In the past implies “long ago” (Barclay [Barclay]; Knox “in old days”). At the time this letter was written, most Jews believed that the age of prophecy had ended centuries before. The early church had its prophets too (see Acts 11.27; 13.1; 15.32; 21.10), but the context, and the use of the Greek article translated the, show that the Old Testament prophets are meant.

The phrase In the past may be expressed in some languages by a remote past tense of the verb. It is important, however, that such a tense form of the verb should not reflect mythological or legendary information but should point to some event which took place many, many years before.

God spoke (compare verse 2 he has spoken): the tense of spoke and has spoken (verse 2) is the same in Greek and refers to an event completed in the past. It is more natural in English to say “has spoken” about a recent event such as the coming of Christ. The Greek verbs throughout verses 1-2 make it clear that the events are thought of as taking place at particular times; they are not a gradual process. In verse 3 the writer will change to present tense in order to describe the unchanging nature and work of the Son.

The expression God spoke … through the prophets must be treated as a causative in a number of languages: “God caused the prophets to speak on his behalf” or “God caused the prophets to speak for him.”

To our ancestors is literally “to the fathers.” “Fathers” was a common Jewish way of describing all ancestors, just as “son of David” could mean a descendant many generations after David. Our is not in the Greek and may have been omitted because not all the original readers were Jews. Similarly, most modern readers of Hebrews are not Jews. If our is added in translation, it is best to use the inclusive rather than the exclusive form, in the case of most languages which employ the so-called inclusive-exclusive distinction for the first person plural.

Many times and in many ways: some people take these expressions to mean the same thing and combine them in translation; for example, “many different glimpses of the truth” (Phillips), “in many manners” (Dutch common language translation [Bijbel in Gewone Taal]). The distinction between them should not be overemphasized, as Jerusalem Bible (Jerusalem Bible) tends to do (“at various times in the past and in various different ways”), since the author may use two similar words for stylistic effect. If there is a distinction in meaning, it is that the word translated many times means “in many parts,” that is, each prophet gave his own part of a message which has now been given completely through Christ (compare King James Version). New English Bible‘s “in fragmentary … fashion” gives the meaning, though not in common language; the dictionary of the United Bible Societies’ (UBS) Greek New Testament gives “little by little, many times.”

Since the meaning of the expression many times and in many ways is essentially distributive, in the sense that certain parts of the revelation take place at different times, it is appropriate in a number of languages to translate this expression as “part then, part later” or “part part, then again.” Such expressions are highly idiomatic, and have a distributive meaning by the repetition of the same or closely related expressions. If, however, one wishes to make a distinction in the meaning of the two Greek expressions, it is, of course, possible to translate many times and in many ways as “often and by means of many different persons.”

Through the prophets balances through his Son in verse 2. The Greek is literally “in the prophets.” It is unlikely that this means “in the person of the prophets” or “in what they said and did.” More probably it means “in what the prophets wrote” (compare “in Isaiah the prophet,” Mark 1.2), and it may be necessary to state this in translation. However, the more general meaning “by,” “through,” or “by means of the prophets” is also possible and makes a better parallel to “in a Son” in verse 2. The translation through is to be preferred, both in verse 1 and in verse 2, for three reasons: first, the Greek word is the same, and there is nothing to suggest that the meaning varies. Second, there is a close parallel in the context, which speaks of God using different means, the prophets and his Son, to achieve the same end. Third, in English and in many other languages, “God has spoken in his Son” is not natural and in any case does not convey anything more than “God has spoken through his Son.”

As already noted in the discussion of the expression God spoke, the phrase through the prophets must be understood in most languages as being part of a causative construction, that is to say, “God caused his prophets to speak on his behalf,” or even “what the prophets said was what God caused them to say.”

Though it is true that the term prophets could be translated in this context as “those who foretell the future” or “those who speak about what is to happen,” it seems better in general to use some such expression as “to speak on behalf of God” rather than to focus primarily upon foretelling. Throughout the Scriptures the emphasis of the role of the prophet is upon his speaking on behalf of God.

Quoted with permission from Ellingworth, Paul and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on The Letter of the Hebrews. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1983. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Good News Translation but expresses in a word the contrast which the original expresses in sentence structure, literally “God having spoken … through the prophets … he has spoken to us through the Son.” If but is used in translation, it is important to employ a term that will not suggest contradiction in content but merely contrast in the way in which this communication took place, that is, through the Son rather than merely through the prophets. It may even be necessary in some languages to translate “then it was through the prophets; now it is through his Son.”

