The Berean Expositor
Volume 8 - Page 78 of 141
Index | Zoom
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