Thomas Aquinas Commentary Hebrews 2

After showing in a number of ways Christ’s superiority over the angels, the Apostle here concludes that Christ’s doctrine, namely, the New Testament, deserves more obedience than the Old Testament. Regarding this, he does three things: first, he states the intended conclusion; secondly, he supports this conclusion with a reason (v. 2); thirdly, he confirms the consequence (v. 3).

In regard to the first point, it should be noted that after giving the judicial and moral precepts of the Law in Exodus chapter 25, the Lord continues in Exodus 23:20: “Behold, I will send my angel, who will go before you and will bring you into the land.” He then adds a warning in Exodus 23:21, telling them to pay attention to him, listen to his voice, and not treat him with contempt. Therefore, if the commandment of an angel, through whom the Law was delivered, is obeyed, they will enter the promised land. In the same way, we must obey the commandments of Christ to enter heaven. Hence, it says in Matthew 19:17: “If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” It is necessary, therefore, to keep the commandments of the Law, but it is much more necessary to obey the commandments of Him who is higher than the angels through whom the Law was delivered.

This is what the Apostle says: therefore, we must pay closer attention to what we have heard. “We have heard a rumor from the Lord” (Obadiah 1:1); “O Lord, I have heard your speech and was afraid” (Habakkuk 3:2). We must, therefore, observe these things more closely for three reasons. First, because of the authority of the one speaking, for He is the Creator and the Son of God, not a creature or a minister of God: “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

Secondly, we must pay closer attention because of the benefit of the commands, for they are the words of eternal life: “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life” (John 6:68). Other commands concern temporal goods: “If you are willing and obedient, you will eat the good of the land” (Isaiah 1:19). Thirdly, we must pay attention because of the sweetness of their observance, for they are sweet and not burdensome. As 1 John 5:3 says, His commandments are not heavy; and Christ Himself says, “My yoke is sweet and my burden is light” (Matthew 11:30). This is in contrast to the Law, which is described as “a yoke that neither our fathers nor we were able to bear” (Acts 15:10).

Secondly, he shows the same thing from the threatening danger when he says, “so that we do not drift away from it,” that is, be eternally damned. Here it should be noted that a person can drift away through bodily punishments: “For we must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again” (2 Samuel 14:14). One drifts away more seriously through guilt, but one drifts away most terribly through eternal damnation, from which not even a fragment remains: “And he shall break it as the breaking of the potters' vessel that is broken in pieces; he shall not spare: so that there shall not be found in the bursting of it a shard to take fire from the hearth, or to take water withal out of the pit” (Isaiah 30:14).

Then the Apostle presents his reason, which contains a conditional sentence comparing the New and Old Testaments. The antecedent mentions the condition of the Old Testament, and the consequent mentions the condition of the New Testament. Regarding the Old Testament, he mentions three things: first, the authority of the Law; secondly, the solidity of its truth (v. 2b); and thirdly, the necessity of obeying it (v. 2c).

First, he mentions its authority, because the Law was not delivered by human authority but by angels: “It was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator” (Galatians 3:19); “This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sinai, and with our fathers” (Acts 7:38). Nor is this strange, because, as Dionysius proves, the revelation of divine illuminations reaches us through the medium of angels.

He shows the firmness of its truth when he says it was established, because everything predicted in the Old Law has been fulfilled: “The lip of truth shall be established for ever” (Proverbs 12:19); “Not one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled” (Matthew 5:18). As the Psalmist says, “The words that proceed from my mouth, I will not make void” (Psalms 89:34). Therefore, the Law was made valid because it was not made void.

Then he shows the necessity of obeying it, because the disobedient are punished: “and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution.” Here he mentions two types of guilt: the sin of omission and the sin of commission. The first corresponds to affirmative precepts and is identified by the name “disobedience.” The second corresponds to negative precepts and is called “transgression.”

But is disobedience a general sin? It seems so, for a sin is specific because it has a special end. Hence, when someone does not obey a precept with the intention of scorning it, it is a special sin. But when there is another reason, such as sinful desire, then disobedience is a condition following the sin, but it is not a special sin itself. The other sin is called a transgression: “You put away all the wicked of the earth like dross” (Psalms 119:119).

Then he mentions something regarding the punishment: it “received a just retribution.” Retribution depends on the amount of guilt, so that one who sins more gravely receives a greater punishment. The “wages,” however, can depend on the quality of the sin, so that one who sins from the fires of lust will be punished with fire. A person will receive a good wage for good acts and an evil wage for wicked actions. Consequently, retribution is received for both good and evil, insofar as it implies distributive justice. It is called “just” because of the equality of the punishment, so that according to the amount of sin, there is a corresponding amount of punishment.

Then (v. 3) he presents the consequent of his conditional argument, in which he describes the condition of the New Testament. Here he does three things: first, he shows the need to obey; secondly, the origin of the New Testament (v. 3b); and thirdly, the firmness of its truth (v. 4).

He says, therefore: If the word spoken by angels punishes transgressors, “how shall we escape, if we neglect so great a salvation?” In this, he indicates the danger that threatens those who do not obey. He calls the New Testament “salvation,” whereas the Old Testament was a “word.” The reason for this is that a word is directed primarily toward knowledge. This is what the Old Testament did, since through it came the knowledge of sin—“for by the law is the knowledge of sin” (Romans 3:20)—and also the knowledge of God: “He has not dealt so with any nation” (Psalms 147:20).

