welche er, um sich vor sich selbst offenbar zu merden, aus sich herausfeßt) and impress (“figura,” vulg.: “figure,” Wiclif and Rheims: “very image,” Tyndal and Cranmer: “ingraved forme,” Geneva: “express image,” E. V. The word χαρακτήρ, which by formation would be the stamp or die itself on which a device χαράσσεται, and which stamps it on other things, never appears to bear this meaning, but always to be taken for the impression itself so stamped. Thus Æsch. Suppl. 279, Κύπριος χαρακτήρ τʼ ἐν γυναικείοις τύποις εἰκὼς πέπληκται τεκτόνων πρὸς ἀρσένων. “Aristot. Œc. ii. p. 689, ἀνενεχθέντος δὲ τοῦ ἀργυρίου ἐπικόψας χαρακτῆρα: id. Pol. i. 6, where χαρακτῆρα ἐπιβάλλειν is to stamp coin, and it is said, ὁ γὰρ χαρακτήρ ἐτέθη τοῦ πόσου σημεῖον. Diod. Sic. xvii. 66, τάλαντα χρυσοῦ, χαρακτῆρα δαρεικὸν ἔχοντα. Hence the word is taken, 1. generally for any fixed and sharply marked lineaments, material or spiritual, by which a person or an object may be recognized and distinguished. Herod. i. 116, ὁ χ. τοῦ προσώπου. Diod. Sic. i. 82, τοὺς τῆς ὄψεως χαρακτῆρας, the lines of the countenance. Lucian, de Amoribus, p. 1061, calls mirrors τῶν ἀντιμόρφων χαρακτήρων ἀγράφους εἰκόνας, and ib. p. 1056, ἧς ὁ μὲν ἀληθῶς χ. ἄμορφος. Demosth. (in Stephan.), ἐν μὲν τοῖς ἐσόπτροις ὁ τῆς ὄψεως, ἐν δὲ ταῖς ὁμιλίαις ὁ τῆς ψυχῆς χαρακτὴρ βλέπεται. Philo, de Mund. Opif. § 4 (vol. i. p. 4), τοὺς χαρακτῆρας ἐνσφραγίζεσθαι, to impress on the mind the lines and forms of an intended city: id. Legg. Allegor. i. § 18 (vol. i. p. 55), ὁ τῆς ἀρετῆς χαρακτήρ, οἰκεῖος ὢν ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ: id. de Mundi Opif. § 23 (p. 15), τὴν δὲ ἐμφέρειαν (the likeness of man to God) μηδεὶς εἰκαζέτω σώματος χαρακτῆρσιν, ib. § 53 (p. 36), τῆς ἑκατέρου φύσεως (viz. of God and the creation) ἀπεμάττετο (scil. man, while he was alone) τῇ ψυχῇ τοὺς χαρακτῆρας:—and, 2. of the objects themselves, on which the features of another are expressed,—which bear its peculiar image, so that they appear as if taken off from it by impression of a die. So Philo, Quod Det. Potiori Ins. § 23 (vol. i. p. 217), designates the πνεῦμα imparted by God to man τύπον τινὰ καὶ χαρακτῆρα θείας δυνάμεως, Moses naming the same εἰκών, to shew ὅτι ἀρχέτυπον μὲν φύσεως λογικῆς ὁ θεός ἐστι, μίμημα δὲ καὶ ἀπεικόνισμα ἄνθρωπος: De Plant. Noë, § 5 (p. 332), he says, Moses named the rational soul τοῦ θείου καὶ ἀοράτου εἰκόνα, δόκιμον εἶναι νομίσας οὐσιωθεῖσαν κ. τυπωθεῖσαν σφραγῖδι θεοῦ, ἧς ὁ χαρακτήρ ἐστιν ὁ ἀΐδιος λόγος. Here the λόγος is designated as the impress of the seal of God, by the impression of which in like manner on the human soul, this last receives a corresponding figure, as the image of the unseen and divine. Compare also Clem.-rom. ad Cor. c. 33, αὐτὸς ὁ δημιουργὸς κ. δεσπότης ἁπάντων … τὸν … ἄνθρωπον ταῖς ἰδίαις αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀμώμοις χερσὶν ἔπλασεν, τῆς ἑαυτοῦ εἰκόνος χαρακτῆρα. Hence the usage of χαρακτήρ here will be easily understood.” Bleek: see also the word in Palm and Rost’s Lex.

