(1) One of our trinitarian neighbors has given us this scripture as proof that Jesus is omnipotent, and therefore that Jesus is the supposed "second person" of Yahweh.

(2) We note first that the scripture does not say that Jesus is God Almighty, but rather the "eradiated brightness" of God's glory. Jesus possessed the glory of God both as man and as a spirit being. Upon earth we read that Jesus was "crowned with glory" as a human, a little lower than the angels. (Hebrews 2:9; Psalm 8:5) Mankind in general (except for the new creatures who are reckoned righteous through faith in Christ) presently "fall short of the glory of God," thus do not fully possess this crown of glory. (Romans 3:23-24) Had Adam obeyed, he would have kept this glory of God originally given to him, and "all things" [panta] would still be in subjection under the feet of mankind. Now, however, we read that "we don't see all things [ta panta] subjected to him [mankind], yet." (Hebrews 2:8) However, while on earth, Jesus was the eradiated brightness of God's glory. (Hebrews 2:7; John 1:14) After his exaltation, Jesus is the eradiated brightness of the glory of his God, Yahweh, on even a higher scale. The "all things" [ta panta] to be subjected to mankind is described in Psalm 8:6-8 and Genesis 1:26,28. It does not include absolutely everything in the universe.

(3) Next, we read that Jesus is the exact representation of the person of God. Being the representation, or image of God, Jesus is not God Almighty. Again, Adam and Eve were created in the image of God. (Genesis 1:27) This character image would have been exact if Adam and Eve had obeyed and developed incorruptible love for their Creator. Thus when man sinned, the image of God in man is not an exact representation of the person of God.

(4) Some translations translate the word hypostasis in Hebrews 1:3 as "substance", "being", "essential essence" or "nature" rather than "person", which, from the trinitarian standpoint of "mia ousia, treis hypostaseis" ("One essence in three hypostases"), seems to overlap ousia with hypostasis, rather than make a distinction between the two. Actually, hypostasis in the scriptures could be translated as either person or being, for as concerning a sentient being there is no difference.

See:
http://reslight.net/trinitydefinition.html

(5) Trying to explain who or what Jesus is as an exact representation of has caused trinitarians to come up with different explanations. Some have told us that "hypostasis" here refers to the entire being of God Almighty. The trinity teaches that their alleged three persons of God Almighty are all the same essential essence. If hypostasis means "essential essence", then Jesus would be an image of the essential essence of the trinity, which is not what trinitarians claim for their doctrine. In other words, we would have two God Almighties, both consisting of a trinity.

Our trinitarians neighbors often make much of the Greek word translated "exact representation" (Strong's #5481), making it appear that it means that Jesus has to be and have absolutely every quality of the one represented, which would include the quality of being uncreated, having existed from all eternity past, etc. In reality this cannot be, even from the trinitarian standpoint, for if Jesus is the exact representation of the entire being of God, and if God is three persons, logically this would make Jesus himself three persons. But this isn't what our trinitarian philosophers would desire Hebrews 1:3 to say.

(6) Some trinitarians tell us that hypostasis here is the person of God as the first person of the trinity, the Father, and that Jesus, the second person of the trinity, is the exact representation of the first person of the trinity. The Geneva Study Bible says that hypostasis here is the person of the Father. But if we take the expression "exact representation" to extremes, to be totally and completely an exact representation in absolutely every detail, then Jesus would have to be the Father of Jesus also. Additionally, if the one being represented is the Father, then to be totally and completely the exact in absolutely all qualities, then Jesus would have to be unbegotten, even as the Father is unbegotten. If hypostasis is an exact representation [Greek, charakter, Strong's #5481] of the Father as a supposed person of a trinity of persons, then one has to delineate what characteristics of the Father are represented in the Son and which are not. In effect, Jesus could not be an "exact representation" of the Father in the sense that our trinitarians would like to have it so. Since the Father is unbegotten, for instance, one would have to show somehow that "exact representation" does not include the quality of being unbegotten, since the Son is begotten. Nor would it include the quality of being the Father of Jesus. Thus, from this standpoint, one still has to limit what qualities are included in the term "exact representation", so that it still does not include absolutely all qualities in every detail.

