Commentary on Hebrews (Super Epistolam ad Hebraeos Lectura)

Above, the Apostle showed in many ways the superiority of Christ over the Angels; here from this he concludes that the teaching of Christ, namely the New Testament, must be obeyed more than the Old Testament. And concerning this he does three things. For first he sets down the intended conclusion; second he brings forward a reason for the intended conclusion; third he confirms the consequence of the reason. The first, at the beginning; the second, where he says "For if that which through Angels"; the third, where he says "For not to Angels."

Concerning the first it must be known that in Ex. 23:20, after the judicial and moral precepts of the law had been given, he adds: "Behold, I send my Angel," etc., and there follows: "Observe therefore and hear his voice," etc. If therefore the command of the Angel, through whom the law was given, were kept, entrance would be prepared to the homeland. Whence also in Matt. 19:17 it is said: "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." It is necessary therefore to keep those commandments of the law; therefore it is necessary all the more to obey the commandments of him who is greater than the Angels, through whom the law was given. And this is what he says: "Therefore we ought more abundantly to observe the things which we have heard." Abd. 1:1: "We have heard a hearing from the Lord." Hab. 3:2: "Lord, I have heard thy hearing, and I feared." It is necessary therefore to observe more abundantly.

And he says "more abundantly" on account of three things: first, on account of the authority of the one speaking, because this one is creator and Son of God, and that one a creature and minister of God. Acts 5:29: "We ought to obey God rather than men," and also than Angels. Second, on account of the usefulness of the things said, because they are words of eternal life. John 6:69: "Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of life," etc.; those others are of temporal goods. Is. 1:19: "If you be willing and hearken to me, you shall eat the good things of the land," etc. Third, on account of the sweetness of observance, because these things are sweet: 1 John 5:3: "His commandments are not heavy," and Matt. 11:30: "My yoke is sweet," etc.; those others are heavy: Acts 15:10: "This is a burden which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear."

Second, he shows the same thing from the imminent danger, when he says "lest perhaps we should flow utterly away," that is, be eternally damned. Here it must be known that one flows away through bodily punishments — 2 Kings 19:14: "We slide away like waters upon the ground" — one flows out through fault, but one flows utterly away, bodily, through eternal damnation, because not even a shard remains. Is. 30:14: "It shall be broken as the potter's vessel is broken with a mighty destruction, and there shall not be found among the pieces thereof a sherd."

Next he brings forward a reason for this, which contains a single conditional containing a comparison of the New and the Old Testament. In the antecedent is set down the condition of the Old Testament; in the consequent, the condition of the New Testament. Concerning the Old, however, he sets down three things: namely, the authority of the law; second, the firmness of its truth, where he says "which was made firm"; third, the necessity of observing it, where he says "and every transgression."

First he sets down the authority, because the law was not given by human reason, but through Angels. Gal. 3:19: "ordained by Angels," etc. Acts 7:38: "This is that Moses who was in the church in the wilderness with the Angel who spoke to him on mount Sinai," etc. Nor is this to be wondered at, because, as Dionysius proves, revelations of divine illuminations come to us by the mediation of Angels.

The firmness of the truth, however, he shows when he says "which was made firm," because everything that was foretold in the old law was entirely fulfilled. Matt. 5:18: "One iota or one tittle shall not pass from the law till all things be done"; and Prov. 12:19: "The lip of truth shall be firm for ever"; and the Psalm: "The things that proceed from my lips I will not make void." It was made firm, therefore, because it was not made void.

He shows the necessity by which transgressors are punished. Whence he says "and every transgression and disobedience," etc. Where he sets down one thing which corresponds to a twofold fault, namely the sin of omission and of transgression. The first corresponds to affirmative precepts, the other to negative ones. The first is signified by the name of disobedience. But is disobedience a general sin? And it seems that it is, from what is said here. To which it must be said that a sin is called special from the intention of a special end. Whence when someone does not keep a precept with this intention, that he may despise the precept, thus it is a special sin; but when it is from some other cause, for instance when it is from concupiscence, then it is a condition following upon sin, but not however a special sin. The other, however, is called transgression. Ps. 118:115: "I have accounted transgressors," etc.