καθʼ ἑαυτὸν γάρ, φησίν, ὑφέστηκεν, ὅλον ἐν ἑαυτῷ δεικνὺς πατέρα. τοὺς γὰρ πατρικοὺς περί κειται χαρακτῆρας. τούτῳ ἔοικε τὸ ὑπὸ τοῦ κυρίου πρὸς τὸν Φίλιππον εἰρημένον, ὁ ἑωρακὼς ἐμέ, ἑώρακε τὸν πατέρα μου. Thdrt.) of His substance (substantial or essential being: “substance,” Wicl., Tynd., Cranm., Rheims: “person,” Geneva, and E. V.: Wesen, Luther, &c., De Wette, Bleek, al.: das der Erscheinung unterliegende Wesen, der Wesensgrund, Delitzsch. The various meanings of ὑπόστασις are well traced by Bleek, from whom, as so often in this Epistle, I take the account. Etymologically, the word imports the lying or being placed underneath: and this is put in common usage for, 1. substratum or foundation—fundamentum. Diod. Sic. i. 66, ὑπόστασις τοῦ τάφου: id. xiii. 82, κατὰ τὸ μέγεθος τῆς ὑποστάσεως: Eze 43:11, κ. διαγράψεις τὸν οἶκον κ. τὰς ἐξόδους αὐτοῦ κ. τὴν ὑπόστασιν αὐτοῦ: Psa 68:2, ἐνεπάγην εἰς ἰλὺν βυθοῦ κ. οὐκ ἔστιν ὑπόστασις. Nearly connected with this is, 2. establishment, or the state of being established: hence—α. firmness,—to which idea the word approaches in the last citation: but especially in reference to firmness of spirit, confidence: see more on ch. 3:14,—β. substantial existence, reality, in contradistinction to that which exists only in appearance or idea: Aristot. de Mundo iv. 19, τῶν ἐν ἀέρι φαντασμάτων τὰ μέν ἐστι κατʼ ἔμφασιν, τὰ δὲ καθʼ ὑπόστασιν: Artemidor. Oneirocrit. iii. 14, φαντασίαν μὲν ἔχειν πλούτου, ὑπόστασιν δὲ μή: Diog. Laert. ix. 91, ζητεῖται δʼ οὐκ εἰ φαίνεται ταῦτα, ἀλλʼ εἰ καθʼ ὑπόστασιν οὕτως ἔχει: id. vii. 135, καὶ κατʼ ἐπίνοιαν καὶ καθʼ ὑπόστασιν. Hence—γ. generally, consistence or existence. So Philo, de Incorrupt. Mund. § 18, vol. i. p. 505, αὐγὴ ὑπόστασιν ἰδίαν οὐκ ἔχει, γεννᾶται δʼ ἐκ φλογός: Psa 38:5, καὶ ἡ ὑπόστασίς μου ὡσεὶ οὐθὲν ἐνώπιόν σου: Ps. 88:47, μνήσθητι τίς ὑπόστασίς μου (in both places for the existence of man, Heb. חֶלֶד: hence also, as ὕπαρξις, for possessions or goods, as Deu 11:6: Jer 10:17). Hence also—δ. it imports the especial manner of being, the peculiar essence of an object. Thus 1Ki 13:21, τῇ ἀξίνῃ κ. τῷ δρεπάνῳ ὑπόστασις ἦν ἡ αὐτή: Wisd. 16:21, ἡ μὲν γὰρ ὑπόστασίς σου (τ. θεοῦ) τὴν σὴν γλυκύτητα πρὸς τέκνα ἐνεφάνισε. And this last seems to be the best meaning in our place: His essential being, His substance. For in regarding the history of the word, we find that the well-known theological meaning ‘person’ was not by any means generally received during the first four centuries. We have it indeed in Origen, tom. ii. in Joann. § 6, vol. iv. p. 61 (ἡμεῖς μέντοι γε τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις πειθόμενοι τυγχάνειν, τὸν πατέρα, κ. τὸν υἱόν, κ. τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, κ.τ.λ.): but the usage is by no means constant. The Nicene council itself uses ὑπόστασις and οὐσία in the same sense, and condemns the deriving the Son ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως καὶ οὐσίας from the Father (cited in Bleek, p. 60, note): and so usually (in the genuine works: e. g. Ep. ad Afros, c. 4, vol. ii. (Migne) p. 714: ἡ ὑπόστασις οὐσία ἐστί, καὶ οὐδὲν ἄλλο σημαινόμενον ἔχει ἢ αὐτὸ τὸ ὄν.