In these last days does not mean simply “these last few days,” as in Luke 24.18, where the Greek is different. The writer means that the time had now come which the Old Testament had called “the last days,” “the day of the LORD,” or simply “that day” (for example, Num 24.14; Dan 10.14; compare Joel 3.1; Acts 2.17, 20); “the last days” had become “these last days, in which we are living.” Jerusalem Bible gives the meaning “in our own time, the last days”; compare French common language translation (Bible en français courant) “in these days which are the last.” In these last days is a slightly awkward expression in English, and it was very unusual in Greek. Some translations replace these by its equivalent “now,” to give “now, at the end of time” (for example, German common language translation [Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch]; compare Bijbel in Gewone Taal). The translator should in any case avoid translating “day” by a term which can only refer to a period of twelve or twenty-four hours.

The expression in these last days is extremely difficult to translate without being misleading, for the term last must be related to some other period of time or sequence if people are really to understand what is involved. In some languages the closest equivalent of in these last days is “now at the end of this age” or “now when we are living near the end of this age.”

To us clearly includes both the writer and his readers, and probably others as well. For languages which make the distinction, an inclusive “we” must clearly be used.

Through his Son (see also notes on Heb. 1.1) is literally “through a Son,” as in Revised Standard Version. This is not a suggestion, despite 2.10, that Jesus was only one son among many sons of equal status. In writing “a Son” rather than “the Son,” the author means God has spoken to us through one who is not merely a prophet but a Son. Barclay gives a good paraphrase: “he has spoken in one whose relation to himself is that of Son.” However, in most languages the rendering of his Son by “a son” would be misleading, since the indefinite form would suggest any one of several sons. Since the reference is obviously to a particular son, it is essential in most languages to employ a definite marker, and in this instance the possessive pronoun his serves best to indicate specifically the person involved.

There is no distinction in Greek between “Son” and “son.” Most European languages keep the form “Son” in referring to Christ, but there is a general tendency to use fewer capitals, and the translator must be guided by normal usage in his own language. The translator should also remember that the distinction between “Son” and “son” is lost when a text is read aloud; the distinction should thus be made clear in other ways, depending on the context.

The second half of verse 2 contains two statements about the Son: (a) God appointed him heir of all things; (b) through him God created the world. Good News Translation and other CLT’s reverse the order of these two statements, since the first points to the future and the second points to the past. Before coming to a decision about their relation to one another, it is useful to look in more detail at certain individual words.

The word translated created is a good example of the author’s flexible use of words. A technical term for created exists in Greek, and the author uses the related noun in 4.13 and 9.11. In this verse, however, he uses the common word for “made” (King James Version, Spanish common language translation [Biblia Dios Habla Hoy]), which in Greek occurs in different meanings in 3.2; 8.9; 10.9; and elsewhere. It is not advisable in translation to use a term for “create” in the sense of “to make out of nothing.” In a number of languages there is no technical term for “create” which differs essentially in meaning from a more general term meaning “to make.” There is certainly no necessity to use a phrase meaning “to make out of nothing” in order to represent what some persons might insist is a necessary component of “create.”

The expression translated the universe can mean “the ages.” La Bible de Jérusalem (Bible de Jérusalem)—but not Jerusalem Bible—misleadingly adopts this rendering here. In this verse, as always, words must be translated according to their context. With two exceptions the writer uses the word for “age” in the singular, or in set phrases meaning “forever.” As to the two exceptions, 9.26 clearly refers to time and 11.3 to place. In 1.2 the writer is not thinking of time, but rather of the world and all it contains (compare all things, verse 2; the universe, verse 3).

In a number of languages the equivalent of the universe is “the sky and the earth.” But in other languages it may be better to translate “everything there is” or “all that exists.”

The word which Revised Standard Version translates “also” is not essential to the structure of the Greek sentence. By including it, the author emphasizes the words “he made the world.”

Chosen translates a common Greek word for “appointed”; appointment to an office implies a choice of the one appointed. Chosen does not imply “chosen among several sons.” It is therefore better in most languages to use an expression which will emphasize the fact of “being appointed.” This may be expressed in some languages by a word meaning essentially “designated” or “selected for the purpose of.” Theologians discuss at what moment Jesus was appointed heir of all things. The translator is not concerned with this, but he should note that the verb refers to an event which occurred at some particular point of time. See the comment on God spoke in Heb. 1.1.