Likewise he sets down another thing on the part of the punishment, when he says "received a just recompense of reward." For recompense regards the quantity of the fault, so that he who has sinned more is punished more. Reward, however, regards the quality, so that he who has sinned by the fire of lust may be tormented by fire. He will receive, therefore, a good reward for good things, and a bad one for bad things. And thus "reward" is taken both in a good and in a bad sense, insofar as it implies the justice of distributing. He says "just" on account of the equality of the punishment, namely that the measure of the stripes should be according to the measure of the sin. Concerning the punishments, it is found in Lev. 26 and Deut. 28. The Gloss says: "just," lest it be thought that justice perishes on account of mercy.

Next, when he says "how shall we escape," etc., he sets down the consequent of his conditional, in which he describes the condition of the New Testament, where he does three things. For first he shows the necessity of observing it; second, the origin of the New Testament; third, the firmness of its truth. The second, where he says "which having taken its beginning." The third, where he says "God also bearing witness." He says therefore: If the word given through Angels punishes transgressors and the disobedient, how shall we escape, etc. In which he denotes the danger that threatens those who do not observe it.

Above, however, he called the Old Testament "salvation." The reason for this is that the word is ordered only to knowledge, for this is what the Old Testament does, because through it there is knowledge of sin. Rom. 3:20: "Through the law, knowledge of sin." Likewise, knowledge of God. Ps. 147:9: "He hath not done in like manner to every nation." And elsewhere, 75:1: "In Judea God is known," etc. It did not, however, confer grace, but in the New Testament grace is conferred. John 1:17: "Grace and truth were made through Jesus Christ," which leads to eternal salvation. John 6:69: "Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life." Ps. 118:140: "Thy speech is exceedingly inflamed."

Likewise, he commends it from its quantity. And he says "so great," that is, very great. And certainly it is very great, if you consider from what dangers it frees: because it frees not only from the dangers of bodily death, but also of spiritual death. Matt. 1:21: "For he shall save his people from their sins." Likewise it is great, because it is universal, that is, not of one people only, nor from one danger, but it is of all men and from all enemies. 1 Tim. 4:10: "Who is the savior of all, but especially of the faithful." Luke 1:74: "That being delivered from the hand of our enemies, without fear," etc. Likewise it is great, because it is eternal. Is. 45:17: "Israel is saved in the Lord with an everlasting salvation." And therefore it is not to be neglected, but we ought to be solicitous to obtain it. Judges 18:9: "We have seen a land exceedingly rich and fruitful." And there follows: "Do not neglect, do not cease," etc. And truly we ought not to neglect it, because if we shall have been negligent, we will be punished, not only by the loss of the good, but we shall also incur an evil, namely of eternal damnation, which we shall not be able to escape. Therefore he says, "How shall we escape?" Matt. 3:7: "Who will show you to flee from the wrath to come?" Job 11:20: "Flight shall perish from them." Ps. 138:6: "Whither shall I go from thy spirit? Or whither shall I flee from thy face?"

He shows the origin of the teaching of the New Testament, when he says "which having taken its beginning," etc. Where he sets down its twofold origin. The first was not through Angels, but through Christ himself. Above, 1:2: "He hath spoken to us by his Son." John 1:18: "The only-begotten, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." And therefore he says "which, having taken its beginning of being declared through the Lord" — because it has a twofold beginning: one simply, and that is from eternity, and this is through the Word itself. Eph. 1:4: "He chose us in him before the foundation of the world." The other is the beginning of the declaring, and this was in time, through the Word incarnate. The second origin was through the apostles who heard from Christ. Whence he says "by them that heard," that is, through their preaching. 1 John 1:1: "That which was from the beginning, which we have seen and have heard," etc. Luke 1:2: "As they related to us, who from the beginning themselves saw."