… ἡ γὰρ ὑπόστασις καὶ ἡ οὐσία ὕπαρξίς ἐστιν. ἔστι γὰρ καὶ ὑπάρχει. See Gieseler, Kirchengesch. 1Pe_2, p. 63) Athanasius. The fact was, that the Easterns most commonly used ὑπόστασις to designate the three separate Persons (cf. e. g. Chrys. de Sacerdot. iv. 4, vol. i. p. 410 a, τὴν μὲν θεότητα πατρὸς κ. υἱ. κ. ἁγ. πν. μίαν ὁμολογοῦντας, προστιθέντας δὲ καὶ τὰς τρεις ὑποστάσεις, &c., and especially Basil, whom Gieseler regards as the representative of this view: Ep. 236. 6, vol. iv. p. 363, οὐσία κ. ὑπόστασις ταύτης ἔχει τὴ διαφοράν, ἣν ἔχει τὸ κοινὸν πρὸς τὸ καθʼ ἕκαστον. See other passages in Gieseler, ubi supra) in distinction from Sabellianism, which acknowledged three πρόσωπα, but not three ὑποστάσεις, i. e. self-subsisting personalities: whereas the Westerns continued to regard ὑπόστασις as = οὐσία, and assumed but one ὑπόστασις: and the Western bishops, assembled with Athanasius at the council of Sardica in 347, distinctly pronounced the assumption of three hypostases heretical, i. e. Arian. Their words, as cited by Suicer from Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. ii. 6, are very decisive: τὸ τῶν αἱρετικῶν σύστημα φιλονεικεῖ, διαφόρους εἶναι τὰς ὑποστάσεις τοῦ πατρός, κ. τοῦ υἱοῦ, κ. τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος, κ. εἶναι κεχωρισμένας. ἡμεῖς δὲ ταύτην παρειλήφαμεν κ. δεδιδάγμεθα, κ. ταύτην ἔχομεν τὴν καθολικὴν παράδοσιν κ. πίστιν κ. ὁμολογίαν, μίαν εἶναι ὑπόστασιν, ἣν αὐτοὶ οἱ αἱρετικοὶ οὐσίαν προσαγορεύουσι, τοῦ πατρός, κ. τοῦ υἱοῦ, κ. τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος. Subsequently however to this, in the Synod assembled at Alexandria in 362, at which Athanasius, and bishops of Italy, Arabia, Egypt, and Libya were present, the Easterns and Westerns agreed, on examination of one another’s meaning, to acknowledge one another as orthodox, and to allow indifferently of the use of τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις signifying ‘Persons,’ and μία ὑπόστασις signifying ‘substance,’ ‘essence,’ οὐσία. The Epistle from this synod to the bishops of Antioch is among the works of Athanasius, vol. ii. p. 615 ff., and is a very interesting document. But it attempted conciliation in vain, the Miletian schism at Antioch, which began on this point, having been confirmed and perpetuated by external causes. See on the whole subject, Bleek’s note: Jerome, Epist. 15 (al. 57) ad Damasum, § 4, vol. i. p. 40; and on the use made of this description by orthodox and heretics in early times, Bleek, Chrys. in loc.: Calvin’s note, where he gives some excellent cautions against the speculative pressing of each expression: “Nam hoc quoque notandum est, non hic doceri frivolas speculationes, sed tradi solidam fidei doctrinam. Quare debemus in usum nostrum hæc Christi elogia applicare, sicuti ad nos relationem habent.”

