Another note on Hebrews 1:1-2

In this post, I addressed the abuse of Heb 1:1-2 by some critics of the LDS Church who use this pericope to preclude the Book of Mormon as an inspired revelation from God. I recently came across the following comment about this pericope, albeit within the context of Socinian vs. Trinitarian Christologies, from a long-standing anti-Mormon author. In spite of my disagreement with this critic about the essentials of the gospel, I think he is spot-on in (1) answering the common Socinan abuse of this pericope (Anthony Buzzard often appeals to this text, for instance) and (2) that it does not preclude post-ascension prophets and apostles:

You seem to reach for arguments from silence a lot, Dave. I said nothing specifically about verse 1 because I had a lot of ground to cover and little room to cover it. Verse 1 poses absolutely no problem for my Christology. God spoke in the past in the prophets; in these last days he has spoken to us in the Son. This statement has no implications, obvious or otherwise, as to when the Son began to exist. Nor does this statement mean that the Son could not have spoken as the preincarnate angel of the LORD. By your reasoning, the order is rigidly (1) prophets and no Son, (2) Son and no prophets. But we know, as it turns out, that there were prophets after the Son came (Acts 11:27; 13:1; 15:32; 21:10; 1 Cor. 12:28-29; 14:29, 32, 37; Eph. 2:20; 3:5; 4:11). The author’s point is simply that the revelation that came through the Son “in these last days” represents the climax, the high point, of the history of revelation. (source)

For what is it worth, here are some quotes from Unitarians on this pericope:

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds. (Heb 1:1-2)

Commenting on this verse, two proponents of Socinian Christology (which rejects the personal pre-existence of Jesus) wrote:

In Hebrews, it is highly significant that God did not speak through a Son in Old Testament times but only “at the end of those days” (Heb. 1:2). There is strong indication suggesting here that the Son is not eternal but comes into existence as the historical Jesus . . . A text which surveys God’s activity over the ages says, “God spoke long ago to the fathers through the prophets in many portions and in many ways, but [in contrast] in these last days has spoken to us in His Son” (Heb. 1:1, 2). This would seem to confirm that until his human birth Jesus was not Son of God nor God’s messenger to man. (Anthony F. Buzzard and Charles F. Hunting, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity’s Self-Inflicted Wound [Lanham, Md.: International Scholars Press, 1998], 75, 108)