ACC ~ Hebrews 1 v1 - 4

OVERVIEW:

The first four verses of Hebrews 1 serve as an introduction to the whole epistle, and the Fathers saw them as anticipating the major doctrines of Christianity and guarding against some of the major heresies in the early church. (Note that the first passage by Theodoret of Cyr uses the prologue to summarize the content of the whole epistle.) The different ways in which God spoke through the prophets announced a major theological theme in Hebrews, namely, the relation between the Old and New Testaments. The passage of Theodoret of Cyr states the difference: “For Moses gave the Old Testament but Christ the New, which was promised through the prophets of old. The former promised that Palestine would be given; the latter, the kingdom of heaven.” Clement of Alexandria summarizes how the Scriptures are used to interpret Scripture. The heretics also use the Scriptures, he says, but they do not quote them entirely and wrest ambiguous passages from their contexts, gathering a few expressions here and there. Furthermore, they pay attention to mere words, not their sense. Although in the Old Testament God appeared under diverse guises (EPHREM), it was the Word of God that was operative in all those theophanies (EUSEBIUS). However, it is the Son who has the full knowledge of God the Father, and it is only who was able to make us partakers of the divine grace (CHRYSOSTOM). A later commentator, John of Damascus, concludes, citing Timothy, “To search the sacred Scripture is very good and most profitable for the soul.”

The Fathers used these opening verses to comment on their doctrines of God, Christology and the nature of angels. Chrysostom interprets the last days as the time when there was no expectation of deliverance. The term ages may signify material and spiritual worlds (EPHREM) as well as temporal periods (JOHN OF DAMASCUS). Generally, in the third and fourth century the pericope was used to discuss the doctrine of God; in the late fourth and fifth centuries writers like Theodore of Mopsuestia, Cyril of Alexandria and Chrysostom addressed the two natures of Christ as human and divine. Augustine states that Christ “was both a sheep, because of his innocence and simplicity of soul, and a goat because of the likeness of sinful flesh.” If the world could not hear God through the prophets, it should at least hear his crying from the cross (JEROME). Athanasius asks in the light of this passage how the Son of God can be made or be a creature when he made everything himself. The Son contains the whole and reflects the glory of God fully (ORIGEN, CHRYSOSTOM). Gregory of Nyssa explains the brightness imagery of this passage (not found in the RSV, which translates it as “he reflects the glory of God”), relating the role of the Son to the Father by explaining “the brightness of his glory” as his consubstantiality with the Father (THEODORET), which cannot be understood fully by the human mind (CHRYSOSTOM).

Since differing schools understood the two natures of Christ differently, the commentators did not always come to the same conclusions. Cyril of Alexandria emphasizes the union in God’s becoming flesh so that the divine redeems the flesh, while Theodoret carefully protects the distinctions between the human and the divine natures in Christ. “Though God by nature, he became human while remaining God” (CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA). “For the Lord Jesus Christ is heir of all things,” not as God but as human” (THEODORET). The writer of Hebrews uses metaphorical language to address the role of Christ in relation to the Old Testament, God and the angels. He describes the Son as “heir of all things,” the “stamp of his nature,” “sitting at the right hand of God.” Appointment of an heir refers to the profound mystery of relationship between the Father and the Son (PHOTIUS). The Fathers felt especially obliged to explain these metaphors to guard against misunderstandings of the text. Marius Victorinus and Cassiodorus comment on trinitarian allusions in Hebrews, Though we know these things in actuality as inexplicable and incomprehensible, some of the Fathers posit a parallel from physical and existent objects: in the sun we find three properties. The Son is begotten of the Father’s will, and in him the Father rejoices (ORIGEN). The fact that the Son is truly God justifies the title of Mary “Theotokos,” that is, God-bearer (THEODORET), since the divine nature has not been altered in the incarnation (NESTORIUS). The metaphor of the stamp of God’s image applies to the Son of God (CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA) and to all Christians who bear the image of God rather than that of the world (IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH). The “image of God’s substance” indicates the Son’s unity and consubstantiality with the Father (ORIGEN, ATHANASIUS) and the Son’s true divinity (ATHANASIUS), although the nature of the unity is a mystery (CYRIL OF JERUSALEM, GREGORY OF NYSSA). The Son shares with the Father creative and sustaining power (CHRYSOSTOM, GREGORY OF NYSSA). Cyril of Alexandria points out that the “image of the substance of God” is the foundation of the divine plan of salvation that culminates in our cleansing from sin through the sacrifice of the Lord (CHRYSOSTOM, EPHREM). The passage also prompted the Fathers to write brilliantly, as depicted in the Life of Anthony by Athanasius: “The fame of Anthony the first monk spread far and wide such that the emperor himself appealed to him for counsel. Anthony made nothing of the letters and emissaries sent to him and said, ‘Do not be astonished if an emperor writes to us, for he is a man. Wonder rather that God wrote the law for men and has spoken to us through his own Son.’”

The nature of Christ’s sitting at the right hand of the Father also was an image that required comment. Cyril of Jerusalem argued that one should not inquire too curiously into the precise nature of his sitting, for it surpasses our understanding. He argues that Christ did not begin sitting at the right hand of the Father only after his cross, resurrection and ascension. “He did not gain his throne by way of advancement, but from the time he is—and he is eternally begotten—he sits with the Father.” Sitting on the right hand of the Father signifies the equality of dignity between the Father and his true Son (CHRYSOSTOM). It is through the Son that the eyes of our hearts have been opened and we have been enlightened (CLEMENT OF ROME). Although the Son is called “servant,” he has preeminence over all created things (ATHANASIUS). Chrysostom uses the image of leading a child by degrees up a flight of stairs and down again to explain the theological images of the prologue. Frequently, because God had spoken already to the Israelites, they use Old Testament passages to explain what is not clear in Hebrews.

1:1 | God Spoke to the People of Old

BETTER THAN ALL THE PROPHETS. THEODORET OF CYR: The divine apostle immediately in the prologue demonstrates that Christ is better than all the prophets. Beginning with the divine nature, he shows him to be eternal—coeternal with the Father and the Creator of all. Next, contrasting him with the angels, he turns to sacred Scripture, which openly teaches that Christ is Son and God, while angels are ministers and creatures. He proceeds to show that the dispensation of our Lord Christ is greater than that of Moses, for Moses gave the Old Testament but Christ gave the New, which was promised through the prophets of old. The former promised that Palestine would be given; the latter, the kingdom of heaven. He compares the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek with the Levitical priesthood and demonstrates its superiority and excellence. In addition, he shows that even those who lived before the law or under the law and were nourished by piety were distinguished because of their faith. He speaks of them and their sufferings and courage, encouraging his hearers, who were in grave danger. Then, reminding his hearers of their own struggles and exhorting them to stand steadfast to the end and weaving together moral exhortation with doctrine, he closes the epistle. INTERPRETATION OF HEBREWS 1.