The one … to possess is literally “heir,” as in Revised Standard Version. “Heir” in English means someone who receives or is entitled to receive something when its previous owner dies. In biblical Greek, with its Hebrew background, this idea may sometimes be present (compare 9.16; Mark 12.7 and parallel passages). However, more often the main thought is that of taking possession of land or other property, whether or not the former owner has died. In the New Testament, believers are said to “inherit” the kingdom of God, that is, to share in God’s reign or rule (for example, Matt 25.34). They are also said to “inherit” or take possession of salvation (Heb 1.14), a blessing (1 Peter 3.9), glory (Rom 8.7-18), and incorruption (1 Cor 15.50); also “the promise” (Heb 6.12). The author is probably thinking of Old Testament stories about Israel taking possession of the Promised Land. In the New Testament, inheritance is often connected with gifts which can only be fully possessed in the future. This is the basis for Good News Translation‘s possess all things at the end.

A literal rendering of the term “heir” (the expression found in many translations) can be misleading, as already noted, since one important component is the death of the individual who previously owned or possessed some object. The emphasis in the Bible is upon “coming to possess what is rightfully one’s own,” and therefore some such phrase as “to come to possess,” “to become the owner of,” or “to become the one to whom all things belong” may be more satisfactory.

At the end is implied, but Good News Translation and Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch make it explicit. There may be complications involved in the phrase at the end, since it may be necessary in some languages to specify what has come to an end or the end of what. Sometimes this may be expressed more satisfactorily as “finally possess all things.”

It is now easier to see the meaning of verse 2b as a whole. This may be expanded as follows: “By God’s command and appointment, his Son is shortly to take possession of the entire universe. But in any case, the universe belongs by right to the Son, since it was through him that God made it and everything it contains.” Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch brings out the implied logical relation between the two statements: “Through him God created the world. Therefore God also decided that at the end, everything should belong to him.” However, a slight weakness in both Good News Translation and Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch is that by making at the end explicit, they weaken to some extent the idea that “the end” has already begun (see comment on in these last days).

Quoted with permission from Ellingworth, Paul and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on The Letter of the Hebrews. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1983. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

This verse is full of picture language. Here, as in similar passages, the translator needs to ask a number of important questions: (a) How far was each metaphor still “live” for the writer? (b) What is its literal meaning? (c) Does our language use the same metaphor with the same meaning? (d) If not, does it have a different metaphor with the same meaning? (e) If not, how can I translate the metaphor literally?

The brightness of God’s glory was probably a live metaphor for the writer: glory is often associated with light and less often with weight. The word translated brightness may mean either “radiance” (Knox, Phillips, Barclay; compare King James Version “brightness”; Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible “radiant light”; New English Bible “effulgence”; Translator’s New Testament [Translator’s New Testament] “radiates”) or “reflection” (New American Bible; compare Revised Standard Version). Bible en français courant includes both meanings: “He reflects the splendor of the divine glory.” The same word is used in Wisdom 7.26, where the same meanings are also possible (see New English Bible text and note).

In a number of languages it is difficult to speak about “reflecting the brightness of God’s glory.” In the first place “glory” is often related to “wonderfulness” and not to the concept of being “shiny” or of “brightness.” As a result, it is very difficult to use some term which is based upon the concept of light being “reflected.” Therefore, it may be best to translate He reflects the brightness of God’s glory as “He shows how wonderful God is” or “How wonderful God is can be seen in how wonderful he is.”

The original meanings of the Greek word translated exact likeness included “engraving,” “engraved sign,” “imprint,” and “reproduction.” Barclay paraphrases: “He is the exact impression of his being, just as the mark is the exact impression of the seal.” However, by the time this letter was written, the term was becoming a dead metaphor meaning “essential nature” or “characteristic.” The wider context stresses the Son’s unity with God, and the way in which he shares in various aspects of God’s work. Therefore in the first part of verse 3 it is better to stress the idea of the Son’s brightness (compare Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch “in the Son of God, the glory of God shines forth”). The idea of a “pale reflection” should in any case be avoided.

Is the exact likeness of God’s own being may be expressed most satisfactorily in a number of languages as “is just like God,” “is the same as God,” “what God is like is what he is like,” or “what is true about God is true about his Son.”