On all grounds it will be safer here to hold to the primitive meaning of the word, and not to introduce into the language of the apostolic age a terminology which was long subsequent to it), and (τε couples closely clauses referring to the same subject, and following as matter of course on one another) upholding (we have this sense of φέρειν in reff. and in the later Greek writers, e. g. Plut. Lucull. 6, φέρειν τὴν πόλιν. So in Latin, Val. Max. xi. 8.5, “humeris gestare salutem patriæ:” Cic. pro Flacco, c. 38, “quam (remp.) vos universam in hoc judicio vestris humeris.… judices, sustinetis:” Senec. Ep. 31, “Deus ille maximus potentissimusque vehit omnia.” But the usage is principally found in the Rabbinical writings, as appears from the extracts in Schöttgen,—e. g. Sohar Chadasch, fol. ix. 1, “Creator benedictus portans omnes mundos robore suo (סובל כל־העלמות בכוהו),” &c. Chrys. says, φέρων, τουτέστι κυβερνῶν, τὰ διαπίπτοντα συγκρατῶν: and so Thl.: “Sursum tenet, ne decidant, et in nihilum revertantur,” Ps.-Anselm) the universe (the same πάντα as designated by πάντων above: not that the art. expressly refers back to that word, for τὰ πάντα is the ordinary expression for the aggregate of all things. The meaning attempted to be given by some Socinian expositors, “the whole kingdom of grace,” is wholly beside the purpose: see reff., esp. Col 1:17, καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν: Job 8:3, ὁ τὰ πάντα ποιήσας: Rev 4:11, ὅτι σὺ ἔκτισας τὰ πάντα) by the word (expressed command: cf. ch. 11:3, πίστει νοοῦμεν κατηρτίσθαι τοὺς αἰῶνας ῥήματι θεοῦ) of his (Whose? His own, or the Father’s? The latter is held by Cyrilalex. contra Julian. viii. vol. ix. p. 259 c, ὡς γὰρ ὁ πάνσοφος γράφει Παῦλος· φέρει τὰ π. ἐν τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυν. αὐτοῦ, τοῦ πατρός. And so Grot., al. But Chrys., Thdrt., Thl., and the great body of Commentators understand αὐτοῦ to refer to the Son. That it may do so, it is not necessary to write αὑτοῦ, as is done in the cursive mss. (the uncial mss. being mostly without accents) and in many modern editions. Bleek in his note (vol. i. p. 69) makes it probable that the abbreviated writing αὑτοῦ for ἑαυτοῦ had not been adopted in the days of the N. T. Even if it had, his rule seems a good one;—that αὑτοῦ should never be written unless in cases where, if speaking in the 1st or 2nd person, we should use ἐμαυτοῦ or σεαυτοῦ,—i. e. never except where emphatic. Now here, supposing the words addressed to the Son, σοῦ and not σεαυτοῦ would evidently be the word used: and consequently in expressing the same sentence in the 3rd person, αὐτοῦ, not αὑτοῦ (ἑαυτοῦ) ought to be written. The interpretation therefore is independent of this distinction. But the question recurs, which is the right one? The strict parallelism of the clauses would seem to require, that αὐτοῦ here should designate the same person, as it does before, after τῆς ὑποστάσεως. But such parallelism and consistency of reference of demonstrative pronouns is by no means observed in the N. T., e. g. Eph 1:20, Eph 1:22, καὶ καθίσας ἐν δεξιᾷ αὺτοῦ (of the Father), … καὶ πάντα ὑπέταξεν ὑπὸ τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ (of the Son). In every such case the reference must be determined by the circumstances, and the things spoken of. And applying that test here, we find that in our former clause, ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τ. δόξης κ. χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ, it is quite out of the question that αὐτοῦ should be reflective, referring, as it clearly does, to another than the subject of the sentence. But when we proceed to our second clause, φέρων τε τὰ πάντα τῷ ῥ. τ. δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ, we find no such bar to the ordinary reflective sense of αὐτοῦ, but every reason to adopt it as the most obvious. For we have here an action performed by the Son, who φέρει τὰ πάντα. Whereby? τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ: where we may certainly say, 1. that had another than the subject of the sentence been intended, such intention would have been expressed: and, 2. that the assertion would be after all a strange and unexampled one, that the Son upholds all things by the word of the Father’s power. So that, on all accounts, this second αὐτοῦ seems better to be referred to the Son) power (not to be weakened into the comparatively unmeaning τῷ ῥήματι αὐτοῦ τῷ δυνατῷ. His Power is an inherent attribute, whether uttered or not: the ῥῆμα is that utterance, which He has been pleased to give of it. It is a “powerful word,” but much more is here stated—that it is the word of, proceeding from, giving utterance to, His power), having made (the vulg. “faciens” is an unfortunate mistranslation, tending to obscure the truth of the completion of the one Sacrifice of the Lord. The words διʼ ἑαυτοῦ can hardly be retained in the text, in the face of their omission in the three most