Hebrews 1:1-4 NIV (Thursday, February 26, 2026)

God’s Final Word: His Son

1 In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, ^(2) but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. ^(3) The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. ^(4) So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.

Questions/Discussion

1. There is a trend throughout the entire bible of God speaking to His people in various ways, which clearly changes over time. There is direct appearance in the old testament (Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, Abraham in Mamre, Moses and the burning bush, Jacob and the wrestling), through prophets (Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc.), dreams (Joseph and his brothers bowing to him, Solomon at Gibeon, Nebuchadnezzar), interpretations of dreams (Joseph & Daniel), angels, personal revelations. I’m sure there are others and that I missed some really good examples. But then, Jesus comes and changes everything. He comes to earth and speaks directly to us for 33 years. How is the way God speaks to us now both similar and different to how He has spoken over time?

2. Why do you supposed the author calls the times of Jesus on earth “these last days”?

3. What does it mean “through whom also he made the universe”? Is this pointing to Jesus’ authority over creation, the co-equal and co-eternal status of Jesus as God, both, or something else?

4. What does it mean that the Son is the radiance of God’s glory and that all things are sustained by His word?

5. Do you think the second half of verse 3 “at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven” suggests a physical location, a spiritual hierarchy, both, or something else?

6. Why do you supposed verse 4 says “so he became”? It seems to imply that he wasn’t always, which I think isn’t what the author is trying to say. What exactly is the author trying to convey here with the “so he became”?