Thomas Aquinas

Above the Apostle showed the fittingness of the death of Christ on the part of the Father imposing death; here he shows the same on the part of Christ himself undergoing death. Now he said of Christ that he was the author of the salvation of the faithful; therefore here he intends to show how through his passion he was made the author of their salvation. And concerning this he does three things. First he shows the condition of the nature by which he was able to die and suffer; second he shows the usefulness which he brought about through death, at the place "that through death"; third he proves what he had proposed, at the place "for nowhere the angels."

He says therefore first: I said that he and the children are all from one, and that he called them brothers; therefore it was fitting that he should be like them, not only because he imparts to them a participation in the divine nature, which is from the gift of grace, but also because he himself assumed their nature. Hence he says that since the children shared in flesh and blood, he likewise partook of the same. Here it should be noted that by the name of flesh and blood, sometimes the very nature of flesh and blood is understood, Gen. 2:23: "This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh," so that by flesh you understand the body, according to Job 10:11: "with skin and flesh you have clothed me"; but by blood you understand the soul, not that the soul is itself blood, but because it is not preserved in the body without blood. Sometimes, however, by flesh and blood are understood the vices of flesh and blood. Matt. 16:17: "flesh and blood has not revealed it to you." Sometimes, however, the very corruptibility of flesh and blood. 1 Cor. 15:50: "flesh and blood shall not possess the kingdom of God, neither shall corruption possess incorruption." But here it is not understood of the vices: for Christ assumed a nature without sin, but with passibility, because he assumed flesh like unto sinful flesh. Rom. 8:3: "in the likeness of the flesh of sin." He himself, therefore, shared either with the children, or also with flesh and blood, and entirely in like manner, namely, not with flesh in a phantom way, as Manichaeus said, nor accidentally, as Nestorius said, but with true flesh and blood, just as the children, and in unity of person.

What is said here, that Christ shared in flesh and blood, is not to be understood according to what these terms designate as the vices of flesh and blood, for he did not assume guilt, nor commit it; but according to what they designate as the very substance of ensouled flesh, because he assumed flesh and soul. Likewise it is to be understood of the passibility of the flesh, because he assumed our passible nature. So that the sense is that the children, that is, the faithful, had a passible nature, and he, namely Christ, partook of the same — either "the children," namely in the nature of flesh and blood, or "the same," that is, flesh and blood — not indeed in a phantom way, as Manichaeus raves, nor accidentally, as Nestorius feigns, but "likewise," namely as we do, that is, in the way that we partake, that is, according to the truth of the thing, namely personally and substantially. For we partake of them in person, and Christ likewise assumed them into unity of person. John 1:14: "the Word was made flesh." Flesh and blood can also be understood as the flesh and blood of Christ, according to John 6:55: "he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood"; in which the children, namely the apostles, shared at the supper, and Christ likewise partook of the same, namely of flesh and blood, because he himself likewise partook, as Chrysostom expressly says on Matthew 26: Christ himself (he says) drank his own blood. Hence Luke 22:15: "With desire I have desired," etc.

Next he shows the usefulness which he brought about through death, when he says "that through death he might destroy," etc. And concerning this he does two things. First he shows this usefulness on the part of the Devil, who held; second on our part, who were held, at the place "that he might deliver them." He says therefore: he partook of flesh and blood for this reason, that is, he assumed a nature in which he could suffer and die, which he could not in the divine nature, in order that through death he might destroy him who had the empire of death, that is, the Devil. But how does the Devil have dominion over death? For this belongs to God alone. 1 Kings 2:6: "the Lord makes alive, and kills," and Deut. 32:39: "I will kill, and I will make to live." I respond. It must be said that a judge has dominion of death in one way, namely as it were inflicting death, when he punishes through death; a thief has it in another way, namely as it were acquiring death for himself through demerit. In the first way God has the empire of death. Gen. 2:17: "in whatever day you shall eat of it, you shall die the death." In the second way, the Devil, who by persuading man to sin, condemned him to death. Wisdom 2:24: "by the envy of the Devil, death entered into the world." But he says "destroy" not as to the substance, which he has incorruptible, not as to malice, as though the Devil might at some time become good (as Origen says), but as to the dominion of power. John 12:31: "now is the judgment of the world, now shall the prince of this world be cast out." Col. 2:15: "despoiling the principalities and powers, he led them confidently, openly triumphing over them in himself."