But the Old Testament did not bestow grace. Grace is conferred in the New Testament—“grace and truth came by Jesus Christ” (John 1:17)—which leads to eternal salvation: “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life” (John 6:68); “Your word is very pure” (Psalms 119:140). Then he praises this salvation, because it is “so great.”

And it is certainly very great if you consider the danger from which it frees us, because it frees us not only from the dangers of bodily death but also of spiritual death: “He will save his people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21). It is also great because it is universal, that is, not confined to one nation or to one danger, but is for all people and from all enemies: “He is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe” (1 Timothy 4:10); “That we, being delivered out of the hand of our enemies, might serve him without fear” (Luke 1:74). It is also great because it is eternal: “But Israel shall be saved in the Lord with an everlasting salvation” (Isaiah 45:17).

Therefore, it should not be neglected; we should be careful to obtain it. As it is written, “We have seen the land, and, behold, it is very good” (Judges 18:9). The passage continues: “Do not be slothful to go, and to enter to possess the land” (Judges 18:9). And of course, we should not neglect it, because if we are negligent, we will be punished not only by losing what is good but also by incurring evil, namely, eternal damnation, which we will not be able to escape. Hence, he asks, “How shall we escape?” As John the Baptist asked, “Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?” (Matthew 3:7). For the wicked, “The way to escape shall perish from them” (Job 11:20); “Where shall I go from your Spirit? Or where shall I flee from your presence?” (Psalms 139:7).

Then (v. 3b) he shows the origin of the doctrine of the New Testament. He mentions a double origin. First, it came not through angels but through Christ: “He has spoken to us by his Son” (Hebrews 1:2); “The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him” (John 1:18). Hence, he says it was declared at first by the Lord. This doctrine has two beginnings: one is absolute and from all eternity, and this is through the Word: “He chose us in him before the foundation of the world” (Ephesians 1:4). The other is the beginning of its declaration, which occurs in time through the Incarnate Word. The second origin was through the apostles, who heard from Christ; hence, he says, it “was confirmed to us by those who heard him,” that is, by its preachers: “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes... declare we unto you” (1 John 1:1); “who from the beginning were eyewitnesses” (Luke 1:2).

Then he mentions its solidity, which is greater than that of the Old Testament, as God testifies, who cannot lie. Hence he says, “God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders.” It should be noted that testimony is made by speech, which is a sense-perceptible sign. But God gave testimony with two kinds of sense-perceptible signs: miracles and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Regarding the first, he says God bore witness by “signs,” such as lesser miracles like healing a fever or curing a lame person (Acts 3), and by “wonders,” which are greater miracles, such as the raising of the dead: “Tabitha, arise” (Acts 9:40). But the greatest wonder was that God became man: “Behold, I and the children whom the Lord has given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel” (Isaiah 8:18). It was a marvel that the human heart should believe this.

The author said “by various miracles” to clarify that “signs” and “wonders” refer to acts that exceed the power of nature. A “sign” would be something beyond and above nature, though not contrary to it, while a “wonder” is something contrary to nature, such as the raising of the dead.

Regarding the second kind of testimony, the gifts, he says, “and with gifts of the Holy Spirit, distributed according to his own will.” This seems to contradict Wisdom 7:27, which says the spirit is one. How then is he distributed? The answer is that He is not distributed in His essence, but in His gifts: “Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit” (1 Corinthians 12:4). All gifts are attributed to the Holy Spirit because they proceed from love, which is appropriated to the Holy Spirit. As Gregory says, “Truly the Holy Spirit is love.”

Having made a comparison to show that it is more necessary to observe the commandments of Christ than those of the Law delivered by angels, the Apostle now confirms the implication. He does this in two ways:

1. He confirms this implication by showing that Christ’s power is greater than that of the angels.
2. He proves this on the authority of Scripture (Hebrews 2:6).

He says, therefore, that those who act against Christ’s commandments will undergo more severe punishments than those who act against the commandments of angels. This is because Christ is Lord, and a person who offends his Lord is punished more than one who sins against a servant. That Christ is Lord is shown by the fact that God has not subjected the world to angels but to Christ. The author does two things here:

1. He shows that the world is not subject to angels.
2. He clarifies which world he means (Hebrews 2:5).

The world is not subject to angels: What other has he appointed over the earth, or whom has he set over the world he made? (Job 34:13). One might object that Daniel 10 says an angel was the prince of the Greeks and of the Persians, and Deuteronomy 32:8 says, He appointed the bounds of people according to the number of the children of Israel. It should be noted, however, that nations are not subject to them as to a lord, but as to a vicegerent, for all visible creation is administered by angels: His ministers who do his will (Psalms 102:21).

Alternatively, the author means that it was not to angels that God has subjected the world to come. In Scripture, something can be described as “coming” not in relation to us, but in relation to that with which it is compared. For example, the Apostle says of Adam in relation to Christ, Who is the form of the future (Romans 5:14). Christ is not “future” in relation to Himself, but only in relation to Adam. So here, this world is said “to come” not in relation to us, but in relation to Christ, who exists from all eternity, whereas the world exists in time.

