Thomas Aquinas

Above, the Apostle, wishing to prove the excellence of Christ over the Angels, adduced the authority of the prophet, in which there was something that pertains to the dignity of Christ, such as that saying, "thou hast subjected all things," etc. And this he himself expounded. But there was also something that pertains to his passion, namely, "thou hast lessened him," etc. Now this seems to conflict with his principal intention, namely, that he intends to set Christ above the Angels. And therefore in this part he expounds this at length. Here he does two things: first he shows in what respect this lessening is to be understood, namely, according to the passion; second he treats of the fittingness of the passion, where it says "for it became him." Concerning the first he does two things: first he shows what has been said; second he describes the passion itself, where it says "that by the grace of God."

He says therefore, "but him," etc. Let it be continued thus: thus it has been said, "what is man," etc., "with glory and honor," etc., "thou hast subjected all things," etc., "thou hast lessened him," etc.; and these things the prophet foretold of Christ, but already we see many of them fulfilled. For certain, therefore, we hold that what remains is yet to be fulfilled, namely, that all things will be subjected to him, etc. Gregory: "the showing forth of things past is the certainty of things to come." And it can be construed thus: "we see him who was made a little lower than the Angels" to be Jesus; and not only this, but "crowned with glory and honor," on account of the passion of death, which was the cause of that exaltation. Phil. 2:9: "for which cause God also hath exalted him," etc. And he says "of death," because he did not endure just any passion, but the harshest and most shameful. Wisd. 2:20: "let us condemn him to a most shameful death."

Or otherwise: "we see Jesus," and as if it were asked of him whom he meant, therefore answering he says: namely, him who through the passion of death was made a little lower than the Angels, crowned with glory and honor; as if to say: this lessening is not to be understood in Christ except on account of the passion of death. Nor is it surprising, because as regards this he is inferior not only to the Angels, but even to men. Is. 53:2f.: "we have desired him, the last of men," etc.

But the Gloss says — and it is from Augustine's Against Maximinus — that Christ was not made lower than the Angels on account of the condition of human nature, but on account of the passion. For the nature of the human mind, which Christ assumed without sin, has nothing greater than the Trinity alone. He is therefore lower than the Angels in body, because the passion is according to the body. This seems to be against Dionysius, who says that the Angels are greater than men by natural participation of light. And it must be said that we can speak of the nature of the human and angelic mind in two ways. In one way, according to natural endowments alone, and thus the nature of the Angels is more excellent and nobler than the nature of the human mind, because the Angel receives the knowledge of divine truth in a certain excellence and fullness of intellectual light, but man from creatures. In another way we can take the nature of each without sin, in order to the obtaining of beatitude, and thus they are equal. Lk. 20: "they shall be as the Angels in heaven." Christ, however, as to the excellence of grace, according to the human mind, is greater than the Angels. This lessening, therefore, is not according to the nature of the divinity, nor absolutely according to human nature, except insofar as he suffered according to it. We can, however, say that Christ was crowned with a threefold glory: namely, the glory of sanctification, which he had in the first instant of his conception; likewise the glory of divine fruition, because from that very instant of his conception he was a comprehensor; likewise the glory of impassibility, which he merited after the passion.

Then, when he says "that by the grace of God," he describes the passion itself, and he describes it in three ways: first from its cause, when he says "that by the grace of God"; second from its usefulness, when he says "for all"; third from its manner, when he says "he might taste." For the cause was the grace of God alone. Hence it continues thus: "we see Jesus, who was made lower," for this, "that by the grace of God," etc. For it was by that very grace that it came about that he gave his only-begotten Son. John 3:16: "for God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son." Rom. 5:8: "but God commendeth his charity towards us, because when as yet we were sinners," etc. Or, according to what the Gloss of Augustine says, "that grace," that is, Christ himself, who is the grace of God; and thus "grace" is in the nominative case. But Christ is called "grace" because he is the author of grace. John 1:17: "grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." Or because he was given freely. Is. 9:6: "a son is given to us." So that the sense would be that he himself was made lower, that he himself who is the grace of God, etc. Both positions are according to the Gloss.

"For all" — behold the usefulness. But "for all" can be understood in two ways: either so that it is a fitting distribution, namely for all the predestined — for these alone it has efficacy; or absolutely for all, as to sufficiency, for as far as it is in itself, it is sufficient for all. 1 Tim. 4:10: "who is the savior of all, but especially of the faithful." Chrysostom: he died for all men generally, because the price suffices for all; and if not all believe, he nevertheless fulfilled what was his part.