UNDER DIVERSE GUISES. EPHREM THE SYRIAN: “In many and various ways God spoke,” in the first place, “to our fathers by the prophets.” In fact, he evidently spoke in various and mutable manners to Noah, Abraham and Moses and to the people in the desert, appearing to them under the diverse guises of an old man, a giant and other characters. COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.

HE SET ALL TO RIGHTS. THEODORET OF CYR: The phrase “in many ways,” of course, indicates the manifold dispensations, “various ways,” the different kinds of divine visions. He appeared to Abraham in one way, to Moses in another, to Elijah in another, to Micaiah in another. Isaiah, Daniel and Ezekiel saw him under different guises. To bring this out the God of all said, “It was I who multiplied visions, and took visible form at the hands of the inspired authors.” After all, the divine nature is not pluriform, but without either shape or appearance, simple and uncomplicated. It was, therefore, not the incomprehensible nature that they saw but guises of some kind, which the unseen God revealed as need required. The phrase “in many ways,” of course, implies something else as well, that each of the inspired authors was entrusted with some particular dispensation, whereas their God—I mean Christ the Lord—did not provide for some single need, but by becoming man he set all to rights and secured the salvation of human beings. It became obvious, of course, that there is one lawgiver of the old and new. INTERPRETATION OF HEBREWS 1.

IN DIFFERENT TIMES, IN DIFFERENT MANNERS. SEVERIAN OF GABALA: “In many ways,” that is, according to the differences of the times in which the promises concerning us were imparted, such as at the creation of Adam, at the time of Cain, in the days of Noah, at the time of Abraham, at the time before the law, at the time after the law. For many are the manners of God’s administration on our behalf. And “in a variety of ways,” because one commandment was given to Adam, another to Noah, yet another to Abraham, and another through Moses, and yet different ones through the prophets. FRAGMENTS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 1.1-2.

NO CONTRADICTION IS INVOLVED. EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA: Holy Scripture teaches that God was seen by Israel dimly, meaning the Word of God. In the book of Numbers Moses prays, saying, “Since you are the Lord of this people who is seen by them face to face.” … And it is said in Exodus, “Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu and seventy of the elders of Israel went up, and they saw the God of Israel.” …

From the text, “No one has ever seen God,” perhaps it might be thought that the above quotations contradict the Savior’s words, implying that the invisible is visible. But if they are understood … as the Word of God, who was seen by the fathers “in many ways and various ways,” no contradiction is involved. The God of Israel here seen is shown to be the same being who was seen by Israel, when he wrestled with the one who first changed his name from Jacob to Israel, saying, “You have striven with God.” And when also Jacob, appreciating God’s divine power, called the place of the struggle the Sight of God, saying, “I have seen God face to face, and yet my life is preserved” … this was no other than the Word of God. PROOF OF THE GOSPEL 5.18.

COMPLETE EXHIBITION OF THE SCRIPTURES. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA: Those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits will not desist from the search after truth until they have evidence from the Scriptures themselves. … Now all people have the same judgment. Some, following the Word, frame for themselves proofs. Others, giving themselves up to pleasures, wrest Scripture according to their lusts. … We have, as the source of teaching, the Lord, by the prophets, the gospel, and the blessed apostles “in many and various ways” leading from the beginning of knowledge to the end. … Thus we may not give our assent to people on a bare statement by them, who might equally state the opposite. … Rather, we establish the matter that is in question by the voice of the Lord, which is the surest of all demonstrations or rather is the only demonstration, in which knowledge those who have merely tasted the Scriptures are believers. On the other hand, those who have advanced further and have become correct expounders of the truth are Gnostics. As, in what pertains to life, craftsmen are superior to ordinary people and model what is beyond common notions, so, consequently, we also persuade from faith by demonstration, giving a complete exhibition of the Scriptures from the Scriptures themselves. Those who follow heresies also venture to avail themselves of the prophetic Scriptures; however, they will not make use of all the Scriptures, and they will not quote them entirely, nor as the body and texture of prophecy prescribe. Instead, selecting ambiguous expressions, they wrest them to their own opinions, gathering a few expressions here and there. They do not look to the sense of the words but simply make use of the words themselves. For in almost all the quotations they make you will find that they attend to the names alone, while they alter the meanings. They neither know as they claim to nor use the quotations they cite according to their true nature. However, the truth is not found by changing the meanings—for so people subvert all true teaching—but in the consideration of what perfectly belongs to and becomes the sovereign God and in the corroboration of each point demonstrated in the Scriptures from similar Scriptures. STROMATEIS 7.16.

CHRIST IS CALLED WISDOM. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA: Christ is called Wisdom by all the prophets. This is he who is the teacher of all created beings, the fellow counselor of God who foreknew all things; and he from above, from the first foundation of the world, “in many and various ways” trains and perfects; hence it is rightly said, “Call no one your teacher on earth.” STROMATEIS 6.7.

ALL WISDOM IS FROM THE LORD. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA: And again, it is written expressly in the name of the Lord, “And speak to all that are wise in mind, whom I have filled with the spirit of perception.” Those who are wise in mind have a certain attribute of nature peculiar to themselves. And they who have shown themselves capable receive from the supreme Wisdom a spirit of perception in double measure. For those who practice the common arts are highly gifted in what pertains to the senses: in hearing, those who are commonly called musicians; in touch, those who mold clay; in voice, the singers; in smell, the perfumers; in sight, the engravers of devices on seals. Those that are occupied in instruction train the sensibility according to which the poets are susceptible to the influence of measure; the sophists apprehend expression; the dialecticians, syllogisms; and the philosophers are capable of the contemplation of which they themselves are the objects. For sensibility finds and invents, since it persuasively exhorts to application. And practice will increase the application which has knowledge for its end. With reason, therefore, the apostle has called the wisdom of God “manifold,” and it has manifested its power “in many and various ways”—by art, by knowledge, by faith, by prophecy—for our benefit. “All wisdom is from the Lord and is with him forever,” as says the Wisdom of Jesus. STROMATEIS 1.4.

BOTH SHEEP AND GOAT. AUGUSTINE: You see, those old sacrifices of the people of God also represented in a variety of ways this single one that was to come. Christ himself, I mean, was both a sheep, because of his innocence and simplicity of soul, and a goat because of “the likeness of sinful flesh.” And whatever else was foretold “in many and various ways” in the sacrifices of the old covenant refers to this single one which has been revealed in the new covenant. SERMON 228B.2.