Then he sets down its firmness, which is greater than the firmness of the Old Testament, which he shows from the testimony of God, who cannot lie. Whence he says "it was confirmed, God bearing witness," etc. It must be known, however, that testimony is through speech: speech is a sensible sign. God, however, bore witness by a twofold sensible sign, namely by miracles and by the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

As to the first, he says that it was confirmed, God bearing witness, by "signs," with respect to lesser miracles, such as the healing of a lame man, or of a fever. Of the first, Acts 3:6 and 14:7; of the second, however, the last chapter of Acts. By "wonders," as to the greater things, such as the raising of the dead. Acts 9:40: "Tabitha, arise," etc. Now "portent" is so called as if "stretched forth" or "stretched afar," namely because it shows something at a distance. 2 Par. 32:31: "In the embassy of the princes of Babylon, who had been sent to him, to inquire concerning the wonder, namely that the sun had gone backward," etc. The chief wonder, however, is that God was made man. Is. 8:18: "I and my children, whom God hath given me for a wonder" — namely, that I am man, and that my children would believe this. For it was a wonder that the human heart could believe this.

He says "by various powers" so that signs and wonders may be referred to those things which exceed the power of nature. So that a "sign" is called what is beyond and above nature, yet not contrary to it; but a "wonder" is what is contrary to nature, such as the childbirth of a virgin, the raising of the dead. But "power" is referred to those things which are according to nature as to the substance of the deed, but not as to the manner of its being done, as the healing of a fever, which indeed physicians can do, though not instantly. Or "powers" may be referred to the powers of the mind, which the Lord gave to his preachers, namely faith, hope, and charity.

But as to the second, namely as to the gifts, he says "and by distributions of the Holy Spirit." But on the contrary, as it is said in Wisdom 7: "the Holy Spirit is one." How then is he distributed? It must be said that he is not distributed according to essence, but insofar as his gifts are distributed. 1 Cor. 12:4: "There are diversities of graces, but the same Spirit." Now all graces are attributed to the Holy Spirit, because they are given out of love. Love, however, is appropriated to the Holy Spirit. Gregory: "Surely the Holy Spirit is love." Or "by distributions," that is, through the distributions which are made by the Holy Spirit, because to one is given the word of wisdom, to another the word of knowledge, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, and so of the others. And all this not according to merits, nor from the necessity of nature, but through his own will. John 3:8: "The spirit breathes where he wills," etc., and 1 Cor. 12:11: "All these things one and the same spirit works," etc. Mark, last chapter: "The Lord cooperating, and confirming the word with signs that followed."

Above the Apostle made a certain comparison, showing that there is a greater necessity of observing the precepts of Christ than of the law given through Angels; here he confirms the consequence, where he does two things. First he confirms the said consequence, showing that the power of Christ is greater than that of the Angels; second he proves the same through authority, where it says, but a certain one has testified. He says, therefore, that those who act against the commandments of Christ will bear greater punishments than those who act against the commandments of Angels, because Christ himself is Lord, and one who sins against the lord is punished more than one who sins against servants. And that Christ is Lord he shows from this, that God did not subject the world to come — subject to Christ — to the Angels. And he does two things. First he shows that the world is not subject to Angels; second he shows of which world he means, where it says of which we speak.

For the world is not subject to Angels. Job 34:13: Whom else has he set over the earth, or whom has he appointed over the world which he made? But against this, Daniel 10:20 speaks of an Angel prince of the kingdom of the Greeks and Persians. And Deuteronomy 32:8: He set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God, according to another reading. And it must be said that it is not subject to them by way of dominion, but by way of a certain ministry. For the whole corporeal creation is administered through Angels. Ps. 102:21: His ministers, who do, etc. Above, 1:14, they are all called ministers.

Or else, he did not subject the world to come to the Angels — the world to come, I say, namely this world, which is called "to come," because in Scripture something is sometimes called "to come" not with respect to us, but with respect to that to which it is compared, just as the same Apostle says, Rom. 5:14, concerning Adam with respect to Christ, who is the form of the one to come; for Christ is not future with respect to himself, but with respect to Adam. Thus here the world is called "to come," not with respect to us, but with respect to Christ, who is from eternity, whereas the world is in time. And because the Manichees say that the world is subject to an evil God, and not to the good one, therefore he adds of which we speak, because he means not another world, but this one.

