The
nature of the relationship between God’s former speech in the prophets and his
speech in the Son ‘in these last days’ confronts the reader immediately in
1:1–2a: Πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως πάλαι ὁ θεὸς λαλήσας τοῖς πατράσιν ἐν τοῖς
προφήταις ἐπʼ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν υἱῷ. Readers of
English translations may see a strong disjunction between the two forms of
revelation; however, translations have emphasised the element of discontinuity
by adding the conjunction ‘but’, as in the NRSV: ‘Long ago God spoke … by the
prophets, but in these last days …’ (italics mine). There are certainly
elements of contrast in the writer’s presentation here, but it is important
first to note the line of continuity between the two forms of God’s speech established
in these verses. The writer affirms that both forms of communication are the
speech of God; both are presented using the aorist form of λαλέω, and the
preposition ἐν is used in parallel to introduce speech both by the prophets and
by the Son. Since the revelation through the prophets (broadly understood to
include the whole OT6) will be the authoritative foundation on which he builds
his theological treatise, it is unlikely that he would want to disparage
strongly this form of revelation.
The
author later demonstrates that he has at his disposal numerous rhetorical tools
to draw a more stark contrast between the two forms of revelation, were that
his intention. He makes frequent use of numerous comparative terms (ἀλλά, δέ, νῦν,
ἅπαξ, ἐφάπαξ, εἰς τὸ διηνεκές, μᾶλλον, μέν) and is capable of drawing carefully
nuanced comparisons. The absence of such language in 1:1–2 indicates that an
absolute disjunction was not intended. Despite the contrasts that the writer
will draw between the two, the speech of God through the prophets is as much
the speech of God as is his speech through the Son. (Jonathan I. Griffiths, Hebrews
and Divine Speech [Library of New Testament Studies 507; London:
Bloomsbury, 2014], 37–38)