YOU HAVE BEEN MADE PARTAKERS. CHRYSOSTOM: Truly, as Paul says in Romans, “where sin increased, grace abounded all the more.” He intimates this here also, in the very beginning of his epistle to the Hebrews, for it was likely that they [the recipients of the law] were afflicted and worn out by evils, and, judging things from that perspective, they would think themselves worse off than all other people. He shows here that they had rather been made partakers of a greater, even very exceeding, grace. Thus, with these words he arouses the hearer at the very opening of his discourse, saying, “God … in these last days … has spoken to us by a Son.” ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 1.1.

NONE OF THEM SAW GOD. CHRYSOSTOM: The apostle did well to begin, “In many and various ways,” for he points out that not even the prophets themselves saw God. Nevertheless, the Son saw him. For the expression “in many and various ways” is the same as “in various ways.” “It was I,” says he, “who multiplied visions and through the prophets gave parables.” The excellence consists not in this alone, that to them prophets were sent, while to us was sent the Son. Rather, the excellence consists in that none of them saw God, but the only begotten Son saw God. The apostle does not at once assert this, but by what he says afterwards he establishes it, when he says, concerning Christ’s human nature, “For to what angel did God ever say, ‘You are my Son,’” and, “Sit at my right hand?” ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 1.1.

FOR THE SAKE OF OUR SALVATION. JOHN OF DAMASCUS: The God proclaimed by the Old Testament and the New is the one who is celebrated and glorified in Trinity, for the Lord said, “I have come not to abolish the law, but to fulfill.” For he worked our salvation, for the sake of which all Scripture and every mystery has been revealed. Again, “Search the Scriptures, for it is they that bear witness to me.” And the apostle too says, “In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son.” Through the Holy Spirit, then, both the law and the prophets, evangelists, apostles, pastors and teachers spoke. Therefore, “all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable,” so that to search the sacred Scripture is very good and most profitable for the soul. ORTHODOX FAITH 4.17.

1:2 | God Has Spoken to Us by a Son

THEN WE WERE GIVEN MORE. CHRYSOSTOM: And the expressions “of old” and “in these last days” foreshadow some other meaning; when a long time had intervened, when we were on the edge of punishment, when the gifts had failed, when there was no expectation of deliverance, when we were expecting to have less than all—it was then that we were given more. ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 1.2.

BOTH WORLDS. EPHREM THE SYRIAN: Paul says, “through whom he made the worlds,” that is, both the spiritual and material worlds. COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.

HE CREATED THE AGES. THEODORET OF CYR: He spoke of the Son as “creator of the ages” to bring out that he is eternal and to teach us that he was always beyond any temporal interval whatsoever. In these terms the Old Testament speaks of the God and Father as the one existing before the ages, that is, the one who always is. INTERPRETATION OF HEBREWS 1.

THE TERM AGE HAS SEVERAL MEANINGS. JOHN OF DAMASCUS: He made the ages who exists before the ages, of whom the divine David says, “From everlasting to everlasting you are” and the divine apostle, “By whom he made the ages.”

Now one should note that the term age has several meanings, because it signifies a great many things. The span of life of every person is called an age, and a period of one thousand years is called an age. Moreover, this whole present life is called an age, and so is the age without end to come after the resurrection. Again, that is called an age which is neither time nor any division of time measured by the course and motion of the sun, that is, made up of days and nights; but it is coextensive with eternal things after the fashion of some sort of temporal period and interval. This kind of age is to eternal things exactly what time is to temporal things. ORTHODOX FAITH 2.1.

CREATOR OF THE AGES. THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA: “Through whom also he made the ages.” An age is not a nature that is able to exist in substance but is understood to be a certain interval. This interval can be perceived from its having a beginning of existence until its end or until some other age has likewise taken its beginning. … The “creator of the ages” means nothing different than “everlasting, existing beyond every age, having his own limitless existence.” For the maker exists before the things which are made, but an interval of time must be perceived by its having a beginning. … When blessed David says, “Who exists before the ages,” he does not wish this to say that God exists before the latter ages, but that God has eternal existence, being earlier than every interval of time. When Paul says, “through whom God also made the ages,” Paul does not wish God to be the creator of the later ages but to be eternal and the cause of all ages that have a beginning. FRAGMENTS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 1.2-3.

HE SPOKE TO US. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA: For at the end of the ages the Son himself spoke to us through himself. No longer through the mediation of a prophet or the voice of saints but through himself, the only begotten, by being born into our condition, spoke with us. And we say that the Father spoke in the Son, not as through a human being somehow established as a special kind of mediator or as one declaring a message to us which was not his own but another’s. Rather, the Son spoke to us in his own voice through his own body. For the flesh belonged to the only begotten and not to anyone else. Though God by nature, he became human while remaining God. COMMENTARY ON HEBREWS.

THE END OF LABORS AND THE BEGINNING OF REST. CHRYSOSTOM: He said, “in these last days,” for by this he both stirs up and encourages those despairing of the future. For as he says also in another place, “The Lord is at hand; have no anxiety about anything,” and again, “For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed.” So also here. What then does he say? That whoever is spent in the conflict, hearing of the end of it, recovers his breath a little, knowing that it is the end indeed of his labors and the beginning of his rest. ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 1.2.

HEIR OF ALL THINGS AS MAN. THEODORET OF CYR: “Whom he appointed heir of all things.” The divine apostle began with human beings, and after speaking first of the lowlier things he thus lays hold of the greater. In other words, Christ the Lord is heir of all things, not as God, but as man: as God he is maker of all things, and the creator of all things is Lord of all by nature, whereas the heir is made master of what he was previously not lord. In like manner the believers are heirs of God and coheirs with Christ: by grace they receive what they did not have before. INTERPRETATION OF HEBREWS 1.

NOT CREATED AS AN HEIR, BUT APPOINTED. SEVERIAN OF GABALA: “He spoke to us in his Son,” instead of “by the Son.” For he did not speak in him as an instrument but rather through him as one indwelling the flesh. … For when he had said, “He has spoken to us in his Son whom he appointed as an heir”—not “created as an heir”—he applied the word to his existence before the ages. And he does this intelligently, now leading us up into theology, now bringing us down into the incarnation. FRAGMENTS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 1.1-2.