As already noted, verse 3 does not begin a new sentence in Greek. The first part of the verse is literally “who being a brightness of glory and a character of nature his,” “his” referring both to “brightness” and “character.” Most translations begin a new sentence at this point and replace the participle “being” with a verb in the present tense, such as Good News Translation‘s He reflects. This makes the passage easier to read. It also marks more clearly the difference between verses 1-2, which speak about particular acts of God, and verse 3, which describes what the Son is and has done.

The meaning of the Greek word translated sustaining is the common word for “bear” or “carry.” Although it may also mean “bring into being,” none of the translations consulted relate it to God’s act of creation. It is difficult to find a translation which will convey the two ideas of support and movement, that is, of “upholding” and “carrying on or forward.” Barclay‘s expanded translation is better than most: “It is he who sustains all things by the dynamic power of his word.” Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch has “through his strong word he holds the universe together.” In some languages two verbs may be needed. The literal “word of power” is a common biblical way of saying “powerful word.” We are not told what kind of a word it is; Jerusalem Bible translates “his powerful command.” “Word” in any case means “message” rather than a single word.

In a number of instances it may be preferable to render the participial phrase sustaining the universe with his powerful word as a separate sentence, but it may be extremely difficult to express in a succinct way the relation between sustaining and his powerful word. In some instances the closest equivalent may be “by his powerful command he causes the universe to function as it does,” “by his powerful words he causes all that exists to continue to exist,” or “… he causes everything to continue to be as it is.”

The second sentence of 1.3 in Good News Translation makes two statements about God’s Son: (a) he made people clean from their sins, and (b) he sat down at the right side of God. Both these statements refer to events which took place at particular points in time, “once and for all,” as the writer will insist later in the letter (7.27; 9.12; 10.10). The Greek text makes the second statement depend on the first, and most translations, including TEV, keep this construction. However, this does not always mean that the second statement, containing the main verb, is the more important. In other words, making men clean from their sins is not just a preliminary to the main event of sitting down at the right side of God. Bijbel in Gewone Taal uses two main verbs linked by “and”: “He cleansed humanity from their sins, and afterward took his place at the right side of God’s majesty in heaven.”

After achieving forgiveness for the sins of mankind: the phrase of mankind is implied, as Revised Standard Version shows. Some ancient manuscripts, followed by King James Version, have “when he had by himself purged sins,” but this is not the best text to be followed. After achieving forgiveness is literally “having made purification.” In Hebrew (compare Job 7.21), Greek, English, and other languages, this is a natural metaphor for dealing with sin. The meaning is “forgave” or “set free from” (Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch). Achieving forgiveness for the sins of mankind can be expressed as a causative: “causing people’s sins to be forgiven” or “making it possible for people’s sins to be forgiven.”

In some languages there are two different words which are often translated as “sins,” the first referring to specific events or deeds, and the second referring primarily to the resulting guilt. In such instances it is, of course, this second meaning which is in focus in this expression, since it is not the actual events that are forgiven but the resulting guilt.

Forgiveness is often expressed in rather idiomatic ways: “to blot out,” “to wipe clean,” “to throw behind one’s back,” “to throw away,” or even “to determine to remember no more.”

In some cases it may be necessary to indicate that God is the one who is ultimately the agent for the forgiveness of sins, and thus achieving forgiveness for the sins of mankind may be expressed as “making it possible for God to forgive people’s sins” or “showing how God forgives people’s sins.”

In choosing an expression for he sat down, it is important to use a phrase which would imply sitting down in a position of authority. One would certainly want to avoid an expression which would suggest that Jesus sat down because he was exhausted from having procured the forgiveness of sins.

In many cultures, as in the Bible, the right side is the place of honor. Jesus is equal to God the Father, and so he is (figuratively) close to him, sharing fully in his power (see 1 Kgs 2.19; Acts 2.34; Eph 1.20; and especially Rev 3.21). On the other hand, in some cultures the left side is the place of honor, but it would not be appropriate to change throughout the Bible the metaphorical expressions of “right side” in order to read “left side.” However, it may be necessary to employ some marginal note indicating that from the biblical viewpoint it is the right side which is the place of honor.

God is implied. The Supreme Power is literally “the greatness in the high (places),” a common way for Jews, and therefore Jewish Christians, to speak indirectly about God. This phrase may be expressed as “the one who is powerful above all,” “the one who alone has great power,” or “the one who alone is able to do anything.”