ancient mss., joined to their internal character as an explanatory gloss. Dr. Bloomfield’s strong argument in their favour, that they “are almost indispensable,” in fact, pronounces their condemnation. The hypothesis of homœoteleuton suggests itself: but it is hardly likely in so solemn an opening passage, and weighs little against the probability the other way. Meanwhile, the gloss is a good and true one. It was διʼ ἑαυτοῦ, in the fullest sense) purification of sins (as Bleek observes, there is no occasion to suppose the genitive here equivalent to ἀπὸ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν, seeing that we may say καθαρίζονται αἱ ἁμαρτίαι τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, as we read, Mat 8:3, ἐκα θαρίσθη αὐτοῦ ἡ λέπρα. Sin was the great uncleanness, of which He has effected the purgation: the disease of which He has wrought the cure. This καθαρισμός must be understood by the subsequent argument in the Epistle: for that which the Writer had it in his mind to expand in the course of his treatise, he must be supposed to have meant when he used without explanation a concise term, like this. And that we know to have been, the purifications and sacrifices of the Levitical law, by which man’s natural uncleanness in God’s sight was typically removed, and access to God laid open to him. Ebrard’s note here is so important that, though long, I cannot forbear inserting it:—“καθαρίζειν answers to the Heb. טִהַר, and its ideal explanation must be sought in the meaning which suits the Levitical cleansing in the O. T.cultus. Consequently, they are entirely wrong, who understand καθαρίζειν of moral amelioration, and would so take καθαρισμὸν ποιεῖν in this place, as if the author wished to set forth Christ here as a moral teacher, who by precept and example incited men to amendment. And we may pronounce those in error, who go so far indeed as to explain the καθαρισμός of the propitiatory removal of the guilt of sin, but only on account of later passages in our Epistle, as if the idea of scriptural καθαρισμός were not already sufficiently clear to establish this, the only true meaning. The whole law of purification, as given by God to Moses, rested on the assumption that our nature, as sinful and guilt-laden, is not capable of coming into immediate contact with our holy God and Judge. The mediation between man and God present in the most holy place, and in that most holy place separated from the people, was revealed in three forms; α. in sacrifices, β. in the Priesthood, and γ. in the Levitical laws of purity. Sacrifices were (typical) acts or means of propitiation for guilt; Priests were the agents for accomplishing these acts, but were not themselves accounted purer than the rest of the people, having consequently to bring offerings for their own sins before they offered for those of the people. Lastly, Levitical purity was the condition which was attained, positively by sacrifice and worship, negatively by avoidance of Levitical pollution,—the condition in which the people was enabled, by means of the priests, to come into relation with God ‘without dying’ (Deu 5:26); the result of the cultus which was past, and the postulate for that which was to come. So that that which purified, was sacrifice: and the purification was, the removal of guilt. This is most clearly seen in the ordinance concerning the great day of atonement, Lev_16. There we find those three leading features in the closest distinctive relation. First, the sacrifice must be prepared (vv. 1-10): then, the high priest is to offer for his own sins (vv. 11-14): lastly, he is to kill the sin-offering for the people (ver. 15), and with its blood to sprinkle the mercy-seat and all the holy place, and cleanse it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel (ver. 19); and then he is symbolically to lay the sins of the people on the head of a second victim, and send forth this animal, laden with the curse, into the wilderness. For (ver. 30) ‘on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the Lord.’ In the atonement, in the gracious covering (יְכַפֵּר, ver. 30) of the guilt of sin, consists purification in the scriptural sense. (And so also were those who had become levitically unclean, e. g. lepers, Lev_14, cleansed by atoning sacrifices.) So that an Israelitish reader, a Christian Jew, would never, on reading the words καθαρισμὸν ποιεῖν, think on what we commonly call ‘moral amelioration,’ which, if not springing out of the living ground of a heart reconciled to God, is mere self-deceit, and only external avoidance of evident transgression: but the καθαρισμός which Christ brought in would, in the sense of our author and his readers, only be understood of that gracious atonement for all guilt of sin of all mankind, which Christ our Lord and Saviour has completed for us by His sinless sufferings and death: and out of which flows forth to us, as from a fountain, all power to love in return, all