Or above, 1:11 and following, he had said they themselves will perish, namely the heavens, and will be changed, which, as was said there, is understood with respect to their state, not with respect to their substance, so that there is a twofold state of the world. One, which is now present. 2 Pet. 3:7: The heavens which now are, etc., by the same word stored up, are reserved unto fire, etc. And the other is to come. But in this world which now is, not all things are subject to him, as was said above — this with respect to the execution of power, although they are subject with respect to authority; but then, in that future state, the world will be subject to him. And therefore he adds of which we speak.

Next he proves it through authority, when he says but a certain one has testified. Where he does three things. First he commends the authority of the testimony he is bringing in; second he brings in the truth of the testimony, where it says, What is man, that you are mindful of him? Third he explains the sense of the testimony, where it says, for in that to him all things.

Concerning the testimony, he first sets down that the words of the Old Testament are certain testimonies of Christ. John 5:39: Search the Scriptures, etc. And a little after: and they are the ones that bear witness of me. And therefore he says but he has testified. Second, because among the Jews there were certain Scriptures less known, and certain ones more known, and therefore the Scriptures of the Psalms are of greater dignity, which they themselves used in all their sacrifices. And therefore he says in a certain place, namely one known and manifest. Third he sets down the authority of the one speaking, namely David, who was of the greatest authority. 2 Kings 23:1: The man said, to whom it was appointed concerning the Christ of the God of Jacob, the excellent psalmist of Israel.

Then he brings in the testimony, when he says what is man, etc. Where he does three things. First he sets down the mystery of the incarnation; second, of the passion, where it says you made him a little lower than the Angels; third, the mystery of the exaltation, where it says with glory and honor. Concerning the first he touches on two things: first the cause of the incarnation, second the incarnation itself, where it says or the son of man.

Now the cause of the incarnation is God's remembrance of man, and therefore he says what is man, to be read disparagingly; as if he were saying: man is a very small thing with respect to God. Is. 40:17: All nations are before him as though they were not, and are reputed to him as nothing and vanity. For if someone loves another, and leaves him a long time in miseries, and does not come to his aid, he seems to have forgotten him. But God loved the human race, both because he made it in his own image, and because he placed it in the midst of Paradise. But after sin, because he did not immediately come to its aid, he seems to have forgotten it. But then he seems to have been mindful of it, when he sent the restorer. Ps.: Remember us, O Lord, in your good pleasure, etc. And therefore he says what is man, etc., as if he were saying: if we consider the lowliness of man, it is a marvel that you are mindful of him, who is so lowly and small; lowly, I say, and small in nature, especially as regards his lowly substance. Gen. 2:8: God formed man from the slime of the earth. Is. 64:8: And now, O Lord, you are our father; but we are the clay, etc. Lowly in guilt. Whence Augustine, on John: Men become nothing when they sin. Obadiah: Behold, I have made you small among the nations; you are exceedingly contemptible, etc. Lowly and weak in punishment. Job 14:1: Man born of woman, living a short time. Amos 7:5: Who shall raise up Jacob? — namely, prostrate, because he is small.

Second he sets down the incarnation itself, when he says son of man. Where it must be known that in sacred Scripture Christ is called son of man, as is clear from Dan. 7:13, and in the Gospel in many places; and the reason for this is that others are sons of men — Ps.: Sons of men, how long will you be heavy of heart? But Christ is son of only one human being, namely of the blessed virgin. And he himself is visited by God. Sometimes visitation in Scripture refers to a benefit, as is said in Gen. 21:1: The Lord visited Sarah, etc. But sometimes to punishment. Ps.: I will visit their iniquities with a rod. But here it refers to a benefit. You visit, that is, you confer upon him a most excellent benefit, because you make him the Son of God, from this namely, that the humanity was assumed by the Word into the unity of the supposit. Or he says this on account of the fullness of Christ. John 1:14: Full of grace and truth, etc. Or both are to be referred to Christ, so that the sense is: you are mindful of him in the incarnation, in which the humanity was assumed by Christ, but you visit in the resurrection.