Quoted with permission from Ellingworth, Paul and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on The Letter of the Hebrews. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1983. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Verse 4 forms a bridge between the introductory statement of verses 1-3 about the greatness of the Son, and an extended comparison between the Son and angels, which goes on (with an interruption in 2.5-9) until the end of chapter 2. That is why some translations begin a new section here, as in Good News Translation. The comparison is expressed as a proportion. A mathematical parallel would be “2 is to 4 as 3 is to 6.” As Revised Standard Version shows, this can produce a heavy and complicated sentence if translated literally, and Good News Translation simplifies by using just as.

The word Son is not used in this verse in the Greek, but Good News Translation supplies it from the context in order to have an explicit subject of the sentence. It is often impossible to speak about The Son, since in many languages all terms which involve kinship must have some indication as to whom such an individual is related. In this case it may be necessary, therefore, to say “God’s Son.”

Was made is clearer than Revised Standard Version‘s literal “having become.” Verse 5 states what verse 4 already implies, that it was by a specific act of the Father that Jesus became his Son. Made here has a meaning similar to chosen (“appointed”) in verse 2; it does not have the meaning of created in verse 2. If one interprets was made in the sense of “became,” it is possible to say “God’s Son became greater than the angels”; but since the result derives from God’s action, it may be appropriate to use a causative, for example, “God caused his Son to be greater than the angels.” In this type of context greater must be understood in the sense of “more important,” “of higher rank,” or “of greater authority.”

In a number of languages angels is rendered as “messengers from heaven.” It is far better to use such an expression than to employ some fanciful phrase such as “heavenly winged creatures” or “winged spirits.”

In the Greek the word name is in an emphatic position at the end of the sentence, and the context (especially verses 2 and 5) makes it probable that the name is that of the Son. Bijbel in Gewone Taal translates “title,” and this fits the immediate context well. In Hebrew thought, a name was not just a means of identification; it referred to someone’s whole nature or personality. For example, when Jesus gives Simon the name Peter (Matt 16.18), he is declaring that Simon will be a rock; when God calls Jesus his Son, he is God’s Son.

The name that God gave him is literally “he has inherited a name”; compare King James Version “he hath by inheritance obtained a … name.” The metaphor of inheritance was discussed in the comments on Heb. 1.2. Here the meaning is that the Son has received his name from God as a gift. The tense of the verb shows that the gift is a permanent possession.

In a number of languages it is difficult to speak of “giving a name to a person.” Therefore it may be necessary to translate the name that God gave him as “the name that God assigned to him,” “the name by which God calls him,” or “the name that God said belonged to him.” By introducing an expression such as “belonged to,” one can do justice to the underlying meaning of the Greek, in which “inheritance” involves the concept of “coming into one’s rightful possession.”

It may, however, be strange in some languages to speak of a “name” as being “greater” than that of someone else. In some instances, is greater than theirs may be rendered as “shows that he is greater than they are.”

In a number of languages one must distinguish clearly between a personal name which identifies an individual, and a title indicating rank. In this context the emphasis is upon the title which was given to Jesus.

Verses 5-14 consist almost entirely of quotations from the Old Testament which are used to illustrate the fact that God has given the Son greater authority than the angels. The writer usually does not quote directly from the Hebrew but from the Septuagint, and often he does not quote the Septuagint exactly. This is the reason why the quotations in Hebrews are not always exactly as they appear in the Old Testament. In translating a quotation, the translator should respect its New Testament form and not try to harmonize the quotation with the Old Testament passage quoted.

Quoted with permission from Ellingworth, Paul and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on The Letter of the Hebrews. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1983. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

The quotations are (a) from Psalm 2.7 and (b) from 2 Samuel 7.14, which is narrated again in 1 Chronicles 17.13. Both Good News Translation and Revised Standard Version correctly make God explicit (King James Version “he”). At the beginning of sections it is often good to replace pronouns by nouns, since public readings of Scriptures and published selections often omit the earlier verses.

In the original, as in Revised Standard Version, this verse is a rhetorical question, that is, a question to which the answer is assumed. In this case, the only possible answer to the question “To which angel…?” is “To no angel,” so that the question is the equivalent of a strong negative statement. Knox modifies the question to make its rhetorical nature clearer: “Did God ever say to one of the angels…?” Most common language translations, and other translations such as Jerusalem Bible, New English Bible, and Translator’s New Testament, replace the question by a statement.