And this was brought about through the death of Christ for a threefold reason. One is on the part of Christ. For it is the true principle of justice that the victor subject the vanquished to himself. 2 Pet. 2:19: "for by whom a man is overcome, of the same also he is the slave." For Christ conquered the Devil. Apoc. 5:5: "the lion of the tribe of Judah has conquered." And therefore it is just that the Devil be subject to him. Luke 11:21: "when a strong man armed keeps his court," etc. Another reason is on the part of the Devil. For justice demands that whoever misuses a power granted to him should lose it. But to the Devil it was given permissively over sinners whom he seduced, but not over the good. Because, therefore, he presumed to extend this even to Christ himself, who did no sin — John 14:30: "the prince of this world comes, and in me he has nothing" — therefore he deserved to lose it. The third reason is on our part, because it is just that the vanquished be the servant of the victor, as has been said. But man through sin was a servant of the Devil — John 8:34f: "whoever commits sin is the servant of sin" — and thus subject to the Devil, and liable to sin. But Christ paid the price for our sin. Ps.: "the things I did not steal, then I paid." The cause of servitude, namely sin, having been removed, therefore, man was freed through Christ.

But it must be known that no other satisfaction was fitting. For man was the debtor, but one can indeed satisfy for another out of charity. But no one could satisfy for the whole human nature, because he does not have power over it. Nor also could the human race itself sufficiently satisfy, because the whole was liable to sin. Nor also an angel, because this satisfaction is for glory, which exceeds the capacity of the nature of an angel. It was necessary, therefore, that there be a man, who ought to satisfy, and God, who alone has power over the whole human race, who could satisfy for the whole human race. Through the death, therefore, of God and man, he destroyed him who has the empire of death.

Next, when he says "that he might deliver them," etc., another usefulness is set forth on our part. Concerning which it must be known that man is a servant of sin insofar as he is led to sin. But among all things there are two which lead most effectively to sin, namely the love of present goods, inflaming badly, and also the fear of present punishments, humbling badly. Of these, Ps. 79:17: "burnt with fire," as to the first, "and dug under," as to the second. But these two are reduced to the same thing, because the more one loves some good, the more he fears the evil contrary to it. These are the things by which man is bound and held fast in sin; yet he is moved more through fear than through love. Hence we see that fierce beasts are held back from the greatest pleasures by fear of punishment, and thus fear binds men the most. But among all fears, the fear of death is the greatest. For it is the end of terrible things. Hence if a man overcomes this fear, he overcomes all; and this being overcome, every inordinate love of the world is overcome. And therefore Christ through his death broke this bond, because he took away the fear of death, and consequently the love of the present life. For when a man considers that the Son of God, the lord of death, willed to die, he does not fear to die. And hence it is that before the death of Christ that one said, in Ecclus. 41:1: "O death, how bitter is the remembrance of you." But after the death of Christ the Apostle cries out, Phil. 1:23: "having a desire to be dissolved and to be with Christ." Hence Matt. 10:28: "do not fear those who kill the body," etc.

He says therefore "that he might deliver them," who through fear of death were liable to servitude, namely of sin, through their whole life, which they too much desired. Or otherwise: for man was liable to a twofold servitude, namely of the law and of sin. Hence Acts 15:10, the law is called a yoke, which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear. For the hands of Moses were heavy, Exod. 17:12; Gal. 4:5: "that he might redeem them who were under the law." For they were liable to the servitude of sin. From this twofold servitude Christ freed us. But the difference between the New and the Old Testament is fear and love. In the New there is love. John 14:15: "if you love me, keep my commandments." But the Old was a law of fear. Rom. 8:15: "for you have not received the spirit of servitude again in fear." And therefore he says "that he might deliver them" who, through fear of bodily death, which the law inflicted, were through their whole life liable to the servitude of the law.