Or both are to be referred to the human race. Now every son of man is a man, but not every man is a son of man, for Adam was not a son of man. He is therefore called man who bears the image of the earthly man, namely of Adam. And this man is called a sinner. But he is called son of man who bears the image of the heavenly man, namely of Christ, who is called son of man. 1 Cor. 15:49: As we have borne the image of the earthly, let us also bear the image of the heavenly. Man, therefore, simply speaking is called a sinner. And because he is far from God — for salvation is far from sinners — God is said to be mindful of him, just as a man is mindful of that which is far from him. But when from a sinner he becomes just, thus the son of man is visited through grace. Job 10:12: Your visitation has preserved my spirit.

Next he sets down the mystery of the passion, when he says you made him a little lower than the Angels. Where it must be known that, in the order of nature, corruptible and passible things are lesser than incorruptible and impassible things. But Angels according to nature are impassible and immortal. Hence when Christ deigned to sustain the passion and death, he was made lower than they, not because he lost his fullness, or was diminished in anything, but because he assumed our smallness to himself. And this was signified in Luke 22:43, where it is said that an Angel of the Lord appeared to him, comforting him — not because he needed him, but that he might show himself made lower than they through the passion.

Now he says a little lower on account of two things. First, because every corporeal creature is a small thing, by comparison with the rational, because the corporeal is comprehended within certain limits of quantity, but the rational is not, but is always able to reach further into the more intelligible; but Christ was made lower than the Angels, not as to his divinity, nor as to his soul, but by his body alone. And thus he said a little lower on account of quantity. Second, he is said to be a little lower as to duration, because it lasted but a little. Is. 54:7: For a small moment I have forsaken you, etc. Nor is it a marvel that in the passibility of his body he was made lower than the Angels, since in this he was made lower even than man, according to that of Ps. 21:6: But I am a worm, and no man — and this on account of the shamefulness of death, concerning which Wisdom 2:20: Let us condemn him to a most shameful death.

But if both things that were said, what is man, etc., are referred to man, then man is said to be made lower than the Angels in three ways: first as to knowledge, but a little lower, because not as to the genus of knowledge — for both man and Angel share in one genus of knowledge — but as to the mode, because Angels know in a more excellent mode than men. Second, as to the body, because although the Angel and the soul are of one nature, namely the intellectual, yet the soul is united to the body — but even in this only a little, because the dignity of the soul is not taken away through this kind of union, though it is in some way weighed down and impeded from a higher contemplation. Wisdom 9:15: The body which is corrupted weighs down the soul. Third, as to gifts, and this a little, not as to the gratuitous gifts — Matt. 22:30: they shall be as the Angels of God in heaven — but as to the natural gifts.

Then when he says with glory and honor, etc., he shows the mystery of the exaltation, where he does three things. First he shows his glory; second, his honor, where it says and with honor, etc.; third, his power, where it says you have set him, etc. Rev. 5:12f.: Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and divinity, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing, in every creature, etc.

He says therefore first, you have crowned him with glory, that is, with brightness. For glory implies brightness. But Christ was crowned with a twofold glory, namely with the brightness of the body. Phil. 3:21: Who will refashion the body of our lowliness, conformed to the body of his brightness. This brightness is promised to him, John 12:28: And I have glorified the soul, namely by filling it with the splendors of grace, and I will glorify again, namely the body, with the glory of immortality. The other brightness is in the confession of all peoples. Phil. 2:11: And every tongue confess. Ps. 20:5: You will bestow glory and great splendor upon him.