THE MYSTERY OF THE FATHER AND THE SON. PHOTIUS: “Whom he appointed the heir of all.” Of what? Of all those who approach the undefiled divine nature. Indeed, the Son is the heir and partaker of the Father’s nature, dominion and power. If the Son is the heir of the Father’s attributes, it is necessary to explain, in what way. Through him, it says, he also created the ages [the world]. If the creation is a mutual deed of the Father and of the Son, then all that is in the world is also a shared property of the Father and the Son. If all in the spiritual universe belongs to both of them, then that is also true of what was created after the spiritual universe, that is, our world (cosmos) and everything in it. Yet in order that you would not dare to interpret “heir” as according to grace or favor rather than according to birth and nature, he adds, “who is the reflection of [God’s] glory.” The author had in mind to prevent you from a simpleminded yet ungodly conclusion after he stated that the Father appointed him an heir. I believe that “appointed” does not signify production or creation of the heir yet indicates relationship between the Son and the Father, who is the cause according to nature of their unity and convergence. [The writer does this] so that it would not appear as if the Son is deprived of the fatherly bond by his origin and hence the Father and the Son are two separate and unrelated entities. … He speaks in very clear terms, “the very stamp of his nature,” that is he [the Son] shares the same nature and mode of existence, that is he is God, all-powerful, omnipotent, creator, and shares in all other attributes of the Father, except that the Father is always the Father and the Son is always the Son. Therefore, everything is created, sustained and directed by his almighty word. See, he is truly the heir, as the Father handed everything to him. FRAGMENTS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 1.2-3.

MAY THE WORLD HEAR HIM IN HIS CRYING. JEROME: He, who first spoke through patriarchs and prophets, afterwards spoke in his own person. As the Song of Songs says, “that he would kiss me with the kisses of his mouth.” He is saying, therefore, “Now, in my own person, I speak of him of whom I spoke through the prophets.” The world could not hear him in his thundering, but may it hear him, at least, in his crying. HOMILIES ON THE PSALMS, ALTERNATE SERIES 66 (PSALM 88).

BE ASTONISHED THAT GOD SPEAKS. ATHANASIUS: The fame of Anthony came even unto kings, for Constantine Augustus and his sons … wrote letters to him as to a father and begged an answer from him. He made nothing very much of the letters, nor did he rejoice at the messages; rather, he was the same as he had been before the emperors wrote to him. But when they brought him the letters, he called the monks and said, “Do not be astonished if an emperor writes to us, for he is a man. Wonder rather that God wrote the law for men and has spoken to us through his own Son.” And so he was unwilling to receive the letters, saying that he did not know how to write an answer to such things. But at the urgings of the monks because the emperors were Christians and lest the emperors take offense on the ground that they had been spurned, he consented that the letters be read. And he wrote an answer approving of them because they worshiped Christ, and he gave them counsel on things pertaining to salvation: “not to think much of the present, but rather to remember the judgment that is coming, and to know that Christ alone was the true and eternal king.” He begged them to be merciful and to give heed to justice and the poor. Having received the answer, they rejoiced. Thus he was dear to all, and all desired to consider him as a father. LIFE OF ST. ANTHONY 81.

SIGNIFYING BOTH SONSHIPS IN A SINGLE EXPRESSION. THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA: He does not say, “God spoke to us in the Son” but simply “in a Son.” By saying this and making no separation, he was able to signify both in a single expression. First of all, he signifies the true Son, and by true Son I mean the one who possesses sonship by his natural birth. In the second place, he also includes in this designation the one who shares truly in the dignity of sonship because of his union with God. FRAGMENTS ON THE TREATISE ON THE INCARNATION 12.1.

FIRST SLAVES, THEN A SON. THEODORET OF CYR: He clearly brought out the difference between Christ the Lord and the prophets, calling him alone “Son.” The opening resembles the parable of the Lord: in telling the parable about the vineyard to the Jews, the Lord showed that slaves were first sent to the wicked farmers, then after their murder a son arrived. INTERPRETATION OF HEBREWS 1.

1:3 | The Stamp of God’s Nature

THE SON REFLECTS THE WHOLE GLORY OF GOD. ORIGEN: In my opinion, the Son is the reflection of the total glory of God, according to Paul who said, “He reflects the glory of God,” anticipating, however, a partial reflection on the rest of the rational creation from this reflection of the total glory. For I do not think that anyone except the Son can contain the whole reflection of the full glory of God. COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN 32.353.

RADIANCE AS THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD. CHRYSOSTOM: “I am the light of the world.” Therefore the apostle uses the word radiance, showing that this was said in the sense of “Light of Light.” Nor is it this alone which he shows, but also that he has enlightened our souls. ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 2.2.

THERE WOULD BE NO RAY WITHOUT THE SUN. GREGORY OF NYSSA: The majesty of the Father is expressly imaged in the greatness of the power of the Son, that the one may be believed to be as great as the other is known to be. Again, as the radiance of light sheds its brilliance from the whole of the sun’s disk … so too all the glory which the Father has is shed from its whole by means of the brightness that comes from it, that is, by the true Light. Even as the ray is of the sun—for there would be no ray if the sun were not—the sun is never conceived as existing by itself without the ray of brightness that is shed from it. So the apostle delivered to us the continuity and eternity of that existence which the Only Begotten has of the Father, calling the Son “the brightness of God’s glory.” AGAINST EUNOMIUS 8.1.

CHRIST PRESERVES AN ACCURATE REPRESENTATION. THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA: “Who, being the radiance of glory and the exact representation of his substance.” Quite appropriately he does not say “God” but “glory.” In this way he does not allow us to meddle in the things of that nature when we are thunderstruck by his name, since of course the only “glory” worth mentioning is God’s nature. Paul uses the analogy of “radiance” for that which he deemed most essential, and by the next phrase he explicates the point of the analogy. For he says that Christ preserves an accurate representation of God’s nature, so that whatever you would think God’s nature to be, so you must also think Christ’s nature to be, inasmuch as Christ’s nature bears the accurate representation of God’s nature since Christ’s nature does not differ from God’s in the least. FRAGMENTS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 1.2-3.

IN THE SUN WE FIND THREE PROPERTIES. CASSIODORUS: The Spirit in the essence of divinity is Father, Son and Holy Spirit and is properly called one God. But according to the distinction of the persons, the Father’s unique characteristic is that he is by nature without a beginning, and he begot the Son before the ages. It is the unique characteristic of the Son that he is, as an essential part of his nature, begotten by the Father. It is the unique characteristic of the Spirit that he proceeds from the Father and the Son. Their eternity and power, equally part of the essence of each person, performs everything that the Godhead desires in heaven and earth by inexpressible love and cooperation. Although these things are presently understood as incomprehensible and unexplainable to us in their essential nature, still many of the Fathers propose a certain comparison with physical and existent objects. We find these three properties in the sun: first, there is a bodily substance, which is the sun. Then there is the brightness of the sun that remains in it. Third, is the heat that comes forth even to us from its brightness. If there is even any comparison for such a great matter that can be devised, I think that this comparison should be construed in this way: the bodily substance in the sun could be understood as the person of the Father. The brightness that is in the sun could stand for the person of the Son in the Trinity, as the Apostle says: “the brightness of his glory.” The heat in the sun could be understood as the person of the Holy Spirit in the Trinity, as one reads in Scripture: “Who is able to hide himself from his heat?” EXPOSITION OF THE PSALMS 50.14.