(7) We have been told that "exact representation" means that all God is, the Son is. Using this, we would reason then that if Jesus is an exact representation of the the being of God, and if carried to extremes, then Jesus would himself be three persons in one being in order to be an exact representation of the being of God.

(8) But someone may reply that it means that he is the "exact representation" of all the qualities held in common by each person of the trinity, but by this our trinitarian neighbors are brought to limits as to what is included in "exact representation". This could be taken further and applied to all who restored to the image and likeness of God in the resurrection day -- they all would have the image of God -- the qualities that they hold in common with God. Thus, it brings back to our conclusion that the one bearing the image of God is not God himself.

(9) In actuality, Hebrews 1:1,3 shows that God is one person -- one hypostasis, not three, and that Jesus is the image of the one person. -- New American Standard, American Standard, New Revised Standard, Revised Standard, Today's English (Good News), etc.

(10) One trinitarian tells us: "The Greek word 'hupostasis' means 'to stand under', or 'to take on one's self something else without losing what you had'. The word 'person' (Greek hupostasis) in Heb 1:3 speaks of the Second Person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ, as a whole 'person', which consists of His divine and human nature." This explanation seems to say that the Second Person of the Trinity, which is supposed to be Jesus, is the person that Jesus is the exact representation of. In other words, Jesus is the exact representation of Jesus, which makes no sense whatsoever.

(11) As far as the sub-stance, substanding, if this should be the application of hypostasis here, then it would lend itself to the idea that Jesus is the exact representation of God's "substanding". If "substantial quality" be placed here, then Jesus is and exact representation of God's substantial quality. If the hypostasis be translated as confidence (as in 2 Corinthians 9:4; 11:17; Hebrews 3:14), then Jesus would be the exact representation of God's confidence, resolution, steadfastness, etc. In none of these various meanings that could be given the word do we find reason to believe that Jesus is God Almighty, but rather just the opposite.

For Thayer and Smith definitions of hypostasis, see:
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=5287

(12) Now we come to that part which many claim proves that Jesus is omnipotent, and therefore that he is Yahweh: "also bearing up all things by the utterance of his power." That the "all things" [Greek, "ta panta"] referred to here does not make Jesus omnipotent is seen by the fact that this "all" is given to him by his God Yahweh. Jesus sustains or bears the load of all the things given to him, he makes sure that all will be accomplished, by means of the power (dominion) and authority given to him by his Father, his God, Yahweh. -- Isaiah 11:2; 61:1; Daniel 7:14; John 5:21-30; 8:29; 12:49,50; 14:24; Ephesians 1:20,21; 1 Peter 3:22.

(13) We have already seen that *ta panta* -- all things -- in Hebrews 2:8 does not mean absolutely all things in the universe; likewise in Hebrews 1:3, ta panta -- all things -- refers to the all that has been given to Jesus by his God, as stated in the context. It is apparent that the One giving all this to Jesus is excepted. -- 1 Corinthians 15:

(14) As Jesus carries out the will of God in the dominion given to him, Yahweh himself is still excluded from that which Yahweh subjugates to Jesus, thus Yahweh still remains the ultimate omnipotent. "Ta panta"-- all things -- in 1 Corinthians 15:25,26 excludes Yahweh. All power and authority given to Jesus is given to him by the one who is the ultimate source of all life and all power, that is Yahweh, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus.

(15) Thus we see that there is nothing in Hebrews 1:3 that says that Jesus is ominipotent, and therefore the Most High. If one simply accepts that Jesus is the exact image of God, and the only God -- the only true Power -- is Yahweh, the Father of Jesus, there is no need to add a lot of trinitarian or oneness jargon in order to show what this scripture is saying. Nor would there be any need to present the logical consequences of the trinitarian application to this scripture as we have here, if it were not for unique twists that trinitarians and others have given to this scripture.