Good News Translation‘s For translates a common Greek word which often indicates a general causal connection, and in some places it may be omitted in translation. Here, however, the word For has its full force and implies “The Son has been given by God a higher status than angels (verse 4), and this is confirmed by God speaking in Scripture as follows….” It may therefore be better to expand For; for example, “That is why God never said to any of the angels….”

Good News Translation‘s his before angels is implicit, as Revised Standard Version shows; Biblia Dios Habla Hoy has “God never said to any angel.” God never said to any of his angels may be rendered as “God never said to any one of his messengers” or “… any one of his heavenly messengers.”

In the first quotation, You and Son are emphasized.

I have become your Father avoids the metaphor “begotten,” which could be misleading for various reasons: first, because the English word is archaic; second, because in English, as in some other languages, the verb “beget” is not often used as a metaphor; and third, because it could suggest that the Son did not exist until the moment at which God said “I have begotten you.” As the wider context shows (especially 2.14-18), it is not Christ’s existence which begins at this point, but the relationship between Father and Son which Hebrews links with the death and exaltation of Christ.

There are a number of problems in rendering today I have become your Father. Technically there should be no complication in this expression which denies God’s relationship to an angel, but indirectly this statement is to be interpreted as the relation of God to his Son. In some languages to say “I have become your father” would mean either by adoption, or by recognition that someone actually was a son even though the relationship had been previously denied. Some translators have wanted to use some such expression as “from now on you are my Son,” but this involves serious problems for the preincarnate state of Christ. One way to deal with this complex expression is to say “today I declare that you are my Son.” In this way the focus, as in the Greek, is upon the relationship between the Father and the Son without introducing what may be extraneous and otherwise misleading implications. In some languages the translation of You are my Son and I have become your Father may have to be combined into a single statement.

Nor did God say about any angel: Revised Standard Version‘s “Or again” (King James Version more literally “and again”; compare 2.13; 4.5; 10.30) is a formula which simply serves to mark the beginning of a new quotation; it has the same function as closing and reopening quotation marks. Good News Translation is followed rather closely by most other CLT’s: Bible en français courant “about an angel”; Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, Biblia Dios Habla Hoy “about any angel”; Bijbel in Gewone Taal has simply “or,” which is quite enough.

In the second quotation, the Greek for (I) will be and (he) will be are different forms of the same verb. In some languages, where the forms for the first and third person of the verb are the same, the sentence can be made more simple by omitting the second verb; compare Bijbel in Gewone Taal “I will be his Father, and he my Son.” In some languages it may be necessary to render will be as “will become” since there is an implied change of state or relationship; for example, “I will become his Father, and he will become my Son.”

Quoted with permission from Ellingworth, Paul and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on The Letter of the Hebrews. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1983. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

The quotation probably comes from the Septuagint of Deuteronomy 32.43, but the author may also have had Psalm 96.7 in mind.

The introduction to the quotation raises several problems for the translator.

The word But makes a contrast with what verse 5 has said about angels. Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch first edition expressed this contrast even more clearly: “But of the Son he said, when he sent….” The Greek adds “also” to “he said,” but only to show that another quotation is about to open. However, “also” can be omitted, especially in translations which use quotation marks.

The Greek word for Revised Standard Version‘s “And again” probably introduces a new quotation, as in verse 5b. If so, the phrase may be omitted in any translation which uses other ways to mark quotations, for example, with quotation marks. Some scholars see here a reference to the return or second coming of Christ, and therefore translate “When God brings again his first-born Son into the world…” (similarly Knox), but the clause more probably refers to Christ’s becoming man.

Revised Standard Version‘s “when he brings” may refer (a) to an indefinite time; (b) to something which had not happened when Deuteronomy was written, but which had happened when Hebrews was written; for example, the birth of Jesus, or his earthly life as a whole, or his exaltation; (c) to something which had not yet happened when Hebrews was written. Many translations and commentaries, including Good News Translation, choose (b), when God was about to send, referring to the birth of Jesus, or his coming into the world. However, the context, especially verses 1-4 and 13, is more concerned with Christ’s enthronement or ascension. This too is a past event which may be referred to in translation by a past tense.