THE BLASPHEMY IS EXCLUDED. THEODORET OF CYR: The “glory” is eternal. Therefore, the “brightness” is also eternal. Brightness is of the same nature as fire. Therefore, the Son is of the same nature as the Father. And since the metaphor of brightness so manifestly demonstrates their coeternity and consubstantiality, he allows an opportunity for those sick with the blasphemy of Sabellius and Photinus, according to which the brightness does not subsist by itself. By another metaphor he excludes this blasphemy, for he goes on to say “and the very stamp of his nature.” INTERPRETATION OF HEBREWS 1.

A SIMILARITY TO JOHN 1:1. THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA: Indeed, there is a great deal of similarity [between the opening of John’s Gospel and] the apostle’s statement. After Paul calls him “the brightness of his glory,” he adds, “the very stamp of his nature.” With great care he turns from a statement of their distinction to an indication of their perfect likeness. COMMENTARY ON JOHN 1.1.1.

RADIANCE AND IMAGE. SEVERIAN OF GABALA: Seeking to present more clearly that the Word was begotten of the essence of the Father, he makes mention of the “radiance.” For the radiance is from the essence of that of which it is an efflux of light, and it is continuously conceived both from it and never apart from that of which it is the radiance. But since “radiance” implies a lesser nature than that of which it is the radiance and existence not in the same nature, he uses a different word and states that Christ is “the exact image of his nature.” The first phrase (“radiance of his glory”) demonstrates that Christ cannot be separated from the essence as God; the second phrase (“exact image of his nature”) proves that he is not without God’s nature. For just as John, calling Christ “the Word,” adds, “he was with God and was God,” so also Paul, having said “radiance,” added, “and the exact image of his nature.” FRAGMENTS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 1.3.

PAUL MIGHT HAVE SAID “GOD” OR “DIVINE NATURE.” THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA: He is the “Father of glory” in that Paul is accustomed to use the word glory to refer to the divine nature, because it is glorious and marvelous. So in Hebrews he says the Son is the “brightness of his glory.” Instead of this he might have said “God” or “divine nature.” COMMENTARY ON EPHESIANS 1.16.

WHO HAS SEEN LIGHT WITHOUT RADIANCE? ATHANASIUS: As the apostle, writing to the Hebrews, says, “who being the brightness of his glory and the stamp of his nature,” and David too in the eighty-ninth Psalm, “And the brightness of the Lord be upon us,” and “in your light shall we see light.” Who has so little sense as to doubt the eternity of the Son? For when did anyone see light without the brightness of its radiance, that one may say of the Son, “There was once when he was not,” or “Before his generation he was not.” And the words addressed to the Son in the hundred and forty-fourth Psalm, “Your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom,” forbid anyone to imagine any interval at all in which the Word did not exist. FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS 1.4.12.

WE RECOGNIZE TWO NATURES IN CHRIST. GREGORY OF NYSSA: Since we recognize two natures in Christ, one divine and the other human, the divine by nature but the human in the incarnation, we accordingly claim for the Godhead that which is eternal, and that which is created we ascribe to his human nature. For as, according to the prophet, he was formed in the womb as a servant, so also, according to Solomon, he was manifested in the flesh by means of this servile creation. But when [the Arians] say, “If he was, he was not begotten, and, if he was begotten, he was not,” let them learn that it is not fitting to ascribe to his divine nature the attributes which belong to his fleshly origin. For bodies that do not exist are generated, and God makes those things to be that are not. But does not he come into being from that which is not? For this reason also Paul calls him “the brightness of glory.” He does this so that we may learn that, just as the light from the lamp is of the nature of that which sheds the brightness and is united with it (for as soon as the lamp appears the light that comes from it shines out simultaneously), in like manner the Son is related to the Father, and the Father is never without the Son. It is impossible that glory should be without radiance, as it is impossible that the lamp should be without brightness. It is clear that his being brightness is a testimony to his being in relation with the glory, for if the glory did not exist, the brightness shed from it would not exist. Therefore, to say that the brightness “once was not” is a declaration that once the glory also was not, that is, when the brightness was not, for it is impossible that the glory should be without the brightness. As therefore it is not possible to say in the case of the brightness, “If it was, it did not come into being, and, if it came into being, it was not,” so it is in vain to say this of the Son, seeing that the Son is the brightness. Let those who speak of “less” and “greater,” in the case of the Father and the Son, learn from Paul not to measure things immeasurable. For the apostle says that the Son is the express image of the person of the Father. It is clear then that, however great the person of the Father is, so great also is the express image of that person, for it is not possible that the express image should be less than the person contemplated in it. And this the great John also teaches when he says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God.” For in saying that he was “in the beginning” and not “after the beginning,” he showed that the beginning was never without the Word. In declaring that “the Word was with God,” he signified the absence of defect in the Son in relation to the Father, for the Word is contemplated as a whole together with the whole being of God. For if the Word were deficient in his own greatness so as not to be capable of relation with the whole being of God, we are compelled to suppose that that part of God which extends beyond the Word is without the Word. But in fact the whole magnitude of the Word is contemplated together with the whole magnitude of God, and consequently, in statements concerning the divine nature, it is not admissible to speak of “greater” and “less.” ON THE FAITH.

WHEN OUR DISCOURSE FAILS THROUGH WEAKNESS. CHRYSOSTOM: We ought to receive all things with faith and reverence, and, when our discourse fails through weakness and is not able to set forth accurately the things that are spoken, then we ought especially to glorify God, in that we have such a God, surpassing both our thought and our conception. For many of our conceptions about God we are unable to express, and many things we express but do not have strength to conceive. For instance, that God is everywhere we know, but how we do not understand. That there is a certain incorporeal power, the cause of all our good things, we know, but how it is or what it is, we know not. We speak and do not understand! I said that he is everywhere, but I do not understand it. I said that he is without beginning, but I do not understand it. I said that he begot from himself, and again I know not how I shall understand it. And some things there are that we may not even speak—as, for instance, that thought conceives but cannot utter.

