a. These various voices are highlighted in the Greek text by 1) being placed in an emphatic position at the beginning of the sentence, and 2) alliteration in the Greek, 'polumeroos kai polutropoos,' lit., "little by little/many times and in many ways." This sets the way for a comparison with the Son through whom God spoke uniquely and with finality in v2. These polu-compounds, says William Lane, "express in an emphatic way the writer's conviction concerning the extent of the Old Testament revelation. He surveys the revelation granted through the prophets in its variety and fullness but implies that until the coming of the Son the revelation of God remained incomplete." (Hebrews 1-8, 10.)
b. The expression "in last days" is an idiom commonly used in the Septuagint to translate the Hebrew expression be'acharit hayyamim, 'in the end of the days.' The OT prophets frequently looked towards a day when God would bring all things to a grand consummation of His kingdom, when all promises would have been fulfilled. Those days are be'acharit hayyamim. The NT consistently sees that day inaugurated by the death, resurrection and exaltation of Christ.
c. The Greek text has "a Son." While the translation "his Son" (NIV, NKJ, KJV, NASB) is theologically correct to identify "a Son" (RSV, NRS) with "his Son," it reflects a slightly different emphasis. The difference between the two may be appreciated by saying, e.g., that "she took a bus home" (i.e., she did not go by boat or a taxi) and "she took the 9.15 RedLiner home." One compares the means (the superior one), the other specifies or identifies it. On the Greek reading, Donald Guthrie says, "He is certainly not saying that God has more than one Son. He is implying that the finest of the prophets cannot stand comparison with a Son as a means of revelation" (TNTC, old series; Grand Rapids/Leicester: Eerdmans/Inter-Varsity Press, 1983),63. This said, it is to be noted that even scholars find it difficult to translate the noun 'Son' without the definite article; "it is hard to express the force of the original concisely in English" (O'Brien, 51 n 41).
1. The sad irony is that this often actually leads to us singing nonsense. Take the popular song Jehovah Jirah, e.g.. The words are supposed to mean "the Lord is our Provider" or "the Lord Provides." No Jew, however, will recognize any of the words as meaning what they are supposed to say. Jehovah is an English mix-up word for the personal name of God that is so holy that that Jews do not pronounce it and if they have to refer to it at all, they substitute Adonay in its stead. The 'jai' sound in Jireh does not occur in Hebrew. 'Provide' is yir'eh, not jai-rah. Singing nonsense, as long as they sound Jewish, seems for some Christians more pleasing to God than singing meaningful vernacular. I wonder if God understands nonsense as well as we do.