The Greek verb may mean either send or “bring” (Revised Standard Version). If verse 6a is understood, as in Good News Translation, to refer to the incarnation, send is right; God in heaven is sending his Son to earth. If verse 6a refers to Christ’s enthronement, RSV’s “bring” is correct, indicating movement toward God in heaven.

His first-born Son is literally “the first-born” (Revised Standard Version). In view of 2.10-15, Good News Translation is probably correct, though his and Son are not explicit in the Greek. Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch has “with the right of the first-born,” emphasizing the supreme status of the Son, not his coming first in time. In Old Testament times the eldest son was considered the most important. He was given special privileges (see Gen 25.5-6; 27.35-36; 37.21-24). It was therefore natural for Christians to think of Jesus, the Messiah, as God’s first-born Son (see Col 1.15-17, 18; Rom 8.29; Rev 1.5). Chapter 2 states that there are other sons after the first-born, namely “believers,” but this is not emphasized at this point.

In a number of languages there may be complications involved in attempting to render literally “first-born.” In the first place, a term meaning “born” may refer primarily to the activity of a mother in giving birth rather than to the relationship of a father to a son. It may therefore be better to render his first-born Son as simply “his first Son.”

When God was about to send his first-born Son into the world may be more satisfactorily rendered in some languages as “just before God sent his first Son into the world.” The expression send … into the world presupposes a type of preexistence.

The Greek word for world may mean (a) the present inhabited earth (like world in Heb 4.3; 9.26, though the Greek word there is different); or (b) the future or heavenly world (as 2.5 makes clear).

Good News Translation chooses (a) and is supported by Barclay: “When he leads his firstborn Son on to the stage of world history.” This brings out the human element in the world, though perhaps “world history” is too modern a concept for Hebrews.

The context is generally concerned with Christ’s enthronement and therefore favors (b). If this is chosen, some such phrase as “the heavenly world” may be needed.

If verse 1.6a is understood in this second way, Good News Translation‘s he said is still clearer than Revised Standard Version‘s literal “he says.” The author probably means “What is written in Deuteronomy 32.43 is what God said when he brought his Son back to heaven to sit at his right side.”

Verse 6a may thus be translated: “When God brought his first-born Son back into the heavenly world, he said….”

King James Version‘s “And” before “let all the angels of God worship him” is included in the Greek text as part of the quotation, but it interrupts the flow of the sentence and adds nothing to the meaning. It is best omitted in translation.

The Greek word for worship originally implied bowing low before someone and kissing the ground before his feet, so Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch has “All God’s angels shall throw themselves down before him.”

In some languages it may be more natural for God to speak of “my angels” rather than God’s angels, as in the verse quoted from the Old Testament.

In some languages it may be rather strange to say as in Good News Translation, he said, “All of God’s angels must worship him,” since in so many instances it is important to have with a verb such as said an indication of precisely to whom such a command is addressed. Therefore it may be far more natural and meaningful to say “he said to all of his angels, ‘You must worship him.’ ” Though in some languages worship is expressed in terms of “bowing before” or “prostrating oneself on the ground before,” in a number of languages the act of worship is expressed as “giving honor to” or “recognizing as divine.”

Quoted with permission from Ellingworth, Paul and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on The Letter of the Hebrews. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1983. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

This verse begins another contrast: verse 7 refers to the angels, and verses 8-12 to the Son. The “And” with which the verse opens (King James Version) should therefore be omitted, so as to make a clean break. But in Good News Translation suggests a contrast with verse 6, and Good News Bible therefore uses however in verse 8 for variety. However, in the Greek the major contrast is clearly between verses 7 and 8. Earlier editions of Good News Bible left the minor contrast between verses 6 and 7 implicit by beginning verse 7 This is what God said about the angels.

About the angels God said may be expressed as “God spoke about his angels” or “in speaking about his angels, God said.”

God, at the beginning of the quotation, is implied, but Revised Standard Version shows how confusing a translation can be if this is not made explicit. On a first reading, it is not at all clear to whom RSV’s “Who” refers.

The quotation is an example of parallelism, a common device of Hebrew poetry. As in this verse, the two halves of the statement often mean essentially the same. For stylistic reasons it may be necessary to use two different words for angels and servants, but there is no difference in meaning in this context. In English and some other languages, the and can be omitted before his servants to make it clear that the second line of the quotation largely repeats the first.

