Understanding Hebrews 1 — A Non-Trinitarian Interpretation

This article provides a non-trinitarian understanding of Hebrews 1, consistent with a view that Jesus’s sonship toward God is a property of His humanity, rather than His divinity. As discussed elsewhere on this site, there are advantages of theological and textual consistency that come from this kind of a change, specifically in areas where New Testament authors draw a parallel between Jesus’s sonship and that of an everyday (non-divine) Christian.

Because Hebrews 1 speaks a lot about the Son’s deity, this section of scripture is often used as a prooftext for divine sonship. Without question the Son is divine, but I argue that this chapter is better explained by appealing to the nature of Christ (union of God and man) rather than the nature of God (plurality of persons in the godhead).

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. (Heb 1:1-2)

The author begins by introducing a character known as the “Son”, and posturing Him as supreme over the prophets because of two key attributes:

1. He is the heir of all things
2. God created the world through Him

The second attribute clearly establishes the divinity of this character, as only God is recognized as having created the universe. The author later substantiates this by citing Psalm 102, a description of this act.

The first property however speaks of an individual who is both God and man. The author cites Psalm 45 in this respect, which we’ll look at shortly. Daniel 7 very clearly establishes the humanity of the one who inherits all things.

I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed. (Dan 7:13-14)

Just as Adam was given dominion over the earth, the son of Adam is given dominion over the heavens and the earth. This of course is not controversial; the question is whether that inheritance comes because He is a divine Son of the Father, or because He is a human Son of the Father. As I’ve argued elsewhere, the inheritance must come through His having a human relationship and sonship toward God, the Father, because that is how we Christians inherit all things from God, our Father. Because we are children of God, we are heirs, and co-heirs with Christ (Rom 8:14-17). Just as He inherits all things through being the son of God, we inherit all things through being sons of God (Rom 8:32)

So the Son being described here is an heir on account of his humanity. Scripture declares that this particular heir will also be God Himself, but the inheritance comes through His human nature.

He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making 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 inherited is more excellent than theirs. (Heb 1:3-4)

Here the author elevates the Son to a point not only higher than the prophets, but higher than the angels who brought the prophetic message to man (Heb 2:1-4). As before, some of what’s presented here speaks to His divinity (e.g. upholding the universe by His word), and some of it speaks to His humanity (making purification for sins, sitting at the right hand of God, being the image of God’s nature).

Notably, the author makes clear that the Son’s inherited supremacy over the angels is not a property of His divinity; otherwise He would have been considered supreme from the beginning of time. Rather, the Son inherited a better name than the angels after He made purification for sins and ascended to the throne of God.

This raises a curious question. How could someone who is by nature God, and the creator of the universe, increase in authority? Would He not by nature have all authority? Here we can be helped by thinking of other times when Jesus submitted to lower, earthly authorities, such as when He was chided by Mary and Joseph (Luk 2:41-52). Though He was truly God in the form of a twelve year old boy, He nevertheless honored the legitimate authority that His parents held over His human nature and status.

In the same way, the Son here ascended in authority over all creation — not because of His divine nature, but because God chose to put all things under the dominion of a son of man. Hence according to His human nature, the Son became superior to the angels, after He made purification for sins and ascended to the Father. As the author of Hebrews says in the next chapter,

For it was not to angels that God subjected the world to come, of which we are speaking. It has been testified somewhere, “What is man, that you are mindful of him, or the son of man, that you care for him? You made him for a little while lower than the angels; you have crowned him with glory and honor, putting everything in subjection under his feet.”

Now in putting everything in subjection to him, he left nothing outside his control. At present, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him. But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. (Heb 2:5-9)

Thus reading this early verse in its broader context and argumentation, we can understand Hebrews 1 to describe the ascent of the Son over the angels as something done by His human nature. Although He had and has all authority according to His divine nature, the Son inherited that authority through His work on the cross, leading to His human ascent to the throne of God.

For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”? (Heb 1:5a)

This passage has been used to justify a sort of “eternal begetting” of the Son from the Father, due to the trinitarian conception of the sonship of Christ as a property of His divinity. I view this as a confused interpretation that does not deal well with this passage in the immediate context of Hebrews, or the broader context of scripture. Matthew Henry for example, in his understanding of Hebrews 1, made the following mistaken claim:

He is, in person, the Son of God, the only-begotten Son of God, and as such he must have the same nature. This personal distinction always supposes one and the same nature. Every son of man is man; were not the nature the same, the generation would be monstrous.

