A Trinitarian apologist wrote the following about the description of Jesus in Heb 1:3:
· “He is the radiance of His glory” (hos ōn apaugasma tēs doxēs). As we have noted elsewhere regarding John 1:18 andRomans 9:5, the present tense active participle wn, ōn (“is/being”) is a very significant feature in exegesis.[2] The present participle ōn can indicate a continuing state of being. Here the author says that the Son is always, that is, in a continuing state(ōn) as the radiance of God’s glory, and “exact representation of His nature.”
The present tense participle ōn (“is”/being) in this passage is set in contrast with the aorist epoiēsen (“He made”) in verse 2 and in contrast with the aorist genomenos (“having become”—referring to the incarnation) in verse 4.This is similar to the use of the imperfect ēn (“was”) in John 1:1, which is set in contrast with aorist egeneto (“came to be”) in 1:14, and similar to the use of the present participle huparchōn (“existing/always subsisting”) in Philippians 2:6, which is set in contrast with the aoristgenomenos (“having become”) in verse 7. In each case, there is an outstanding contrast between the eternal preincarnate Son and all things created.
The present tense participle ōn (“is”/being) in this passage is set in contrast with the aorist epoiēsen (“He made”) in verse 2 and in contrast with the aorist genomenos (“having become”—referring to the incarnation) in verse 4.This is similar to the use of the imperfect ēn (“was”) in John 1:1, which is set in contrast with aorist egeneto (“came to be”) in 1:14, and similar to the use of the present participle huparchōn (“existing/always subsisting”) in Philippians 2:6, which is set in contrast with the aoristgenomenos (“having become”) in verse 7. In each case, there is an outstanding contrast between the eternal preincarnate Son and all things created.
· “He is the exact representation of His nature” (charaktēr tēs hupostaseōs autou). The present active participle ōn (“is”) at the beginning of the phrase governs the phrase—thus, “He is [ōn, “always is/being”] the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature.” As we commented on Philippians 2:6, Paul expresses the same idea by using the present tense participle huparchōn (“being” NIV) to denote that the Son is always subsisting/existing in the very nature or essence (morphē) of God.The Greek term charaktēr (appearing only here in the NT) refers to the exact reproduction or representation expressing the reality or essence of the very image it is representing. The Septuagint (LXX) usage of charaktērsignifies the exact character or nature of the thing to which it is applied (cf. Lev.13:28; 2 Mac. 4:10; 4 Mac 15:4). It denoted the exact imprint left by a signet ring such as a king, for example, after having been placed into wax—it is his exact non-replicable imprint.[3] It also referred to the “engraving” stamp of a Caesar on a coin that exactly represented his honor, authority, and power.
Louw and Nida define charaktēr as “a representation as an exact reproduction of a particular form or structure—‘exact representation of his being’ He 1.3.” One of the most recognized and cited Greek lexicons, BDAG[4], defines the meaning of charaktēr, as applied to the Son in Hebrews, as something “produced as a representation, reproduction . . . Christ is [charaktēr] an exact representation of (God’s) real being, Heb. 1:3.” In the clearest sense, then, the Son is the “exact representation” of the God’s nature.The Greek term translated “nature” (NASB; “person” in the KJV) is from the Greek term,hupostaseōs (from hupostasis). According to the lexical support, the term carries the meaning of substantial nature,essence, actual being, reality (cf. BDAG). The term indicates “the substantial quality, nature, of any person or thing: Heb. 1:3”(Thayer). Note below how hupostaseōs is rendered in this passage by major translations:
Louw and Nida define charaktēr as “a representation as an exact reproduction of a particular form or structure—‘exact representation of his being’ He 1.3.” One of the most recognized and cited Greek lexicons, BDAG[4], defines the meaning of charaktēr, as applied to the Son in Hebrews, as something “produced as a representation, reproduction . . . Christ is [charaktēr] an exact representation of (God’s) real being, Heb. 1:3.” In the clearest sense, then, the Son is the “exact representation” of the God’s nature.The Greek term translated “nature” (NASB; “person” in the KJV) is from the Greek term,hupostaseōs (from hupostasis). According to the lexical support, the term carries the meaning of substantial nature,essence, actual being, reality (cf. BDAG). The term indicates “the substantial quality, nature, of any person or thing: Heb. 1:3”(Thayer). Note below how hupostaseōs is rendered in this passage by major translations:
Ø “Flawless expression of the nature of God” (Phillips)
Ø “The express image of His person” (KJV, NKJV)
Ø “The very image of His substance” (ASV)
Ø “[The] exact expression of His essence” (ALT)
Ø “The true image of his substance” (BBE)
Ø “He is an exact copy of God's nature” (ICB)
Ø “The exact reproduction of His essence” (Wuest)
Ø “All that God’s Son is and does marks him as God” (TLB)
Ø “The very imprint of his being” (NAB)
Ø “The exact imprint of God’s very being” (NRSV)
Ø “Everything about Him represents God exactly” (NLT)
If one reads his words carefully, he really traps himself on the topic of Christology, as this is reflective more of Latter-day Saint Christology. As D. Charles Pyle wrote:
There is also scripture that can used to potentially support the idea that God could have a physical body. One of these is Hebrews 1:3. Christ could only be the exact representation of the Father if the Father himself possessed a body of some sort. In fact, some who wish to avoid what I feel is the plain meaning of Hebrews 1:3 actually go so far as to separate the natures of Christ or declare that the passage could not possibly infer that the Father is embodied.
Those who criticize this meaning thus, however, do not take into account the fact that there is not one portion of the passage that differentiates between the divine or human nature of Jesus. Secondly, the particle ων on indicates being, i.e., thepresent state of existence of Jesus from the perspective of the author of Hebrews. It has absolutely nothing to do with only Jesus’ previous state or of only a portion of his supposed dual nature. It only speaks of his total existence as a person.
Further, many grammarians have severely misunderstood the Greek απαυγασμα apaugasma (English: [active] effulgence or radiance; [middle, passive] reflection) in this passage to have the active sense. The Greek και kai (English: and) is here a coordinating conjunction which combines the first and second parts (the second part being of a passive character) of a parallel couplet. Due to this fact, as much as the Evangelicals wish doggedly to hold to their interpretation, the Greek απαυγασμα apaugasma should be understood as having a passive sense.
Why? Because the second portion of the couplet indicates that Jesus is the exact representation of the Father’s substantial nature, not that he is synonymous with that nature. Since this passage is a couplet, with the second portion being passive in nature, the first portion must be understood as having a passive sense as well. Thus, Jesus is properly to be seen as he “who is the reflection of the glory (of God) and the exact representation of the substantial nature of him (i.e., the Father).”
In short, the glory of God reflects from Jesus rather than having Jesus as its source, according to the theology of the author of Hebrews. Thusly, Jesus exactly represents God as he exists in all aspects of Jesus’ existence. The passage does not allow differentiation of Jesus’ divine and human natures in relation to God. Quite the opposite is in view here, although I doubt that Evangelicals will wish to agree with my assessment of the passage. Nevertheless, if it is true that Jesus is the exact representation of the Father’s substantial nature in all aspects, the Father must have possession of a physical body. Otherwise, Jesus is not and could not be the exact representation of the Father, for the two would differ. This fact is further strengthened by another pertinent fact: the Father is never said to be bodiless in any place within the text of the Bible. That was for a later generation to develop.