And to show you that even Paul is weak and does not put out his illustrations with exactness, and to make you tremble and refrain from searching too far, hear what he says, having called him Son and named him Creator, “who being the brightness of his glory and the express image of his person.” ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 2.1.

IN WHOM HE REJOICED. ORIGEN: Now this Son was begotten of the Father’s will, for he is the “image of the invisible God” and the “effulgence of God’s glory and the impress of God’s substance.” … Let those who dare to say, “There was a time when the Son was not” understand that this is what they are saying: “Once wisdom did not exist, and word did not exist, and life did not exist.” But it is not right, nor is it safe for us, in our weakness to rob God … of God’s only begotten Word, who ever dwells with God, who is God’s wisdom, in whom God rejoiced. For if we do this, we shall think of God as not always rejoicing. ON FIRST PRINCIPLES 4.1.

THE DIVINE NATURE HAS NOT BEEN ALTERED. NESTORIUS: That is why Paul also says, “Who is the radiance of his glory,” lest someone who had heard the words “he was in the form of God” should conjecture that his divine nature is transitory and has been altered. FIRST SERMON AGAINST THE THEOTOKOS.

SHE IS THE BRIGHTNESS OF THE ETERNAL LIGHT. ORIGEN: The apostle Paul says, that the only begotten Son is … “the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person.” Now, we find in the treatise called the Wisdom of Solomon the following description of the wisdom of God: “For she is the breath of the power of God, and the purest emanation of the glory of the Almighty.” Nothing that is polluted can therefore come upon her, for she is the splendor of the eternal light, the stainless mirror of God’s working and the image of his goodness. Now we say, as before, that Wisdom has her existence nowhere else but in him who is the beginning of all things, from whom also is derived everything that is wise, because he himself is the only one who is by nature a Son, and is therefore called the Only Begotten. ON FIRST PRINCIPLES 1.2.5.

WE CALL THE HOLY VIRGIN THEOTOKOS. THEODORET OF CYR: I wish and I pray that I may follow the footprints of the holy fathers, and I earnestly desire to keep undefiled the evangelic teaching that was in sum delivered to us by the holy fathers assembled in council at the Bithynian Nicaea. I believe that there is one God the Father and one Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father. Also that there is one Lord Jesus Christ, only- begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages, brightness of his glory and express image of the Father’s person, on account of humanity’s salvation incarnate and made human and born of Mary the virgin in the flesh. For so are we taught by the wise Paul … , “Concerning his Son who was descended from David according to the flesh and designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness.” On this account we also call the holy virgin “Theotokos” and deem those who object to this appellation to be alienated from true religion. LETTER 83.

THE SON EXISTS IN THE FORM OF GOD. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA: Does not the divine Word [Scripture] indicate to us that the Son exists in the form of God, and does it not say that he is the image and stamp of the one who begot him? ON THE INCARNATION 686.

TWO STAMPS. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH: There are two coinages, the one of God, the other of the world, and each has its own stamp impressed on it. Similarly, the unbelievers bear the stamp of this world, and the believers the stamp of God the Father in love through Jesus Christ. Unless we willingly choose to die through him in his passion, his life is not in us. LETTER TO THE MAGNESIANS 5.

SIMILAR IN EVERY DETAIL. ORIGEN: In order … to more completely understand how the Savior is the figure of the person or subsistence of God, let us use an illustration. While it does not describe the subject of which we are treating either fully or appropriately, it may nevertheless be employed for this purpose only: to show that when the Son of God, who was in the form of God, emptied himself, his object was to display to us by this very emptying the fullness of his deity. For instance, suppose that there were a statue of so enormous a size as to fill the whole world, and because of this could be seen by no one. If another statue were formed altogether resembling it in the shape of the limbs, and in the outline of features, and in form and material, but without the same immensity of size, then those who were unable to behold the one of enormous proportions, should, on seeing the latter, acknowledge that they had seen the former, because it preserved all the features of its limbs and appearance, and even the very form and material, so closely as to be altogether undistinguishable from it. ON FIRST PRINCIPLES 1.2.8.

AGAINST ARIUS. ATHANASIUS: Who that has heard the words of John, “In the beginning was the Word,” will not denounce the saying of [Arius and his followers] that “there was a time when he was not”? Or who that has heard in the Gospel, “the only begotten Son” and “all things came into being through him,” will not detest their declaration that he is “one of the things that were made”? For how can he be one of those things that were made by himself? Or how can he be the only begotten, when, according to them, he is counted as one among the rest, since he is himself a creature and a work? And how can he be “made of things that were not,” when the Father says, “My heart has uttered a good Word,” and “Out of the womb I have begotten you before the morning star”? Or again, how is he “unlike in substance to the Father,” seeing he is the perfect “image” and “brightness” of the Father, and that he says, “He who has seen me has seen the Father”? And if the Son is the “Word” and “Wisdom” of God, how was there “a time when he was not”? It is the same as if they should say that God was once without Word and without Wisdom. And how is he “subject to change and variation” who says by himself, “I am in the Father, and the Father in me,” and “I and the Father are one”; and who by the prophet says, “I the Lord do not change”? For although one may refer this expression to the Father, yet it may now be more aptly spoken of the Word, that, though he has been made man, he has not changed. But as the apostle has said, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and for ever.” And who can have persuaded them to say that he was made for us, for Paul writes, “for whom and by whom all things exist”? DEPOSITION OF ARIUS 3.

HE IS TRUE GOD. ATHANASIUS: Therefore, he is true God, existing consubstantially (homoousios) with the true Father, while other beings to whom he said, “I say, ‘you are gods,’” have this grace from the Father only by participation in the Word through the Spirit. For he is the “very stamp” of the Father’s “being,” and “light” from “light,” and the “power” and true “image” of the Father’s substance. FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS 1.3.9.

LET US NOT VENTURE WHERE SCRIPTURE DOES NOT LEAD. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM: Every grace is given by the Father through the Son, who also acts together with the Holy Spirit. There are not some graces that come from the Father and different graces from the Son and others again from the Holy Spirit. There is but one salvation, one giving of power, one faith; and yet there is one God the Father, our Lord, his only begotten Son, and one Holy Spirit, the Paraclete. Let us be content with this knowledge and not busy ourselves with questions about the divine nature or hypostasis. I would have spoken of that had it been contained in Scripture. Let us not venture where Scripture does not lead, for it suffices for our salvation to know that there is Father and Son and Holy Spirit. CATECHETICAL LECTURES 16.24.