And because the Manicheans say that the world is subject to an evil god and not to the good God, the author adds, of which we speak. This clarifies that he is not talking about some other world, but this one. Alternatively, he adds this phrase because he had said above that the heavens shall perish and they shall be changed. As was explained there, this is understood to refer to the state of the world, not its substance.

Therefore, there are two states of the world. The first is its present state: But the heavens and the earth which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment (2 Peter 3:7). The other is its future state. In the world that now exists, not all things are subject to Him regarding the execution of His power, although they are subject to His authority. But in that future state, the world will be subject to Him. This is why he says, of which we speak.

Next, the author proves his point by citing an authority, beginning with the words, But one in a certain place testified. He does three things:

1. He commends the value of the testimony to be presented.
2. He presents the testimony itself (Hebrews 2:6b).
3. He explains the meaning of the testimony (Hebrews 2:8b).

Regarding the testimony, he first states that the words of the Old Testament are witnesses to Christ: Search the Scriptures... they are they which testify of me (John 5:39). This is why the author says, it has been testified somewhere. Second, among the Jews, some writings were less known and others better known. The Psalms were of greater value than the texts they used in all their sacrifices; hence, he says somewhere, meaning a place that is well-known and clear. Third, he gives the authority of the speaker, David, who enjoyed the greatest authority: The man to whom it was appointed concerning the Christ of the God of Jacob, the excellent Psalmist of Israel said (2 Samuel 23:1).

Then he presents the authoritative text (Hebrews 2:6b), in which he does three things:

1. He hints at the mystery of the Incarnation.
2. He hints at the mystery of the Passion (Hebrews 2:7).
3. He hints at the mystery of the Exaltation (Hebrews 2:7b).

Regarding the first point, he touches on two things: the cause of the Incarnation, and the Incarnation itself (Hebrews 2:6c).

The cause of the Incarnation is God’s care for humanity. Therefore, the psalmist asks, What is man? as if in contempt. It is as if to say: Man is so unimportant when compared to God. All nations are before him as if they had no being at all, and are counted to him as nothing and vanity (Isaiah 40:17). For if a person loves another and leaves him in wretchedness for a long time, he seems to have forgotten him.

God loved the human race, both because He made it in His own image and because He placed humanity in the midst of paradise. But after sin, because He did not come to our aid immediately, He seemed to have forgotten us. Later, however, He seems to have become mindful of humanity when He sent a Redeemer: Remember us, O Lord, in the favor of your people; visit us with your salvation (Psalms 105:4). Therefore, he says, What is man that you are mindful of him?

It is as if to say: If we consider man’s lowliness, it is strange that You should be mindful of him who is so lowly and so small. I say lowly and small in his nature, especially in regard to his substance: God formed man from the slime of the earth (Genesis 2:7); And now, O Lord, you are our Father and we are clay (Isaiah 64:8). He is lowly in his sins; hence, Augustine says on John: “Men accomplish nothing when they sin.” Behold, I have made you small among the nations, you are exceedingly contemptible (Obadiah 1:2). He is lowly and weak in his punishment: Man born of a woman, living for a time is filled with many miseries (Job 14:1); Who shall raise up Jacob, for he is very little? (Amos 7:5).

Second, he mentions the Incarnation when he says, or the son of man, that you visit him? It should be noted that in Sacred Scripture, Christ is called the Son of Man, as is clear from Daniel and from the Gospel. While others are called “sons of men”—O you sons of men, how long will you be dull of heart? (Psalms 4:3)—Christ alone is the Son of Man, namely, of the Blessed Virgin, and He is visited by God.

Sometimes in Scripture, a “visitation” refers to a benefit, as when the Lord visited Sarah as He had promised and fulfilled what He spoke (Genesis 21:1). Other times it refers to a punishment: I will visit their iniquities with a rod (Psalms 88:33). But here it refers to a benefit: “You visit him” means you confer a most excellent gift on humanity, making us sons of God when His humanity is assumed by the Word. Or, he says this because of Christ’s fullness: full of grace and truth (John 1:14).

Alternatively, both phrases can be referred to Christ, so that the meaning is this: You were mindful of him in the Incarnation, when humanity was assumed by Christ, but you visit him in the resurrection. Or, both could be referred to the human race. Every son of man is a man, although not every man is a son of a man, for Adam was not the son of a man. A “man,” therefore, is one who bears the image of the earthly man, Adam, and this man is a sinner. But a “son of man” is one who bears the image of the heavenly man, Christ, who is called the Son of Man: Therefore, as we have borne the image of the earthly, let us bear also the image of the heavenly (1 Corinthians 15:49).

“Man,” therefore, refers to a sinner. Because he is far from God—for salvation is far from sinners (Psalms 118:155)—God is said to be “mindful” of him, as one is mindful of someone far away. But when he is changed from a sinner to a righteous person, this “son of man” is “visited” by grace: Your visitation has guarded my spirit (Job 10:12).

Next (Hebrews 2:7), he mentions the mystery of the Passion. It should be noted that in the order of nature, corruptible things are lower than incorruptible things. Angels are incorruptible and immortal by nature; hence, when Christ condescended to suffer and undergo death, He was made a little lower than the angels. This was not because He had lost His fullness or was diminished in any way, but because He joined our smallness to Himself.

