Hebrews 1:1-3

I think Hebrews 1:1-3 is one of the more ignored passages in Christology. Not "ignored" in the sense that they don't receive attention in New Testament theologies and deity of Christ books, but "ignored" in the sense that they are often not addressed adequately. 

Below I will quote the verses from the Darby Translation:

God having spoken in many parts and in many ways formerly to the fathers in the prophets, at the end of these days has spoken to us in the person of the Son, whom he has established heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;  who being the effulgence of his glory and the expression of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power, having made by himself the purification of sins, set himself down on the right hand of the greatness on high,  

This text teaches us several things. Firstly, "God" is the one who has "spoken in many parts and in many ways formerly to the fathers in the prophets." Who is the "God" in verse 1? It is clearly the Father because later in verse 2 it continues on saying that this same "God" has "spoken to us in the person of the Son." Clearly, then, this "God" is the Father since he has a "Son." 

The obvious implication is critical: It is the Father who speaks in the Hebrew Scriptures. Whenever there's dialog between Moses and God, Abraham and God, Isaiah and God, and any other personage from the Hebrew Scriptures, it is always the Father. Never a Trinity, never the Son, never the Holy Spirit. But always the "God" who has a "Son." 

Continuing to verse 3, Darby translates the Greek term χαρακτὴρ as "expression" which more literally means "a mark or impression placed on an object" (see BDAG, Page 1077). At other times, and probably the most common usage of 'karacter' in early Greek literature outside the Bible, is used in reference to the imprints made to coins of images of emperors or rulers. Clearly, then, Jesus is the imprint or mark of God's "substance." I don't pretend to know what the author of Hebrews meant by "substance" but it is possible he was speaking ontologically. It is also possible he was speaking qualitatively. Whatever the case may be, what is clear is that there is a division or separation of "substance" between "God" and God's "imprint," in other words, His Son. 

If one is the "imprint" of another's "substance" it is clear that one had to come before the other, in this case, the  Father existed before the Son. Not only does the usage of χαρακτὴρ make this clear, but so do the terms "Father" and "Son." That is the most obvious and reasonable implication of the terms so used, though the most ignored.