THE UNDERLYING ESSENCE OF BEING HE DISMISSED AS UNNAMABLE. GREGORY OF NYSSA: When he was asking how to give a name to what cannot be grasped in thought and did not discover a word expressing an interpretation of the incomprehensible, he called “glory” and “substance” whatever underlies all good and is not sufficiently known or spoken of. The underlying essence of being he dismissed as unnamable. However, interpreting the unity and inseparability of the Son and the Father, and the Son’s being contemplated indefinably and invisibly with the indefinable and unseen Father, he addressed him as “radiance of glory” and “image of substance,” indicating the unity of their nature by the word radiance and their equality by the word image. For, in connection with a radiant nature, there is no middle point in a beam of light, nor is there an inferior part of an image in connection with a substance determined by it. The observer of the radiant nature will know the radiance in its entirety, and the person comprehending the size of the substance measures it in its entirety with its accompanying image. ON PERFECTION.

THE SUBSTANCE OF GOD. MARIUS VICTORINUS: The Greeks call “to be” ousian (substance) or hypostasin; we call it in Latin by one term, substance; and a few Greeks use ousian (substance) and rarely; all use hypostasin (hypostasis). Certainly one differs from the other, but for the moment let us omit this.

The divine Scripture has often used hypostasin in Greek, substance in Latin. And it has said of the substance of God in the prophet Jeremiah “that if they had stood in the substance of the Lord they would have seen my word.” But what is it “to stand in the substance”? To know the substance of God, which is “true light,” which is infinite Spirit. If they had known that, they would have known the Logos of the Lord; that is, “they would have seen the word” of the Lord. And shortly after, the same Jeremiah uses the same words.

David says, “And my substance is in the lower regions of the earth.” He speaks also of God and says “substance.” And it is clear what this is.

The apostle says to the Hebrews, “He who is the character of his substance.” He said that Christ is the character of the substance of God. There are many other examples. But what is the point of all this? To show that the word substance is in Scripture and is used of the substance of God. ON THE NECESSITY OF ACCEPTING HOMOOUSIOS 2.1B.

TO HOLD THE WORLD TOGETHER IS NO LESS THAN TO MAKE IT. CHRYSOSTOM: “God said,” it is written, “Let there be light.” “The Father,” says one [heretic], “commanded, and the Son obeyed.” But here the Son acts by word for, says he, “upholding all things,” that is, governing. He holds together what would fall to pieces, for to hold the world together is no less than to make it but even greater, if one must say a strange thing. For the one is to bring forth something out of things which are not; but the other, when things that have been made are about to fall back into nonexistence, is to hold and fasten them together, utterly at variance as they are with each other. This is indeed great and wonderful, and a certain proof of exceeding power. ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 2.2.

ALL THINGS HANG ON HIS VOICE. THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA: He not only says that he is the maker of all things, but that he certainly also makes them by the great abundance of his power, for all things hang upon his voice, as it were. For this expression “who calls into existence the things that do not exist” does not differ from the account of blessed Moses, who says, “And God said, ‘Let there be light’ and there was light … ‘Let there be a firmament’ and there was a firmament.” FRAGMENTS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 1.3.

HIS STRONG WORKS OF WORDS. SEVERIAN OF GABALA: This is what Jeremiah calls “his strong works of words.” FRAGMENTS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 1.3.

ALL THINGS HAVE ONE CAUSE OF THEIR SUBSTANCE. GREGORY OF NYSSA: The Logos “upholds the universe by his word of power” from nonexistence to existence. For all things, as many as exist in connection with matter and as many as have received an immaterial nature, have one cause of their substance: the Word of unspeakable power. ON PERFECTION.

ONE MYSTERY, MANY IMAGES. THEODORET OF CYR: In this way the divine apostle in several terms brought out the reality of the begetting, the oneness in being and the shared eternity of the Father and the Son. Since the divinity transcends all understanding, and it is impossible to bring out in one single image the mystery of the true doctrine of God, the preachers of the truth are obliged to do so by means of many. … Blessed Paul called him “Son” to show him to be different from the Father in regard to personhood; he spoke of him “as creator of the ages” to bring out in these ways his eternity and called him also “effulgence of glory” to indicate by this his shared eternity and the sameness of being, the effulgence being of the nature of the fire. He added that he is “stamp of his nature” to bring out both things at the same time, that he subsists of himself and that he reveals in himself the paternal characteristics. He adds also something else: “upholding all things by the word of his power.” He not only made everything but also directs and guides it. INTERPRETATION OF HEBREWS 1.

THE ECONOMY OF THE INCARNATION. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA: He continues with the following words: “When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has obtained is more excellent than theirs.” Having demonstrated that he is the stamp of the Father’s hypostasis and, indeed, the brightness of his glory, he necessarily passes over to the economy of the incarnation, through which we have been saved and enriched by the forgiveness of sins and sanctified through his blood. COMMENTARY ON HEBREWS.

HE WAS NOT KEPT FAR FROM THE THRONE OF GOD. SEVERIAN OF GABALA: Even if the Word became flesh, he nonetheless was in the glory and nature of divinity and was not kept far from the highest thrones of God the Father. And although “he was made a little lower than the angels” because of the measure of his humanity—for human nature is subordinate to the glory of the angels—he was still “above every name that is named.” FRAGMENTS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 1.3.

ACCOMPLISHED THROUGH THE SON. CHRYSOSTOM: “By himself,” says he, “having made purification for our sins, he sat down on the right hand of the majesty on high.” He here sets down two very great proofs of his care: first the “purifying us from our sins,” then the doing it “by himself.” And in many places you see him making very much of this—not only of our reconciliation with God, but also of this being accomplished through the Son. For the gift, being truly great, was made even greater by the fact that it was through the Son. For in saying “he sat down on the right hand” and “having by himself made purification for our sins,” though he had put us in mind of the cross, he quickly added the mention of the resurrection and ascension. And see his unspeakable wisdom. He did not say “he was commanded to sit down” but “he sat down.” Then again, lest you should think that he stands, he subjoins, “For to what angel has he ever said, Sit at my right hand.” ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 2.2.

BECAUSE OF THE FLESH. EPHREM THE SYRIAN: “He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high” because of the flesh he put on. COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.

