Hebrews 1:3 speaks of Jesus as “the
reflection of [God’s] glory and the exact imprint of [God’s] being” (ἀπαύγασμα τῆς
δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτου). It is also said that he “sustains all
things by his powerful word” (φέρων τε τὰ πάντα τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως).
Jamieson understands these predications obviously to be speaking of Jesus as
substantially or originally divine, (Jamieson, Paradox of Sonship, 53, 55-57)
but these verses need not be taken in that way. One can say instead that it is
especially the resurrected, ascended, deified human Jesus that is the
“reflection of God’s glory.” What is more, the language used by the author of
Hebrews suggests a distinction between Jesus and God. If Jesus reflects God’s
glory, then he is reflecting the glory of another, just as the moon
reflects the light of the sun from which it is distinct. The text does not
speak of Jesus’s own proper or native glory shining out. In the same way, of
Jesus is the “imprint” of God’s being, then he is an image of it. He cannot be
the “stamp” itself, but rather the mark left by the stamp. These turns of
phrases thus imply that his reflecting and being the imprint are derivatively
possessed qualities, the possession of which is made possible for him by God
whose glory he reflects and whose imprint he bears. The glory of Christ is
derivative rather than original. It is rather that the resurrected and exalted
Jesus fully reflects God’s image, perhaps in the way that all human beings are supposed to do as created ad imaginem Dei. (Middleton, Liberating
Image, 121) From this it would follow that Jesus the Son is not God,
contrary to Jamieson’s own reading. (Jamieson, Paradox of Sonship, 56)
He is instead the deified human being whom God has raised from the dead and
exalted into heaven. (Steven Nemes, Trinity and Incarnation: A Post-Catholic
Theology [Eugene, Oreg.: Cascade Books, 2023], 190)
For more on Heb 1:3, see my discussion of this text at:
Lynn Wilder vs. Latter-day Saint (and Biblical) Theology on Divine Embodiment