This was signified in Luke 22:43: There appeared to him an angel from heaven, strengthening him. This was not because He needed the angel, but to show that by suffering He was, for a time, lower than they. He says a little lower for two reasons. First, every bodily creature is insignificant when compared with a rational one, because bodily things are confined within the fixed limits of their quantity, but rational things are not, as they can grow in intelligence. Christ was made lower than the angels not in regard to His divinity or His soul, but in regard to His body. Therefore, he said, a little lower, meaning quantitatively.

Second, He is a little lower in terms of duration, because His humiliation lasted only a short time: For a small moment have I forsaken you (Isaiah 54:7).

Nor is it strange that He was made lower than the angels in His suffering body, since in this respect He was even made lower than man: I am a worm and not a man (Psalms 21:7). This was because of His shameful death: Let us condemn him to a most shameful death .

But if the question, What is man that you are mindful of him? is referred to humanity in general, then humanity is said to be a little lower than the angels in several ways. First, not in the kind of knowledge (for both humans and angels share rational knowledge), but in the manner of knowing, because angels know in a more excellent way than humans. Second, regarding the body. Although an angel and a soul are of one intellectual nature, the soul is united to a body. Even in this, humanity is only a little lower, because the dignity of the soul is not destroyed by this union, but it is dulled and hindered from higher contemplation: The corruptible body is a load upon the soul . Third, regarding gifts. In this respect, humanity is a little lower not in regard to gratuitous gifts, in which the blessed will be as the angels in heaven (Matthew 22:30), but in regard to natural gifts.

Then (Hebrews 2:7b), he presents the mystery of exaltation. He shows three aspects of it: first, its glory; second, its honor (Hebrews 2:7c); and third, its power (Hebrews 2:8). As it is written: The Lamb that was slain is worthy to receive power, and divinity, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and benediction. And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea... (Revelation 5:12).

He says, therefore, You have crowned him with glory, that is, with brightness, for glory implies brightness. Christ was crowned with a double glory. First is the glory of the body: Who will reform the body of our lowness, made like to the body of his glory (Philippians 3:21). This glory was promised to Him in John 12:28: I have both glorified it (that is, your soul, by filling it with the splendors of grace) and will glorify it again (that is, the body, with the glory of immortality). The second glory comes from the confession of all people: Every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2:11); Glory and great beauty shall you lay upon him (Psalms 20:6).

Next (Hebrews 2:7b), he shows His honor, adding, and honor. Honor differs from glory as an effect from its cause, for honor is the reverence shown in view of some excellence; hence, it is a testimony to one’s goodness. This honor consists in every creature revering Him just as the Father is revered: That all men may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father (John 5:23).

He says Christ is crowned as a sign of victory, because a crown is given to a victor: They do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible (1 Corinthians 9:25); He is not crowned, except he strive lawfully (2 Timothy 2:5). Christ won this crown through the struggle of His Passion: He was made obedient unto death... Wherefore God also has highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name (Philippians 2:8–9). The things that belong to Christ as God are not a reward but are natural to Him; yet, inasmuch as He is man, they are the reward for the victory of His Passion.

Then he shows His power, first regarding its authority, and second, its effect (Hebrews 2:8).

Regarding its authority, he says, You have set him over the works of your hands. This can be understood in three ways. First, He was set over all places in the Ascension: He ascended up far above all heavens (Ephesians 4:10). Second, He was set over all dignities: Setting him at his own right hand... Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion (Ephesians 1:20–21). Third, He was set over all power, because He is set above every creature: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth (Matthew 28:18). Christ as God is not appointed but born; yet He is appointed as man: Whom he has appointed heir of all things (see above, Hebrews 1:2).

The effect of His power is that all things are subject under his feet. The prophet uses the past tense for the future because of God’s authority, for it has already taken place in God’s eternal predestination. He says under his feet, meaning under His humanity or with complete subjection: Until I make your enemies your footstool (Psalms 109:1).

The phrase “under his feet” can refer to His humanity. For just as the head of Christ is God, so the feet of Christ can be understood as His humanity: We will worship at his footstool (Psalms 131:7).

Alternatively, if the passage is understood as referring to humanity in general, then humanity is said to be crowned with glory in its intellectual knowledge, in which it excels the other animals: The man... is the image and glory of God (1 Corinthians 11:7); Who teaches us more than the beasts of the earth (Job 35:11). Humanity is crowned with honor, inasmuch as it alone among all animals is master of its own actions and is not subject to necessity regarding its soul, because it has free will. It is crowned with power, because God has set humanity over all His works: Let him have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth (Genesis 1:26).

Finally (Hebrews 2:8), the author explains the meaning of the testimony. He does this in two parts, first regarding Christ’s exaltation, and second, His humiliation (Hebrews 2:9). Regarding the exaltation, he first shows how the prophet’s statement is to be understood, and second, that it has not yet been completely fulfilled (Hebrews 2:8b).