LET US NOT TOO CURIOUSLY INQUIRE. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM: Recall also what I have often said regarding the sitting of the Son at the right hand of the Father, according to the sequence of the creed: “and he ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father.” Let us not too curiously inquire into the precise nature of this sitting, for it surpasses our understanding. Let us not endure those who perversely assert that it was only after his cross and resurrection and ascension into heaven that the Son began to sit at the right hand of the Father. For he did not gain his throne by way of advancement, but from the time he is—and he is eternally begotten—he sits with the Father. The prophet Isaiah, having beheld this throne before the coming of the Savior in the flesh, says, “I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up.” For “no one has ever seen” the Father, and he who then appeared to the prophet was the Son. The psalmist also says, “Your throne is established from of old; you are from everlasting.” There are many testimonies on this point, but we will content ourselves with these only, because of the lateness of the hour. CATECHETICAL LECTURES 14.27.

EQUAL DIGNITY. CHRYSOSTOM: “He sat,” says he, “on the right hand of the majesty on high.” What is this “on high”? Does he enclose God in place? Away with such a thought! But just as when he says “on the right hand” he did not describe his outward form, but indicated his equal dignity with the Father, so, in saying “on high,” he did not enclose him there but expressed his being higher than all things and having ascended up above all things. That is, he attained even the very throne of the Father; as therefore the Father is on high, so also is he. For the “sitting together” implies nothing else than equal dignity. But if they say that God said, “Sit,” we may ask them, What then? Did he speak to him standing? Moreover, he said not that he commanded, not that he enjoined, but that “he said,” precisely that you might not think him without origin and without cause. That this is why he said it is evident from the place of his sitting, for had he intended to signify inferiority, he would not have said “on the right hand” but “on the left hand.” ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 2.2.

1:4 | A Most Excellent Name

HE PRONOUNCES ALL THINGS INFERIOR. OECUMENIUS: Do not suppose the word “having become” applies to the flesh. So that you may not be thought to divide Christ, understand the word to apply to Christ who is worshiped in one nature with his flesh. For having once and for all undertaken his reign, he pronounces all things inferior without fear. FRAGMENTS ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 1.4.

UNDERSTANDING SHOOTS UP INTO THE LIGHT. CLEMENT OF ROME: This is the way, dear friends, in which we found our salvation, Jesus Christ, the high priest of our offerings, the protector and helper of our weakness. Through him we fix our gaze on the heights of heaven. In him we see mirrored God’s pure and transcendent face. Through him the eyes of our hearts have been opened. Through him our foolish and darkened understanding springs up to the light. Through him the Master has willed that we should taste immortal knowledge. For, since “he reflects the glory of God,” “he is as much superior to the angels as the name he has obtained is more excellent than theirs.” For thus it is written: “He makes his angels winds, and his servants flames of fire.” But of his Son this is what the Master said: “You are my son, today I have begotten you. Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession.” And again he says to him, “Sit at my right hand till I make your enemies your footstool.” Who are meant by “enemies”? Those who are wicked and resist his will. 1 CLEMENT 36.1-6.

THE SON OF GOD BY NATURE. CHRYSOSTOM: Do you see that the name Son is intended to declare true relationship? And indeed if he were not a true Son—and “true” is nothing else than “of God”—how does he reason confidently from this? For if he is Son only by grace, he not only is not “more excellent than the angels” but is even less than they. ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HE-BREWS 2.2.

BETTER AND OTHER. ATHANASIUS: Both in the verse before us then and throughout he ascribes the word “better” to the Lord, who is better and other than originated things. For better is the sacrifice through him, better the hope in him, and also the promises through him, not merely great as compared with small, but the one differing from the other in nature, because he who conducts this economy is “better” than things originated. FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS 1.13.59(8).

SUPERIOR TO ANGELS. THEODORET OF CYR: This is spoken with reference to the humanity. As God he is maker of angels and Lord of angels, while as man he became superior to angels after the resurrection and ascension into heaven since he was also less than angels on account of experiencing death. … So just as he was less than angels as man, since they have an immortal nature whereas he endured the passion, so after the ascension into heaven he became superior to the angels. INTERPRETATION OF HEBREWS 1.

THE SON EXCELS A SERVANT. ATHANASIUS: Whereas the prophets ministered and the law was spoken by angels, the Son too came on earth in order to minister. The apostle was forced to add “become as much superior to angels,” wishing to show that just as much as the Son excels a servant is the ministry of the Son better than the ministry of servants. Contrasting the old ministry and the new, the apostle then speaks freely to the Jews, writing and saying, “become as much superior to angels.” This is why throughout he uses no comparison such as “become greater” or “more honorable,” lest we should think of the Son and angels as one in kind, but “better” is his word, by way of marking the difference of the Son’s nature from things originated. And we have proof of this from divine Scripture: David, for instance, saying in the psalm, “A day in your courts is better than a thousand,” and Solomon crying out, “Take my instruction instead of silver, and knowledge rather than choice gold; for wisdom is better than jewels, and all that you may desire cannot compare with her.” Are not wisdom and stones of the earth different in essence and separate in nature? Are heavenly courts at all akin to earthly houses? Or is there any similarity between things eternal and spiritual and things temporal and mortal? … In like manner there is no relationship between the Son and the angels; thus the word better is not used to compare but to contrast, because of the difference of his nature from theirs. And so also the apostle himself, when he interprets the word better, places its force in nothing less than the Son’s preeminence over things originated, calling the one Son and the other servants. The one, as a Son with the Father, sits on God’s right; and the others, as servants, stand before God and are sent and serve. FOUR DISCOURSES AGAINST THE ARIANS 1.13.55(3).

SEE BY HOW MANY STEPS HE LED THEM. CHRYSOSTOM: One who leads a little child up to some lofty place, even reaching to the top of heaven, does this gently and by degrees, leading him upwards by the steps from below. Then, when he has set the child on high and encouraged him to gaze downwards, he sees the child turning giddy and confused and dizzy. He takes hold of him and leads him down to the lower stand, allowing him to take breath. Then, when the child has recovered, he leads him up again, and again brings him down. In the same way the blessed Paul has done, both with the Hebrews and everywhere, having learned it from his master. For even Jesus did so. Sometimes he led his hearers up high, and sometimes he brought them down, not allowing them to remain very long.

See here, then, by how many steps he led them up and placed them near the very summit of religion. See too that when they grow giddy and are seized with dizziness, he leads them down and allows them to take breath, saying, “God has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things.” For the name of Son is so far common. … And see how he says, “who he appointed the heir of all things.” The phrase “he appointed the heir” is humble. Then he placed them on the higher step, adding, “through whom also he created the world.” Then he placed them on a higher step still, after which there is no other: “He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature.” Truly he has led them to unapproachable light, to the very brightness itself. And before they are blinded, see how he gently leads them down again, saying, “upholding the universe by his word of power, when he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty.” He does not simply say “he sat down” but “when he had made purification, he sat down.” For he has in these words touched on the incarnation, and his utterance is again lowly. ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 1.3.