Hebrews

As to αἰῶνας, Heb. 1:2, I am not disposed to reject Alford's view; that is, so far as it accepts a course or plan of God in the idea-world. But no person can have entered into the spirit of the Epistle to the Hebrews and seen its connection (that is, the way it meets the Rabbinical and Philonic views, giving God's thoughts on the subjects they were speculating on), and not see that αἰῶνας is not merely "ages" or "epochs." It is רכצולמיכor more specificallyעולם בורא, the Creator of the worlds. You may see Bleek, Delitzsch, De Wette, Liinemann, Schleusner, Schirlitz, Wahl - not that I accept all they say, but for the use of the word. Schoetgen (Hor. Hebrews) says it is so common that it is useless to quote examples. Further, Heb. 11:3 seems to me to leave no possible doubt, because it continues, "so that the things which are seen were not made of the things which do appear" - distinctly intimating that he speaks of visible creation. I do not see how it is possible to overlook this, or after it to call the interpretation in question. Πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων shows, I think, the connection of the two. The critics refer to Eccl. 3:11, as proving the same use of עולם. Heb. 11:3, and the evident and constant use of the words in Jewish literature of the time, and the character of the epistle, leave no doubt of the meaning on my mind.
The notion of the word of the Son, in connection with His being placed heir, I should demur to. That it was the Son who spoke when it is said, "He spake, and it was made," I have no objection to whatever; but the heir constituting the ages I cannot accept here, because the statement is, "God spoke" -ἐν Ỳιῷ. Foρ ὁ θεδς λαλήσας...ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν ὑιᾡ, and so δἰ οῦ κ. τ. αἰῶνας ἐποίησεν is one phrase with one subject; and He who spoke is He who established the Heir of all things. So that I do not see how there is any possibility for the interpretation sought to be given; otherwise there is much I agree with.
Hebrews
In Hebrews God is approached in His nature as God: we go into the holiest. It is not the relationship of the Father with His child, nor is it union with Christ and the church, the entirely new thing; but "first began to be spoken by the Lord;" had "by the prophets;" and in "the last of these days." It connects Christianity with the old thing, only substituting the heavenly reality for the forms or patterns of things in the heavens. We are pilgrims on earth, and Christ in heaven for us. Hence, though it is for partakers of the heavenly calling as we are (not union in the church), it reaches out like Joseph's boughs over the wall to the persecuted remnant in the last day, who, though not having a heavenly calling, will have a heavenly portion; though Christ has to do with it when we go to God, in that we have a High Priest over the house of God. We go to the "throne of grace," our great High Priest being there (never to the Priest), though as Lord we do. But while we go in Christ's name, and so only can, there is no priest with the Father. Deut. 26 does not go beyond the Jewish order developed in Hebrews, and is very beautiful in that aspect. The defect of a tract on worship I saw in old times was that it was only Hebrews' worship, not the worship of the Father.
The priest in Deut. 26 was the necessary administrator of such things in Israel, and we are all priests; but it was the offerer said all directly. Anything offered to God must have been by the priest then. Still we have a High Priest over God's house, who is at the right hand of God, in the presence of God for us; but this is not as coming to the Father.