Next he shows his honor, when he says and with honor, etc. Now honor differs from glory, as effect from cause. For honor is reverence shown in testimony of excellence, whence it is a testifying of his goodness. That honor is, that every creature should revere him just as the Father. John 5:23: That all may honor the Son as they honor the Father. And he says you have crowned, namely as a sign of victory, because a crown is given to the victor. 1 Cor. 9:25: They indeed that they may receive a corruptible crown, etc. 2 Tim. 2:5: He shall not be crowned, except he strive lawfully. But Christ, through the struggle of the passion, merited this glory and honor. Phil. 2:8: He became obedient unto death, and it follows: For which cause God also exalted him, etc. But these things, as they belong to Christ insofar as he is God, are not a reward, but rather natural to him; but insofar as he is man, they are the reward of the victory of his passion.

But he shows his power, first as to his authority; second as to the effect, where it says you have subjected all things, etc. As to the first, he says you have set, which can be understood in three ways. In one way, that he was set over all places, and this in the ascension. Eph. 4:10: He ascended above all the heavens, that he might fill all things. Second, in dignity. Eph. 1:20f.: Setting him at his right hand, above all principality and power, etc. Third, in power, because over every creature. Matt., last chapter: All power is given to me in heaven, etc. But Christ, insofar as he is God, was not set, but born; but he was set insofar as he is man. Above, 1:2: Whom he has appointed heir of all things, etc.

The effect of his power is, that you have subjected all things under his feet. Now the prophet uses the past tense for the future, on account of greater certainty. For it has already been done in the eternal predestination of God. And he says under his feet, that is, his humanity, or with total subjection. Ps. 109:2: Until I make your enemies, etc. Or under his feet, that is, under his humanity; for just as by the head of Christ is understood God, 1 Cor. 11:3, so also by the feet of Christ is understood his humanity. Ps.: We will adore in the place where his feet stood.

But if this is expounded thus, man is said to be crowned with glory as to intellectual knowledge, by which he is preeminent over the other animals. 1 Cor. 11:7: The man indeed is the glory and image of God, etc. Job 35:11: Who teaches us more than the beasts of the earth. Likewise with honor, inasmuch as he alone, above all the animals, is lord of his own acts, and is not subjected to the necessity of mutable things as to his soul, since he has free will. Likewise with power, because you have set him over all the works — in one way, so that by the word "all" are understood all the creatures which are beneath man. Gen. 1:26: Let him have dominion over the fish of the sea, and the fowl of the air, etc. In another way, so that the word "all" stands for the whole universe of creation, because even the heavenly bodies and the Angels are of service to man. Ps. 90:11: God has given his Angels charge over you, to keep you, etc.

Next when he says for in that, etc., he expounds the sense of the testimony. Where the Apostle does two things. First he expounds as to his sublimity; second as to the lowering, where it says but him who by a little. Concerning the first he does two things: first he shows how the saying of the prophet is to be understood; second he shows that it is not yet fulfilled, where it says but now.

When therefore he says for in that he subjected to him, he shows how it is to be understood; for since Scripture says that all things are subjected to Christ, it has left nothing not subjected to him. Hence the word "all" is not a distribution accommodated to certain classes, but absolutely to all things, because all things are generally and universally subjected to him. This is true, apart from him who subjected all things to himself, as is said in 1 Cor. 15:28; just as it is said heaven covers all things — true, of things other than itself. But then Arius argues thus: the Father subjected all things to the Son, therefore the Son is lesser than the Father himself. I respond. It must be said that it is true that the Father subjected all things to the Son according to the human nature, in which he is lesser than the Father — John 14:28: The Father is greater than I — but according to the divine nature, Christ himself subjected all things to himself.

Next when he says but now we do not yet see all things subjected to him, he shows that this is not yet fulfilled, because unbelieving sinners and Demons are not yet subject to him. Rom. 10:16: But not all obey the Gospel. Ex. 10:3: How long will you refuse to be subject to me, etc. And thus sinners are not subject to Christ through the rebellion of their will, but through his power all are subjected to him now as to authority, but in the future all will be subject as to execution. Whence this is the exposition of what he said above, the world to come.

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."

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."