"He might taste" — behold the manner. For he tastes who does not eat much, nor drink much. Because, therefore, Christ did not remain in death, but rose again at once, he therefore "tasted." Ps. 109:7: "he shall drink of the torrent in the way," etc. The traveler hastens. Likewise, taste is discerning of flavor, hence one who tastes discerns more than one who drinks. Therefore, that he might signify that he felt death and sorrow, and thus that death was not illusory, as the Manichean and Apollinaris say, he therefore says "he tasted." Lam. 1:12: "O all ye that pass by the way," etc. The manner, indeed, is set down when it is said "he might taste." A like thing is found Matt. 26:39: "Father, if it be possible, let this chalice pass from me"; and this for three reasons. First, in order to express the bitterness of death, the experience of which is through taste. Lam. 1:12: "O all ye that pass by the way." Is. 24:9: "the drink shall be bitter to them that drink it." Second, because just as to taste or not to taste is in the power of the one tasting, so too the passion of Christ was voluntary. John 10:18: "I have power to lay down my life." Third, because to taste is to take a little, and Christ remained but a little in death, according to that: Ps. 15:10: "thou wilt not leave my soul in hell," etc.

Then, when he says "for it became him," etc., he shows the fittingness from usefulness. For God the Father is he who was the cause of death. For he is the one through whom are all things, as through an efficient cause, and on account of whom are all things, as through a final cause. For all things are on account of him, because on account of his goodness to be communicated. And this was the moving cause for producing things, and thus finally all things are on account of God. Prov. 16:4: "the Lord hath made all things for himself." They also exist effectively through him. Ps. 145:4: "who made heaven and earth, the sea, and all things that are in them." He is, therefore, the beginning and end of all things. Apoc. 1:8: "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end." Rom. 11:36: "of him, and by him, and in him, are all things." It became him, therefore, since he is the author of all things, to provide for all. Wisd. 6:8: "he hath equal care of all."

Second, it was fitting on the part of the cause, which, as has been said, was the grace of God; but grace is ordered to glory. Rom. 6:23: "the grace of God, life everlasting"; and God from eternity predestined those whom he was to bring into glory. And these are all those who are partakers of the sonship of his Son, because "if sons, also heirs," Rom. 8:17. And therefore he says "who had brought many sons into glory," as if to say: he himself has one Son, perfect by nature. Mark 12:6: "therefore, having yet one son, most dear," etc. Who is by nature "the brightness of glory," above, 1:3. But the others are adopted, and therefore are to be brought into glory. Hence he says "who had brought," that is, he had preordained them to be brought. And what was fitting for him? This, namely, that he himself is the author of their salvation, etc. This salvation consists in two things: namely, that they become sons, and that they be brought into the inheritance. But that they are sons, they have through the natural Son. "Whom he foreknew and predestined, to be made conformable to the image of his Son," Rom. 8:29. But they do not obtain glory and inheritance except through him whose the inheritance naturally is, who is the brightness of glory. Because, therefore, we obtain these two things through the Son, therefore he is fittingly called the author of salvation. Matt. 1:21: "he shall save his people from their sins." Below, 12:2: "looking on Jesus, the author and finisher of faith." It became, therefore, that the Father should send the author of salvation, namely the Son, as has been explained, who had brought many sons through him into glory. And thus the fittingness on the part of the cause is clear.

To be perfected through the passion, that is, through faith. For he himself, insofar as he is the natural Son, is totally perfect; but because in the passion he was made lower, he had to be perfected through the merit of the passion. From this consummation, therefore, the fittingness of the manner is clear, concerning which he had said that he "tasted." For he only tasted death, because he did not accept it except that through merit he might be perfected by the passion. For his very consummation is his glorification. Lk., last chapter: "it behooved Christ to suffer, and so to enter into his glory." He also "tasted," because, since he himself had brought sons into glory, just as a physician tastes the medicine so that the sick person may not shrink from it but may drink it more confidently, so he himself tasted death, so that, since without death entering by necessity there is no salvation, no one might flee from death.

Consequently, when he says "for he that sanctifieth," he proves what he had said. Here he does two things: first he proves his proposition on the part of the Father who perfects; second on the part of Christ who is perfected, where it says "for as much then as the children." Further, concerning the first he does two things: first he sets forth what he intends; second he proves it by authority, where it says "for which cause." He says, therefore: "for he that sanctifieth, and they who are sanctified, are all of one." Now it must be known that above the Apostle had said three things: first, that Christ is the cause of salvation, in which he shows that we depend on him as on a savior; second, he shows that the Father is the one who perfects Christ himself through the merit of the passion, and in this Christ depends on the Father; third, that the Father brings us into glory, in which he also shows that we depend on God. And according to this, the Apostle here does three things. For first he shows that we depend on Christ: the one sanctified depends on the one sanctified, but Christ is the one who sanctifies. Below, 13:12: "Jesus, that he might sanctify by his own blood," etc. Well, therefore, it has been said that, because he is the author and sanctifier, we depend on him; but he himself depends on the Father, from whom he has that he sanctifies, which is the second point. But all — namely he who sanctifies and we who are sanctified — are of one, namely of the Father, which is the third point. Rom. 8:17: "heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ."