But it is asked why he did not immediately free from death, but from the fear of death? I respond. It must be said that he immediately freed us from death as to its cause, but not yet from death itself, although he freed us from the fear of death. The reason for this is that if he had freed us from bodily death, men would serve Christ only for the sake of a bodily good, and thus the merit of faith and hope would perish; likewise also the very punishments are meritorious for us unto eternal life. Acts 14:21: "through many tribulations," etc. And it should be noted that he freed us from the fear of death, first by showing the future immortality, and from this man esteems temporal death lightly. 1 Cor. 15:20: "Christ rising, the firstfruits of them that sleep," etc. Second, by voluntarily foretasting death, from which we are made more ready to undergo death for Christ. 1 Pet. 2:21: "Christ suffered for us, leaving you an example," etc. Third, by opening the approach to glory, which before his death did not lie open, and from this we not only do not fear death, but we desire it. Phil. 1:23: "having a desire to be dissolved and to be with Christ," etc.

Next, when he says "for nowhere did he take hold of the angels," the Apostle proves the usefulness which the death of Christ brought. And concerning this he does three things. First he shows that Christ freed us through death, which he proves from the condition of the passible nature which he assumed; second he concludes the likeness, at the place "whence he ought"; third he shows the usefulness of the likeness, at the place "that he might become merciful."

He says therefore: I said that Christ through his death freed us from sins and death. Nor is there doubt that, as to the condition of nature, an angel is greater than man; but because an angel was not liable to servitude, nor worthy of death, therefore he did not assume an angel. But if he had assumed an angel, this indeed would have been on account of the dignity of the nature; but nowhere do we read that he assumed him, but only the seed of Abraham, that is, human nature, not however the ideal nature, but in an individual and an atom, and from the seed of Abraham. Matt. 1:1: "son of Abraham," etc. And he adds this so that the Jews, who glory in being of the race of Abraham, might the more venerate Christ. But he significantly says "took hold of," because that is properly said to be taken hold of which flees. But not only did human nature itself flee from God, but also the very sons of Abraham. Zech. 7:11: "they turned away the shoulder," etc.

But this taking hold of human nature into the unity of the person of the Son of God exalts our nature beyond measure; hence Chrysostom says: it is truly great and wonderful and full of astonishment, that our flesh sits on high, and is adored by Angels and Archangels. Turning this over often in my mind I suffer a rapture, imagining great things of the human race. But it seems that he ought rather to have taken hold of the angelic nature than the human nature: for likeness is a reason contributing to the congruity of the incarnation of the divine person. But in the angelic nature is found a more express likeness of God than in the human, because it itself is the seal of likeness, Ezek. 28:12. It seems, therefore, more fitting that he ought to have taken hold of an angel, than the seed of Abraham. Moreover: in the angelic nature sin is found just as in the human. Job 4:18: "in his angels he found wickedness." If, therefore, he took hold of human nature in order to free it from sin, it seems that he ought much more to have taken hold of the angelic.

I respond. It must be said that some nature is called assumable by the Son of God according to its congruence to unity of person. But this congruence is regarded as to two things: namely as to dignity, that that nature is assumable which is born to attain the Word itself through its own operation, by loving and knowing him; and as to necessity, namely that it be subject to a remediable sin. The first and second are found in human nature, which is fit and born to love and know God, and its sin was remediable, and therefore it is assumable. But to the angelic nature, although the first is present, the second is nevertheless lacking; for its sin is irremediable, not indeed from the gravity of the fault, but from the condition of its nature or state. What is death to men, is a fall to angels, as Damascene says. But it is manifest that all the sins of man, whether they be small or great, before death are remissible, but after death they are irremissible and remain perpetually; and therefore the angelic nature is unassumable. And through this the solution to the objections is clear, because although in the angelic nature there is the congruence of dignity, the congruence of necessity is nevertheless lacking.