Therefore (Hebrews 2:8a), he shows how the statement is to be understood. Since Scripture says that all things have been subjected to Christ, there is nothing outside His control. The word “all” is not limited to certain categories but applies absolutely to everything, because all things are generally and universally subject to Him. To this, Arius might argue: “The Father has subjected all things to the Son; therefore, the Son is inferior to the Father.” I answer that it is true that the Father subjected all things to the Son according to His human nature, in which He is inferior to the Father—for my Father is greater than I (John 14:28)—but according to His divine nature, Christ subjected all things to Himself.

Then, when he says, But now we see not yet all things put under him, he shows that this has not yet been completely fulfilled. Unbelievers, sinners, and devils are not yet subject to Him in their wills: But they have not all obeyed the gospel (Romans 10:16); How long do you refuse to submit to me? (Exodus 10:3). Consequently, sinners are not subject to Christ by reason of their rebellious wills. However, in regard to His power, all are subject to Him: now in regard to His authority, but later in regard to their obedience. This, then, is an explanation of the phrase the world to come (Hebrews 2:5).

Previously, the Apostle, desiring to prove Christ’s eminence over the angels, relied on the authority of a prophet who said something related to Christ’s dignity—you put everything in subjection under his feet—and something related to His Passion, namely, you have made him a little less than the angels. However, this seems to work against his main intention, which is to establish Christ's preeminence over the angels. As a result, he explains this more fully in this section, where he does three things. First, he shows in what sense that “lessening” is to be understood. Second, he describes the suitability of the Passion (Hebrews 2:10). In regard to the first point, he does two things: first, he explains a statement he made; second, he describes the Passion (Hebrews 2:9b).

Therefore, he said: What is man that you are mindful of him? You have crowned him with glory and honor. You have subjected all things under his feet. You have made him a little lower than the angels. These are the things the prophet predicted of Christ, and we already see many of them fulfilled. Therefore, it is certain that the rest will be fulfilled, namely, that all things will be subjected under His feet. As Gregory says, “The accomplishments of the past give assurance for the future.”

Then he continues, but we see Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels, crowned with glory and honor for suffering death. This suffering was the cause of His exaltation: For this reason God also exalted him (Philippians 2:9). He says, of death, because He did not endure just any death, but the most bitter and shameful one: Let us condemn him to a most shameful death . Alternatively, the passage can be read another way: We see Jesus, and when asked who He is, the answer is: He Who by suffering death was made a little lower than the angels and then crowned with honor and glory. This lessening was due only to His suffering of death. Nor is this strange, because in this respect He is not only lower than the angels, but lower than men: Despised and the most rejected of men (Isaiah 53:3).

A gloss from Augustine against Maximus says that Christ was made a little lower than the angels, not because of a condition of His nature but because of the Passion. For regarding the nature of the human mind, which Christ assumed without sin, nothing is greater except the Trinity alone. In body He is less than the angels, because He suffered in His body. But this seems to be contrary to Dionysius, who says that angels are greater than men because of their natural participation in light.

The answer is that we can speak about the nature of the human mind and the angelic mind in two ways. In one sense, according to what is natural, the angelic mind is more excellent and nobler than the nature of the human mind, because an angel receives knowledge of divine truth in a more excellent and fuller intellectual light, whereas man receives it from creatures. In another sense, we can consider the nature of each without sin in relation to happiness; they are then equal: They will be as the angels in heaven (Matthew 22:30). Yet because of His excellent grace, Christ in His human nature is greater than the angels. Consequently, His lessening is not in relation to the nature of His divinity nor absolutely according to His human nature, but in the sense that He suffered according to it. We can say that Christ was crowned with a triple glory: first, with the glory of holiness, which He had in the first instant of His conception; second, with the glory of the beatific vision, which He possessed from the first instant of His conception; and third, with the glory of incorruptibility, which He merited after the Passion.

Then (Hebrews 2:9b) he describes Christ’s Passion from three viewpoints: its cause, its utility, and its manner.

The cause was God’s grace alone, for that is what led Him to give His only begotten Son: God so loved the world as to give his only begotten Son (John 3:16); But God commends his charity toward us, because when we were still sinners Christ died for us (Romans 5:8). Or, according to a gloss of Augustine, the verse means that the grace of God—that is, Christ Himself, Who is the grace of God—might taste death for all. Here, “grace” is in the nominative case. Christ is called grace because He is the author of grace—Grace and truth came by Jesus Christ (John 1:17)—or because He is given freely: A son has been given to us (Isaiah 9:6). In that case, the sense is this: He was made a little lower in order that He Who is the grace of God might taste death for all.

For all: here we see the usefulness. But “for all” can be understood in two ways. First, as applying to all the predestined, since the atonement is efficacious only in the predestined. Second, as applying absolutely to all in terms of its sufficiency, for of itself it is sufficient for all: Who is the Savior of all men, especially of the faithful (1 Timothy 4:10). As Chrysostom says, “He died for all in general, because the price was sufficient for all. And if all do not believe, He nevertheless fulfilled His part.”