Consequently he proves these three things by three authorities. And first, that Christ, as mediator and author of salvation, refers to us the things that are God's. Hence he says: "for which cause," because, namely, we and he depend from the Father and are of one God the Father, "he is not ashamed to call them brethren," namely because they are of the same Father. Mal. 2:10: "is there not one father of us all?" Rom. 8:29: "that he might be the firstborn amongst many brethren." Therefore it is said in Ps. 21:22: "I will declare thy name to my brethren." And John 20:17: "go to my brethren." But note that he says "he is not ashamed," etc.; because some who are born of lowly stock, if they are promoted, are ashamed to acknowledge their kinsmen. Prov. 19:7: "the brethren of the poor man hate him." But not so Christ; rather he says "I will declare thy name to my brethren." John 17:5f.: "Father, I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou hast given me." John 1:18: "the only-begotten, who is in the bosom of the Father," etc.

He shows the fruit of this announcement, when he says "in the midst of the church will I praise thee," as if to say: by this a great church is gathered for thee, in the midst of which I will praise thee. And he says "in the midst," because just as a column in the midst of a house sustains it, a lamp in the midst of a house illumines it, the heart in the midst of the body gives it life, so Christ is in the midst of the Church. Likewise "in the midst," because he was not sent to one people only, as Moses was — Ps. 75:1: "God is known in Judea" — but for the salvation of the whole world — Ps. 73:12: "thou hast wrought salvation in the midst of the earth" — and therefore it is said, Luke, last chapter: "Jesus stood in the midst of the disciples."

It must be known concerning this, that before the law it was the custom that all firstborn were priests, and this pertained to the right of the firstborn. But Christ is a brother as the firstborn, and therefore he is a priest. But a priest, sanctifying the people, is in the middle between God and the people. Deut. 5:5: "I was the mediator at that time." And therefore it pertains to him, first, to announce to the people the things that are God's; second, to refer to God the things that are the people's. He does the first by saying — and therefore he says "I will declare thy name to my brethren," that is, I will lead them into knowledge of thee, and this is to sanctify them. John 17:17: "sanctify them in the truth," etc. He does the second while he makes men, out of affection towards God, break forth into the praise of God, and therefore he says "in the midst of the church."

Then, when he says "and again," etc., he shows that Christ himself depends on the Father, by this that he says "I will put my trust in him." This, according to Jerome, is found Is. 8:17, where we have: "I will wait for the Lord, who hath hid his face from the house of Jacob," etc. But Is. 12:2 has expressly: "I will deal confidently, and will not fear." "I will be trusting in him" for the glory of the head and the members, which above he called consummation. Ps. 30:1: "in thee, O Lord, have I hoped." He shows, however, what hope he has, because not just any hope, but a firm one, which is called trust. For hope, even if it is not of the impossible, nevertheless sometimes has fear joined to it, and then it is properly called hope. Sometimes hope is firm and without fear, and then it is properly called trust. And this Christ had. He says, therefore, "I will be trusting in him," that is, I will have trust in his help, namely the Father's, for the glory of the body, which he will raise up, and of the members and of the soul. Ps. 31:1: "in thee, O Lord, have I hoped," etc. Jer. 17: "blessed is the man that trusteth in the Lord."

But on the contrary, the saints say that in Christ there is neither faith nor hope, but only charity. I answer. It must be said that hope is one thing, trust another; for hope is the expectation of future beatitude, and this was not in Christ, because from the instant of his conception he was blessed; but trust is the expectation of any kind of help; and according to this, trust was in Christ, insofar as, according to his human nature, he expected help from the Father in the passion. Hence, when it is found there that Christ is said to have hope, it is not to be understood by reason of the principal object, which is beatitude, but by reason of the glory of the resurrection, and of the glory conferred on the body.

Then, when he says "and again," etc., he shows the third point, namely that he refers us to God, saying "behold I." And it is found Is. 8:18. As if to say: I have been referred to God — I, I say, who am trusting — and likewise "my children," whom I lead back to God, namely my disciples. John, last chapter: "children, have you any meat?" "Whom God hath given me." John 17:6: "they were thine, and thou hast given them to me." These are called "children" on account of purity. 1 Kings 21:4: "if the young men are clean, especially from women"; and a little after, in the same place, 5: "the vessels of the young men were holy." Likewise on account of simplicity. 1 Cor. 14:20: "do not become children in sense, but in malice be children." Likewise on account of humility. Matt. 18:3: "unless you be converted, and become as little children," etc. Likewise on account of readiness towards the good: "suffer the little children to come to me." And he shows that not only he himself is from God, but also the children; hence he adds "whom the Lord hath given me," and thus it is verified what he had said: "he that sanctifieth and they that are sanctified are all of one," because John 6:44: "no man can come to me, except the Father who hath sent me draw him."