In order to understand the first line of the quotation, it is necessary to realize that Greek has the same word for wind and “spirit.” (The same play on words is made in John 3.8.) Since the second line of the quotation mentions flames of fire, it is best to translate winds in the first line. However, since the same Greek word is used in verse 14 with the meaning “spirits,” it may be helpful to add a footnote to verse 7; for example, “The same Greek word means ‘wind’ and ‘spirit.’ ”

What is the exact relationship between angels and servants on the one hand, and winds and flames of fire on the other hand? In other words, what is the meaning of the word translated makes? The Hebrew text of Psalm 104.4 may mean either (a) God makes winds and flames into his messengers and servants; or (b) God turns his servants into winds and flames. The Greek text can mean only (b). Moffatt (Moffatt) translates “turns his angels into winds, his servants into flames of fire.”

A strictly literal rendering of God makes his angels winds, and his servants flames of fire would imply that God was actually changing his angels into wind and changing his servants into flames of fire, as some kind of miraculous change of real substance. Obviously the emphasis here is upon the contrast between the functions and roles of the angels and of the servants of God. It is sometimes said that Hebrews wishes to emphasize the changeable nature of angels, in contrast with the eternal nature of the Son (verse 8). However, there is little or no evidence that “wind” and “fire” suggest weakness or changeableness in the Bible. The contrast between verses 7 and 8-10 is between angels as subordinate, created beings, and the Son as creator and Lord. It may thus be necessary in some languages to employ a simile rather than a metaphor. Hence, one may translate “God makes his angels to be like wind, and he causes his servants to be like flames of fire” or “… fiery flames.”

Quoted with permission from Ellingworth, Paul and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on The Letter of the Hebrews. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1983. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

The word translated About in verses 7 and 8 more commonly means “To.” About fits the context better in verse 7, where God is not speaking to the angels, but “To” is more suitable here in verse 8, because God is speaking to the Son. Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch makes this distinction. About the Son, however, God said may therefore be rendered in a number of languages as “But God said to his Son.” Alternatively, in some languages it may be possible to find a general expression meaning “with reference to,” which may be used in both verses 7 and 8.

Verses 8-9 quote Psalm 45.6-7. The quotation is full of figures of speech. The way in which these are translated will depend largely on the culture of the people for whom the translation is being made. For example, in some areas “stool” is a better symbol of kingly power than “throne” (Revised Standard Version), and Good News Translation omits “scepter” (Revised Standard Version) because it is a sign of authority which is no longer used in many cultures. There is a close parallel between “throne” and kingdom (in the sense of “kingly power”).

There are two ways of punctuating the first line of the quotation. Good News Translation‘s Your kingdom, O God is the punctuation adopted by most translations. The alternative, “God is thy throne” (RSV footnote), is awkward, and nowhere else does the Bible use such language. At the end of the verse, as stated in the Good News Bible note, a few good Greek manuscripts have “his kingdom” instead of “your kingdom,” and this is so difficult that it is probably the correct reading. Therefore the meaning of the whole verse is probably:

To the Son, however, God said:
“Your kingdom, O God, will last forever and ever”;
and about him God said:
“He rules over his kingdom with justice.”

However, in translation it is simpler to follow early scribes in changing “his” to “your.” No change of meaning is involved, since the subject in any case is Christ. Good News Translation thus offers a good model of translation, except that, as already stated, “To” is better than About at the beginning of verse 8.

O God in English and some other languages is a little old-fashioned. Traduction œcuménique de la Bible omits O, and Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch first edition turned the phrase into a separate statement: “You are God, your throne remains….” However, the writer of Hebrews is not arguing, or trying to prove, that Christ is God. He assumes that Old Testament writers speak of Christ and sometimes call him “God.”

Forever and ever is an English idiom equivalent to Bijbel in Gewone Taal “in eternity”; Bible en français courant, Biblia Dios Habla Hoy “for always”; and Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch “for all times.”

It may seem very strange for God to address the Son as God, and such an expression may even mislead a reader to think that God is addressing some other god. Therefore it may be far better to begin the quotation as “You are God and your kingdom will last forever and ever,” “You are God and you will always reign,” or “… there will never be a time when you will not be reigning.” You rule over your people may be rendered simply as “You govern your people.”

The phrase with justice may require some expansion; for example, “Whenever you make decisions you do so justly” or “You are just in the way in which you rule your people.”

Quoted with permission from Ellingworth, Paul and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on The Letter of the Hebrews. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1983. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .