"Character" in Hebrews 1:3

Question #1:

I have a question about verbal nouns in Greek, and specifically the use of charakter in Hebrews 1:3, a word which in nearly every bible translation I have looked at here has "exact" representation of His, God's, nature/being. Where does the word "exact" come from?

Response #1:

On charakter, as you probably know this is where we get our English word "character", and it comes from dramatic usage, namely a person or character whose attributes are clear and resilient (as those of all the best characters in literature always are). The word itself comes from the verb charasso which in its technical sense means to engrave or inscribe, most often on coins. That is the essential idea behind the metaphor being used here. Coins bore the image of persons - at this time the Caesars in particular come to mind. God is spirit, but Jesus became flesh too, so that He provides a visible, tangible "imprint" of who God is and what He is like in a way that would be impossible for anyone who was not both man (and so visible) and God (and so displaying the attributes of divinity stamped in the flesh) could ever do. Just as we haven't seen Caesar, but get a picture of what he is like from the precise represention of his likeness on coins, so we haven't seen God, but we get to know what He is like from His precise "imprint" on the humanity of the Son (Jn.14:8-9). This phrase is parallel to and an added explanation of what precedes, namely, that Jesus is the "shining forth of His glory", that is, the glory of God is also something we cannot see (and live: cf. Ex.33:20), but "we beheld [Jesus'] glory" when the Word became flesh (Jn.1:14).

This is not a verbal noun. The root is verbal, but the noun is not (big distinction). We can make any number of different parts of speech from any root in Greek, regardless of whether the root behind it is verbal or not. It is true that verbal roots always retain some sense of the verbal aspect, but it is the suffix that makes the difference. For instance, the root math- is verbal, and we get manthano from it ("to learn"), but also ta mathematika ("the things which have to be learned"), mathema ("lesson"), and mathetes ("learner" or "disciple"), to name but a few. The suffix -ter here on charakter is an agent suffix, so that etymologically a charakter is a thing or person which "represents" someone or something else. The nature of the process of minting coins was, especially in the ancient world, as exact a science as one could have - it had to be for the value of the currency. That is where the idea of exactitude in the representation comes from.

In other words, there simply was no stronger way to put this that I am aware (equally true of "the [very] shining forth of His glory) - Jesus is the precise representation of the Father in His flesh. Really, I can think of no stronger way to say that Jesus is God and Jesus is really human at the same time, without stating as Hebrews does here that Jesus' divinity is obvious also in His humanity (and that is what the use of charakter in this passage accomplishes). Paul is, it is true, speaking in the language of men, not angels, so we have to make allowances for him putting the ineffable into terms we can understand. That God could become man, taking on human flesh to die for our sins, is the mystery of ages. The only way Jesus can be both God and God's exact representation is to become human as well as divine, and in doing so in His humanity He perfectly reflects, represents, shines forth the divinity of the Father who sent Him, along with the grace, mercy and truth of that mission, in a perfectly precise and "exact" way, with not a millimeter of distance between the purpose of the Father and the Son's fulfillment of that purpose.

Question #2:

Could you please explain the "after two days He will revive us" and "on the third day He will restore us" in Hosea 6:2?

Response #2:

This passage is talking about Israel corporately and also figuratively in the Person of the Messiah - who was raised on the third day (compare Is.49:3 where the Messiah is called "Israel"). So this verse prophesies the restoration of Israel after the age of the Church and the resurrection of the Messiah on the third day, the former being a type of the latter. I checked to see what Unger says about this verse (in loc. in v.2 of his Commentary on the Old Testament) and he has essentially the same thing on both aspects of this prophecy, connecting the two by way of the resurrection (since Israel past and believing Israel present forms part of the echelon of the resurrection to take place at Christ's return).

For more on the seven millennial, see the link:

Part 5 of the Satanic Rebellion, section II.7, “The Seven Days of Human History”

Yours in the one for whom a day is like a thousand years, our Savior Jesus Christ.

Bob L.