Might taste: here we see the manner. A person who has not eaten or drunk much is said to have “tasted.” Therefore, because Christ did not remain in death but rose at once, He “tasted” death: He shall drink of the torrent in the way (Psalms 110:7). One who is on the way hurries. Furthermore, taste is a distinguisher of flavor; hence, one who tastes discerns more than one who drinks. Therefore, to indicate that He truly experienced death and pain—and that His death was not imaginary, as Mani and Apollinaris claim—he says, that he might taste death: O, all you that pass by the way, attend and see, if there be any sorrow like my sorrow (Lamentations 1:12). The manner is also mentioned for two other reasons. First, to express the bitterness of death, which is experienced by taste: The drink shall be bitter to them that drink it (Isaiah 24:9); If it be possible, let this chalice pass from me (Matthew 26:39). Second, just as tasting or not tasting lies in the power of the taster, so also the Passion of Christ was voluntary: I have the power to lay down my life (John 10:18).

Then (Hebrews 2:10) he shows the suitability of the Passion from its usefulness. For God the Father is the cause of Christ’s death, since He is the One by whom all things exist as by an efficient cause, and for whom all things exist, as for a final cause. All things are for Him, because they are for communicating His goodness; this was the cause leading Him to produce things, and thus all things are finally for God: The Lord has made all things for himself (Proverbs 16:4). And effectively, all things are by Him: Who made heaven and the sea and all things in it (Psalms 146:6); I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end (Revelation 1:8); Of him and by him and in him are all things (Romans 11:36). Therefore, it was fitting for Him as the author of all things to provide for all: He has equally cared for all .

Second, it was fitting on the part of the cause, which, as has been stated, was the grace of God. But grace is ordained to glory: The grace of God, life everlasting (Romans 6:23). God from all eternity predestined those whom He would lead to glory, that is, all those who are adopted sons of God, because if sons, heirs also (Romans 8:17). Therefore, he says, who had brought many sons to glory. It is as if to say: He has one perfect Son by nature—Therefore, having yet one son most dear to him (Mark 12:6)—but the others are adopted and, therefore, must be brought into glory. Hence, he says: who had brought, meaning, He foreordained them to be brought.

And what was fitting for Him? This: that He should make perfect the pioneer of their salvation. This salvation consists in two things: that they become sons and be brought into their inheritance. That they are sons they owe to the natural Son: Whom he foreknew he also predestined to be made conformable to the image of his Son (Romans 8:29). But they obtain glory and the inheritance only through Him Whose inheritance it is by right and Who is the brightness of glory. Therefore, because we obtain those two things through the Son, He is fittingly called the pioneer of salvation: He will save his people from their sins (Matthew 1:21); Looking on Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith (Hebrews 12:2). It was therefore fitting that the Father send the author of salvation, namely, His Son, Who had brought many sons into glory, to be perfected through suffering—that is, by merit. For He, as the natural Son, is altogether perfect, but because He was lessened in the Passion, He had to be made perfect by the merit of the Passion: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things and so to enter into his glory? (Luke 24:26).

Then (Hebrews 2:11) he proves what he had said. Here he does two things: first, he proves his conclusion on the part of the Father sanctifying; second, on the part of the Son sanctified (Hebrews 2:14). In regard to the first, he does two things: first, he states his conclusion; second, he proves it by an authority (Hebrews 2:11b).

He says, therefore: For both he that sanctifies and they that are sanctified have one origin. It should be noted that the Apostle had said three things above: first, that Christ is the cause of salvation, in which he shows that we depend on Him as on a Savior; second, that the Father is the finisher of Christ by the merit of the Passion, so that in this, Christ depends on the Father; third, that the Father brings us into glory, which also shows that we depend on God. Accordingly, the Apostle shows that we depend on Christ, for the one sanctified depends on the sanctifier: Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people by his own blood, suffered without the gate (Hebrews 13:12). Therefore, it has been well said that because He is the author and sanctifier, we depend on Him. But He depends on the Father, from Whom He has power to sanctify. And all—namely, He that sanctifies and we who are sanctified—have one origin, namely, the Father: Heirs of God; co-heirs with Christ (Romans 8:17).

Then he proves these points with three authorities. First, that Christ, as the mediator and author of salvation, brings God’s gifts to us. Hence, he says, that is why—namely, because He and we depend on the Father—he is not ashamed to call them brethren, because all are of the same Father: Have we not all one Father? (Malachi 2:10); That he might be the firstborn among many brethren (Romans 8:29). Therefore, it is stated in Psalm 22:22: I will declare your name to my brethren; and in John 20:17: Go to my brethren. Note that he says, he is not ashamed to call them brethren, because some born of humble origins are ashamed to recognize their brethren if they attain a higher status: The brethren of a poor man hate him (Proverbs 19:7). But not Christ, for He says, I will proclaim your name to my brethren: Father, I have manifested your name to the men whom you have given me (John 17:6); The only begotten who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him (John 1:18).

Then he shows the fruit of this manifestation when he says, in the midst of the congregation will I praise you. It is as if to say: This forms a great Church in the midst of which I will praise you. He says, in the midst, because just as a pillar in the middle of a house supports it, a lamp in the middle of a house gives light, and the heart in the middle of the body gives life, so Christ is in the midst of the Church. Furthermore, He is in the midst because He was not sent to one people, as Moses was—In Judea God is known; his name is great in Israel (Psalms 76:1)—but He was sent for the salvation of all: He has wrought salvation in the midst of the earth (Psalms 74:12). Therefore, it is stated in Luke 24:36 that Jesus stood in the midst of His disciples.