love to Him, our heavenly Pattern, and all hatred of sin, which caused His death. To speak these words of Scripture with the mouth, is easy: but he only can say Yea and Amen to them with the heart who, in simple truthfulness of the knowledge of himself, has looked down even to the darkest depths of his ruined state, natural to him, and intensified by innumerable sins of act,—and, despairing of all help in himself, reaches forth his hand after the good tidings of heavenly deliverance.” It is truly refreshing, in the midst of so much unbelief, and misapprehension of the sense of Scripture, in the German Commentators, to meet with such a clear and full testimony to the truth and efficacy of the Lord’s great Sacrifice. And I am bound to say that Bleek, De Wette, Lünemann, and Delitzsch, recognize this just as fully: the two former however referring on further in the Epistle for the explanation of the expression, and holding it premature to specify or explain it here. Observe now again, before passing on, the mistake of the vulgate in rendering ποιησάμενος “faciens.” The purification is completed, before the action next described takes place: this all seem to acknowledge here, and to find an exception to the ordinary rule that an aorist participle connected with an aorist verb, is contemporary with it. The reason seems to be principally pragmatic—that such session could not well be brought in until such purification had been accomplished: see above), sat down (καθίζω is always used intransitively in this Epistle, and always of this act of Christ. In fact it is always intransitive in the N. T., except in the two places, 1Co 6:4, τούτους καθίζετε, and Eph 1:20, καθίσας ἐν δεξιᾷ αὐτοῦ) on the right hand (‘in the right hand,’ scil. portion or side. The expression comes doubtless originally from Psa 110 (109):1, cited below. Bleek, in the course of a long and thorough discussion of its meaning as applied to our Lord, shews that it is never used of his præ-existent coequality with the Father, but always with reference to His exaltation in his humanity after his course of suffering and triumph. It is ever connected, not with the idea of His equality with the Father and share in the majesty of the Godhead, but with His state of waiting, in the immediate presence of the Father, and thus highly exalted by Him, till the purposes of his mediatorial office are accomplished. This his lofty state is, however, not one of quiescence; for (Act 2:33) He shed down the gift of the Spirit,—and (Rom 8:34) He maketh intercession for us: and below (ch. 8:1 ff.) He is, for all purposes belonging to that office, our High Priest in Heaven. This ‘sitting at the right hand of God’ is described as lasting until all enemies shall have been subdued unto Him, i. e. until the end of this state of time, and His own second coming: after which, properly and strictly speaking, the state of exaltation described by these words shall come to an end, and that mysterious completion of the supreme glory of the Son of God shall take place, which St. Paul describes, 1Co 15:28. On the more refined questions connected with the expression, see Delitzsch’s and Ebrard’s notes here) of majesty (μεγαλωσύνη, said to belong to the Alexandrine dialect, is often found in the LXX, and principally as referring to the divine greatness: see reff.) on high (in high places, i. e. in heaven. Cf. Psa 92:4, θαυμαστὸς ἐν ὑψηλοῖς ὁ κύριος, and 112:5, ὁ ἐν ὑψηλοῖς κατοικῶν: and the singular ἐν ὑψηλῷ, Isa 33:5: ἀφʼ ὑψηλοῦ, Isa 32:15: Jer_32 (25):30. In the same sense we have ἐν ὑψίστοις, Luk 2:14; Luk 19:38: Job 16:20: ἥλιος ἀνατέλλων ἐν ὑψίστοις κυρίου, Sir. 26:16: and ἐν τοῖς ὑψ., Mat 21:9: Mar 11:10. Cf. Ebrard: “Heaven, in Holy Scripture, signifies never unbounded space, nor omnipresence, but always either the starry firmament, or, more usually, that sphere of the created world of space and time, where the union of God with the personal creature is not severed by sin,—where no Death reigns, where the glorification of the body is not a mere hope of the future. Into that sphere has the Firstling of risen and glorified manhood entered, as into a place, with visible glorified Body, visibly to return again from thence.” There is a question whether the word should be joined with ἐκάθισεν, or with τῆς μεγαλωσύνης: which again occurs at ch. 8:1, where we have ὃς ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ θρόνου τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. The strict grammarians contend for the connexion with the verb, on account of the omission of the art. τῆς. But the order of the words in both places makes the other connexion the more natural; and no scholar versed in N. T. diction will object to it. Cf. τοῖς κυρίοις κατὰ σάρκα, Eph 6:5, and note, also Joh 6:32. The omission of the art. here gives majesty and solemnity—its insertion would seem to hint at other μεγαλωσύναι in the background).

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.