His point here is that calling Jesus the “son of God” must make Him by nature God, because being the child of a creature or person means that you share the same nature as that creature or person. No matter what Darwinists may pretend, cats don’t give birth to seagulls, and humans don’t give birth to donkeys. In the same way, that which God begets must by nature be God. Thus it is argued that there must be some eternal generation of the Son from the Father that happens within the godhead. The Nicene creed reflects this conclusion,

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God, begotten not made, one in being with the Father.

However, this argument ignores passages which speak of God having human children. Adam was considered the “son of God” (Luk 3:38), just as Christians are considered sons of God (Rom 8:16), yet it would not be appropriate to regard him and us as divine in nature. Clearly when God creates children to bear His image, He does so in a somewhat different way than when a husband and wife bear children. Because of his transcendence, God either creates something from nothing, or something from pre-existing matter, but never from his own transcendent substance. In our case, God created us from the inorganic dust of the earth (Gen 2:7). Children of human parents on the other hand are created from the substance of their parents.

Even in our human experience, the nature/substance of the child can ultimately differ from that of the parent. Jesus through His resurrected body demonstrated what our resurrected bodies will be like; in the resurrection, the substance of our nature will likewise change fundamentally from dust to glory (1Co 15:42-49). Into eternity, we will remain children of Adam, of particular nations, and by extension, parents / grandparents (Rev 7:9, 21:12, 21:24). Yet in the resurrection, our nature / substance changes, and we are no more monstrous for the change. So while it is true that children are generally comprised of the same “substance” as their parents, this is not always the case. It is the image passed on from parent to child which creates natural sonship, not the substance.

All things considered, I wouldn’t actually have a problem if there was some sort of eternal generation or begetting of the Word from the Father; I would simply argue that such a generation didn’t flow from Jesus’s sonship. My point here is simply that understanding Hebrews 1 in its proper context should lead us to conclude that this passage has nothing to do with revealing the substance of the Son. Rather, it establishes His authority as the son of God. Insofar as I’ve seen, there is no biblical need (or warrant) for claiming that the Son eternally begets from the Father. Hebrews 1 certainly doesn’t teach this, and neither does Psalm 2. In both scriptures, the begetting of the Son happens at a particular point in history. Psalm 2 reads,

“As for me, I have set my King on Zion, my holy hill.” I will tell of the decree: The LORD said to me, “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. You shall break them with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.” (Psa 2:6-9)

Here, God was gracious enough to provide us a clear, time-oriented word that demonstrates this to be an event in time, rather than an eternal, out-of-time begetting. He says, “today I have begotten you.” This raises the question, on what day did God make this decree? The context in Psalm 2 places this decree on the day that God installed His king in Zion, not the day that His king was born.

This accords with with the contextual understanding of Hebrews 1 discussed above, which argues that the Son became superior to the angels after He made purification for sins (the cross), and was seated at the right hand of God (the ascension). Acts 13 also lends commentary on this Psalm, claiming that it is fulfilled through the resurrection.

And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers, this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus, as also it is written in the second Psalm, “‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you.’ (Act 13:32-33)

Since there were forty days between the resurrection and ascension, one might wonder how God could have made the declaration at both points, and still have it called “today”. There are several ways to resolve this, but I think the most natural is to place the decree at His ascension, and recognize that Paul is simply treating both as one event, the ascension being the culmination of what began in the resurrection. This accords with our experience as well, in that our resurrection and ascension is treated as one event, and our declaration as sons of God occurs at the same time.

For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. (1Th 4:15-17)

And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. (Rom 8:23)

Given how the new testament authors applied Psalm 2, we can have a high degree of confidence that the begetting described here has nothing to do with the Son’s divinity, or an eternal generation of His person from the Father, or even the human birth of Christ through Mary. Rather, taken in context, this is clearly speaking about a declaration made about Christ’s newly won authority over the angels at His resurrection and ascension, with perhaps a “begetting” of His glorified, resurrected body in view.