On this point, it should be noted that before the Law it was the custom that all the firstborn were priests, and this belonged to the right of the firstborn. But Christ is a brother and firstborn; therefore, He is a priest. A priest who sanctifies the people is a mediator between God and the people: I was the mediator and stood between the Lord and you at that time (Deuteronomy 5:5). Therefore, it pertains to Him to announce the things of God to the people and to bring the things of the people to God. He does the first by preaching; hence, He says, I will proclaim your name to my brethren, meaning, “I will bring them to know you,” and this is to sanctify them: Sanctify them in the truth (John 17:17). He accomplishes the second when He makes men break forth in praise of God. Hence, He says, in the midst of the congregation will I praise you.

Then, when he says, and again, he shows that Christ Himself depends on the Father by the fact that He says, I will put my trust in him: In you, Lord, have I hoped; let me never be confounded (Psalms 31:1). He shows the kind of hope He has: a firm hope, which is called trust. For hope, even though it is not concerned with the impossible, sometimes has fear joined to it, and then it is properly called hope. But sometimes hope is firm and without fear; then it is called trust. This is the hope Christ had.

He says, therefore, I will put my trust in him, meaning, “I will have confidence in His help.” But the saints say that in Christ there is neither faith nor hope, but only charity. I answer that hope is one thing and trust another: for hope is the expectation of future happiness, and this was not in Christ, because He was happy from the instant of His conception. But trust is the expectation of help, and in this regard there was hope in Christ, inasmuch as He awaited help from the Father during His Passion. Therefore, whenever we read that Christ had hope, this is not to be understood as referring to its principal object, which is happiness, but as referring to the glory of the resurrection and the glory conferred on His body.

Then when he repeats, and again, he shows that we depend on the Father: Here am I and the children whom God has given me: Yours they were and to me you gave them (John 17:6); Children, have you any fish? (John 21:5). They are called children on account of their purity: If the young men are clean, especially from women (1 Samuel 21:4); and a bit later he continues: “The vessels of the young men were holy.” They are also called children because of their simplicity—Brethren, do not become children in sense, but in malice be children (1 Corinthians 14:20)—and because of their humility: unless you be converted and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 18:3). He shows that not only is He from God, but also the children; hence he continues, whom God has given me. This shows that both he that sanctifies and they that are sanctified have all one origin, because it says in John 6:44: No one can come to me, unless the Father who sent me draw him.

Having shown the suitability of Christ’s death from the Father’s perspective in causing it, the Apostle now shows the same from Christ’s perspective in enduring it. He intends to show how Christ was made the author of salvation by His Passion. To do this, he addresses three points:

1. He shows the condition of the nature through which Christ could suffer and die.
2. He explains the benefits Christ obtained by dying (v. 14b).
3. He proves what he had proposed (v. 16).

The Apostle says, therefore: I have said that Christ and the children have one origin and that He called them brothers. Consequently, it was fitting that He be like them, not only because He confers on them a participation in the divine nature, which is from grace, but also because He assumed their nature. Therefore, he says, because the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise partook of the same nature.

Here it should be noted that the phrase “flesh and blood” can be understood in several ways. Sometimes it refers to the nature of flesh and blood, as in, This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh (Genesis 2:23). In this sense, “flesh” can mean the body, as in You have clothed me with skin and flesh (Job 10:11), and “blood” can refer to the soul—not as if the soul were blood, but because it is not preserved in the body without blood.

At other times, “flesh and blood” can refer to the vices of flesh and blood, as in, Flesh and blood have not revealed it to you (Matthew 16:17). It can also signify the corruptibility of flesh and blood: Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable (1 Corinthians 15:50). In this context, however, it does not refer to vices, for Christ assumed a nature without sin but with the capacity to suffer, because He assumed a flesh similar to that of a sinner: in the likeness of sinful flesh (Romans 8:3). Therefore, like the children, He is a sharer in flesh and blood, and in the same way, for it was not imaginary flesh, as the Manicheans claim, nor was it assumed in an accidental way, as Nestorius said. Rather, true flesh and blood, such as children have, were assumed into the unity of His person.

That Christ is a sharer of flesh and blood is not to be understood as referring to their vices, because He did not take on sin or commit any. Instead, it refers to the very substance of living flesh, because He assumed both flesh and a soul. This also included the capacity to suffer, because He assumed our nature, which is capable of suffering. Therefore, the meaning is this: Because the children, that is, the faithful, have a nature capable of suffering, Christ Himself partook of the same, that is, of flesh and blood. We partake of them through our person, and Christ likewise assumed them to His person: The Word was made flesh (John 1:14). “Flesh and blood” can also be understood as the flesh and blood of Christ Himself, according to the statement: He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood (John 6:55). The children, that is, the apostles, partook of this at the Last Supper, and Christ also partook of it; as Chrysostom says, “He drank His own blood.”

Then (v. 14b), the Apostle shows the benefits His death brought. Regarding this, he does two things: first, he shows its usefulness from the perspective of the devil, who had the power of death; and second, from our perspective, as we were held captive (v. 15).