Then, when he says "whence he ought in all things to be made like unto his brethren," from the foregoing he concludes the likeness, as if he were to say: since, therefore, he did not take hold of the angels, but the seed of Abraham, therefore he ought in all things to be made like his brethren. In all things, I say, in which they are brethren — not in fault, but in punishment — and therefore he ought to have a passible nature. Hence below, 4:15: "but tempted in all things according to likeness, without sin" — namely as to punishment, not the temptation of fault. Likewise they are brethren as to grace. 1 John 3:1: "behold what charity God the Father has given us, that we should be called and should be the sons of God." Rom. 8:29: "whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be made conformable," etc.

Next he sets forth the usefulness of this likeness, when he says "that he might become merciful," where he does two things: for first he sets it forth; second he expounds it, at the place "for in that," etc. For Christ, insofar as he is mediator, has a twofold office. One by which he is set over the whole human race as judge. John 5:27: "he gave him power to do judgment," etc. The other, by comparison to God, before whom he intercedes for us as it were an advocate, because he stands before his face for us — below, 7:25, and 1 John 2:1: "we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ," etc. But in a judge mercy is most desired, and especially by the accused; in an advocate fidelity is desired. But in Christ the Apostle intimates that these two things exist through his passion. For the human race desired mercy in Christ insofar as he is judge; fidelity, insofar as he is advocate. And Christ exhibited these two things through his passion.

Hence as to the first he says that through the passion he was made like his brethren, that he might become merciful. But was he not merciful from eternity? It seems that he was, because "his mercies are over all his works," Ps. 144:9. Likewise, from the beginning he had mercy. Job 31:18: "from my infancy mercy grew up with me." I respond. It must be said that mercy is called, as it were, a wretched heart over another's misery, and this is in two ways. In one way through mere apprehension, and thus God, without passion, apprehends our misery. For he knew our frame, as it is said in Ps. 102:14. In another way through experience, and thus Christ, especially in his passion, experienced our misery. And thus it is said, that he who was merciful through apprehension of our misery, might become merciful through experience. Is. 58:9: "I will cry, and say: behold I am here, for I am merciful, the Lord your God." And hence it is that he showed mercy, as is clear concerning the woman caught in adultery. He taught mercy, Matt. 5:7: "be merciful," etc. He commanded mercy, Matt. 12:7: "learn what this is: I will have mercy, and not sacrifice," etc.

Likewise he himself is a faithful advocate. And therefore he is called a faithful high priest. Below, 9:11: "Christ, being present, a high priest of the good things to come." And it is required that he be faithful. 1 Cor. 14:2: "here now it is required among stewards, that a man be found faithful." And all this, that he might make propitiation for the sins of the people, namely for whom he willed to undergo death. For the passion itself is a pleading, and an intercession of the faithful.

Then, when he says "for in that," etc., he expounds this usefulness, and it continues thus, as if he were to say: I do not speak of Christ insofar as he is God, but insofar as he is man. And therefore "in that," that is, in that nature which he assumed, so that he might experience in himself that our cause is his own. Hence he says "he was both tempted and suffered"; therefore he is able to help also those who are tempted. Or otherwise: therefore he was made merciful and faithful, because in that he suffered and was tempted, he has a certain fittingness for this, that he should show mercy. And he says "tempted," not by the flesh, but by the enemy. Matt. 4:1: "Jesus was led into the desert by the spirit, to be tempted by the Devil." For in him there was no rebellion of the lower part against the higher, but he suffered in the flesh for us. 1 Pet. 2:21: "Christ suffered for us," etc. And 4:1: "Christ therefore having suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same thought."