Or again, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”? (Heb 1:5b)

This is a quote from parallel passages in Samuel and Chronicles regarding Solomon as the near fulfillment, and Jesus as the far, of a human who would be regarded as the son of God. Here is the fuller context:

When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men, but my steadfast love will not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever.'” (2Sa 7:12-16)

Here again, this passage, taken in context, highlights the humanity of this son of God. The Son is a descendent of David, “who shall come from your body”. God treats this human being as a son, and He acts toward him as a father.

The purpose of Hebrews in citing this — together with the last psalm, and most of the old testament passages cited in chapter 1 — is to demonstrate that God is giving this human son a greater authority than the angels, that is established through His inheriting a greater name (1:4) after ascending to the throne of God (1:3), an act which made Him heir of all things. The purpose is not to demonstrate that the angels are not (in any sense) sons of God; we know from Job (and I would argue, Genesis 6) that this is a title appropriate for them, just as it is appropriate to call individual Christians sons of God.

Hebrews here isn’t arguing that Jesus is the only son of God in existence; rather He is the only son of God who will inherit all of God’s possessions. The situation is similar to what we see in Abraham’s relationship with Isaac. In Genesis 22, God said, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.” At this point in time, Abraham had an older son Ishamael, but he would not receive any of the inheritance of what Abraham owned, or the promise given to his seed.

So [Sarah] said to Abraham, “Cast out this slave woman with her son, for the son of this slave woman shall not be heir with my son Isaac.” And the thing was very displeasing to Abraham on account of his son. But God said to Abraham, “Be not displeased because of the boy and because of your slave woman. Whatever Sarah says to you, do as she tells you, for through Isaac shall your offspring be named. (Gen 21:10-12)

Isaac received all authority over Abraham’s possession, promise and name, and was thus considered his only son, even though Abraham would have many children (Gen 25:5-6). This situation is different from (for example) what happened with Jacob, who began to split the possession, promise and name among his twelve sons (or specifically, those recognized as sons).

In a similar way, God has given all authority over everything He owns to His only recognized heir, Jesus, although He has had other sons in Adam, the angels, and in Christians. We become co-heirs with Christ, but under His authority as His bride. And it is through our union with Christ that He takes our iniquity upon Himself, such that God can say, “When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men.”

Thus it is ultimately the authority of Christ over all things that the author of Hebrews is establishing, by demonstrating that He is the promised, human son who would be God’s heir, granting him all authority over all things. In view in this passage, the son holds authority over the throne of Israel as David’s promised descendant.

And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God’s angels worship him.” (Heb 1:6)

I actually had trouble sourcing this quotation. One document cited Psalm 97:7, which reads,

All worshipers of images are put to shame, who make their boast in worthless idols; worship him, all you gods! (Psa 97:7)

In any case, this demonstrates potentially two things:

1. The Son is superior to the angels, in that he is worshipped by them.
2. The Son must be God Himself, “for you shall worship no other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God” (Exo 34:14)

The second point may not be flawless, since the word for worship can be legitimately applied to ordinary humans, depending on the context (e.g. Rev 3:9). But the flow of the argument is now pushing to establish the deity of this Son, so we can likely assume the author here is describing worship in the sense that one would worship a deity, not simply reverence of one who is of higher authority.

Of the angels he says, “He makes his angels winds, and his ministers a flame of fire.” But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.” And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands; they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment, like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end.” And to which of the angels has he ever said, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”? Are they not all ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation? (Heb 1:7-14)

The chapter ends with a number of old testament quotations, which together make a unified thought about the servant status of angels, as contrasted with the divine authority of the Son. In the previous verse, the Son is shown to receive worship from angels. The next two citations then are used to show that this worship is rightly a service rendered by the angels to the Son as God incarnate.

First, by quoting Psalm 104:4, the author establishes that the angels are servants of God. Then, by quoting Psalm 45, he establishes that there is a son of man who is also God Himself, and therefore this Son merits the service of the angels. The broader context reads,

You are the most handsome of the sons of men; grace is poured upon your lips; therefore God has blessed you forever. Gird your sword on your thigh, O mighty one, in your splendor and majesty! … Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness; you have loved righteousness and hated wickedness. Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions. (Psa 45:2-3, 6-7)

Here, the readers are once again brought face-to-face with old testament passages that speak of a son of God, who is both God and man. This son is greater than the angels because of the two distinct properties that were summarized in verse 2, and argued throughout this chapter.

