share, and all formed part of the "many ways". However varied these "parts" and "ways"

may have been God throughout was the speaker.

Palai,  "In time past".--This is contrasted with the last days of verse 2, which

indicated the conclusion of the process of revelation. It will be noticed that these words

begin with "P". The word for father is pater, for prophet, prophetes; the alliteration in

this verse seems intentional, and can be appreciated by the English reader if the words are

rendered, parts, process, past, patriarchs and prophets. To the father, by the prophets, the

Word of God came; what greater thing has occurred since? "The last days" have come,

days wherein Messianic prophecy must be fulfilled. The R.V. reads, "at the end of these

days" and this reading seems well supported; whichever reading we adopt, the important

truth of the closing of the law and prophets and the opening of the day of the gospel is

very evident.

In contrast with the "fathers" the apostle places "us", and in contrast with the

"prophets" he puts "the Son". The superiority of the Son is so evident in this chapter, and

the added responsibility resting upon those who heard Him is so clearly set forth in the

opening words of the next, that one is a little surprised to find in the phrase, "by His

Son", that the article is not used. This is all the more noticeable by reason of the fact that

the corresponding phrase, "by the prophets", contain the article, "In or by THE

PROPHETS" is answered by "in or by Son"; to translate "in a Son" seems out of

harmony with the remainder of the verse, where the excelling glory of the Son is set

forth, and yet to ignore the omission and to say that the presence or absence of the article

is a matter of indifference is to deny verbal inspiration. Had the words, "in the prophets",

been balanced by the words, "in the Son", nothing extraordinary would have been felt,

and the mind would have received no impression of the essential difference that Scripture

makes between that One who IS the Word, and those to whom the Word came. Readers

may be acquainted with the argument derived from the omitted article in John 1: 1 and

14, "the Word was God". Some have been tempted to translate this, "the Word was a

God", but verse 14 exposes the foolishness of such an idea while it supplies the reason

for the omission, "the Word was made flesh". No one would render this, "the Word was

made a flesh", for the absurdity would be apparent, so in Heb. 1: 2, God did not merely

speak through the Son as He spoke through the prophets, God became man, the Son

declared the Father, the Spirit was not given in measure unto Him, in Him dwelt all the

fulness of the Godhead bodily. He that had seen the Son had seen the Father. The

prophets, of whom Moses was the recognized leader, were servants, but Christ was a Son

(Heb. 3: 5, 6).

God is invisible, Christ is the image of the invisible God, no one hath seen God at any

time; in O.T. days the Word revealed Him to man, and in the last of the days, the Word--

made-flesh revealed Him.  Theology often mystifies, and by such unscriptural

expressions as, "the eternal generation of the Son", has made the Word of God of none

effect. We sometimes read or hear, "The O.T. reveals the Father, the Gospels the Son,

and the Epistles the Spirit"; this is untrue. Shut up to the Old Testament what should we

know of God as Father? The allusions to God as a Father may be counted upon the

fingers; this is true also of the Son. Sonship and Fatherhood commence together; a man