1. The Son is God incarnate; therefore on the basis of His creating the world, He has authority over the angels.
2. According to His human nature, He has become heir of all things.

Psalm 45 presents both the son’s sovereign humanity — as a son of man who received the throne because He “loved righteousness and hated wickedness” — as well as His sovereign divinity as the “God” who is sitting on the throne. Notably, by highlighting Christ’s anointing “beyond His companions,” the author may be presenting the angels as the companions over whom He has been placed.

From this point, the author launches into a long quote from Psalm 104. His purpose seems to be that having established the Son’s divinity through Psalm 45 and earlier quotes, it should therefore be concluded that the Son created the earth and the heavens. In addition to the authority this gives Him, Psalm 104 brings into view the eternal nature of this authority, which will become important for the author’s discussion on Melchizedek — “who has become a priest, not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent, but by the power of an indestructible life.” (Heb 7:16) Not only does the Son possess all authority, but He possesses it forever. Rebels like Satan or Nebuchadnezzar may be given all authority in a given realm for a time and a season, but Jesus’ kingship endures forever due to the power of an indestructible life.

For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul? For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. (Mat 16:26-27)

The author then cites Psalm 110 concerning the seat that the Son took at YHWH’s right hand. In the broader context of the psalm, it develops the enduring priesthood of Melchizedek, so again the subject of immortality seems to be on the author’s mind. Even the section quoted in Hebrews speaks to the undying kingship of the Son, because His enemies will never prevail over Him. Instead, the Son has a promise from YHWH that all of His enemies will be placed under His feet, including death.

For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all. (1Co 15:25-28)

The chapter closes with the thought that began this section, that the angels are servants of God and of His Son, sent to serve the heirs of salvation. Here the author ties our inheritance to the incredible inheritance of Christ, shifting to begin a discussion of how His reward relates to that of Christians, through a message of salvation.

Contrasted with “the message declared by angels,” the next chapter opens with a warning not to neglect “so great a salvation” which was spoken through this Son. This ties back to the first two verses of Hebrews, where

God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. (Heb 1:1b-2)

Recognizing that the prophets received their word from God through angels, the message of the Son is therefore superior to the message of the angels, just as the covenant of salvation He established is superior to their shadow covenant, which was established and upheld through the prophets. Being bound to Christ through that covenant of salvation, we too become sons of God, and coheirs with our brother Jesus, the firstborn son over all things.

For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the founder of their salvation perfect through suffering. For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one source. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers. (Heb 2:10-11)

Far from becoming a refutation of pattern christology, understanding Hebrews 1 in context provides us with strong support for the idea that the “son of God” described in the old and new testaments is truly God and truly man, having inherited all things from God according to His human nature, through the work that He accomplished on the cross. Some peripheral speculations on the relationship of angels to mankind may admittedly be challenged through one verse in chapter 2 (Heb 2:16), but the core objection to the trinity is even stronger when this trinitarian prooftext is carefully examined, in its own context, and the greater context of scripture.

As discussed above, the author of Hebrews offers two lines of reasoning for the supremacy of the Son.

1. He created the universe.
2. He is the heir of everything God created.

Without question, the first argument flows from His divinity, as the author of Hebrews develops explicitly. Trinitarians, however, will attempt to make the second argument also flow from His divinity, by framing the Father/Son relationship as a property of His divine nature. The Son inherits from the Father because He is “God the Son.” This idea however kicks against the sweeping teaching of the Old Testament passages described here, against the argument of Hebrews, and against the co-inheritance of the saints who are not divine.

First, the Son became superior to the angels after His resurrection and ascension. He was not always superior to the angels (according to His human nature); rather this is an inheritance which He received because of His faithful obedience, even unto death on a cross (Rev 5:9-14). As the author argues in the next chapter, this Son inherited authority from His Father precisely because of His death, something which could only have been accomplished through Jesus’ human nature.

We see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. (Heb 2:9)

The author cites several psalms and other passages which claim that there will be a son of God who is truly God, and truly man, to support the idea that this son created the world, and will be its human heir. The relationship that this man has with God as His Father allows Him to inherit from God in the same way that we do, as human sons of a divine Father. And at the very same time, He is that Father incarnate, the God who created the world, dwelling among us in human skin through the Person of the Word.