He says, therefore, that Christ partook of flesh and blood—that is, He assumed a nature in which He could suffer and die, which He could not do in His divine nature—that through death he might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil. But how does the devil have the power of death? This is God’s prerogative: The Lord kills and makes alive (1 Samuel 2:6); I will kill and I will make to live (Deuteronomy 32:39). I answer that a judge has the power of death in one way, by inflicting it as punishment. A thief, however, has it in another way, in the sense of deserving death because of his wrongdoing. God has the power of death in the first way: For in what day you shall eat of it, you shall die the death (Genesis 2:17). But the devil has it in the second way, because by persuading men to sin, he handed them over to death: by the envy of the devil, death came into the world . But the Apostle says that Christ might destroy him, not as to his substance, which is indestructible, nor as to his malice, so that the devil would someday become good, but as to his power: despoiling the principalities and powers (Colossians 2:15).

This was accomplished by the death of Christ in three ways:

1. From the perspective of Christ, for the true nature of justice is that the victor subjects the vanquished to himself: For by whom a man is overcome, of the same is he the slave (2 Peter 2:19). But Christ overcame the devil: The Lion of the tribe of Judah has prevailed (Revelation 5:5). Therefore, it is just that the devil be subject to Him: When a strong man armed keeps his court, those things are in peace which he possesses (Luke 11:21).
2. From the perspective of the devil, for justice requires that a person who unjustly uses the power granted to him should lose it. The devil had been given power over the sinners he seduced, but not over the good. Therefore, because he presumed to extend this power even to Christ, who did not sin—The prince of this world comes, and in me he has nothing (John 14:30)—he deserved to lose it.
3. From our perspective, for it is just that the vanquished be the servants of the victor. By sin, man was the servant of the devil: Whoever commits sin is the servant of sin (John 8:34). Consequently, he was subject to the devil and liable to sin. But Christ paid the price for our sin: Then I restored that which I did not take away (Psalms 69:4). Therefore, when the cause of servitude was removed, man was set free by Christ.

It should be noted, however, that a different kind of satisfaction was suitable. Man was in debt, and while one man can make satisfaction for another out of charity, no single man could satisfy for the entire human race, because he does not have power over it. Nor could the entire human race satisfy sufficiently, because it was entirely subject to sin. Nor could an angel, because this satisfaction was for glory, which exceeds the power of an angel. Therefore, it was necessary that the one who made satisfaction be both man and God, who alone has power over the whole human race. By the death of this God-man, therefore, He destroyed him who had the dominion of death.

Then (v. 15), another advantage from our perspective is mentioned. A man is a servant of sin to the extent that he is induced to sin. The most effective inducements to sin are the love of temporary goods and the fear of present punishments: It is burned with fire, it is cut down: they perish at the rebuke of your countenance (Psalms 80:16). But these two amount to the same thing, because the more a person loves something, the more he fears its evil contrary. We see that even savage beasts are kept from the greatest pleasures through fear of punishment; thus, fear makes cowards of us all. Therefore, if a man overcomes his fears, he overcomes everything; and when fear is overcome, all disordered love of the world is overcome.

Christ broke this fear by His death because He removed the fear of death and, consequently, the love of the present life. For when a person considers that the Son of God, the Lord of death, willed to die, he no longer fears death. That is why before the death of Christ, it was said: O death, how bitter is the remembrance of you . But after Christ’s death, the Apostle expresses a desire to be dissolved and be with Christ. Hence, we are told: Fear not them that kill the body (Matthew 10:28). The author says, therefore, that Christ came to deliver all those who through the fear of death were subject to lifelong servitude, namely, the servitude of sin.

Christ freed us from a twofold servitude: that of the Law and that of sin. The Law is called a yoke which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear (Acts 15:10). The difference between the Old and the New Law is fear and love. In the New, there is love: If you love me, keep my commandments (John 14:15). But the Old was the law of fear: You have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear (Romans 8:15). Therefore, he says, Christ came to deliver them who through the fear of bodily death, which the Law inflicted, were all subject to lifelong servitude.

But why did He not free us at once from death itself, but only from the fear of death? I answer that He freed us immediately from the cause of death but not from death itself, although He did free us from the fear of death. The reason is that if He had freed us from bodily death, men would serve Christ only for their bodily good, and the merit of faith and hope would be destroyed. Furthermore, bodily evils enable us to merit eternal life: Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God (Acts 14:22). It should be noted that He freed us from the fear of death in several ways:

1. By showing the immortality that awaited us. As a result, man could scorn temporal death: Christ is risen from the dead, the firstfruits of them that sleep (1 Corinthians 15:20).
2. By giving us a foretaste of death, He made us more ready to undergo death for Christ: Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow his steps (1 Peter 2:21).
3. By opening the gate to glory, which was closed before His death. As a result, we not only do not fear death, but we desire it: Having a desire to be dissolved and to be with Christ, which is much better (Philippians 1:23).

Then (v. 16), the Apostle proves the benefits that Christ’s death obtained. He does three things: first, he shows that by His death Christ freed us because of the condition of the nature He assumed; second, he concludes with a likeness (v. 17); thirdly, he shows the benefit of that likeness (v. 17b).

Therefore, I have stated that Christ by His death freed us from sin and death. There is no doubt that in regard to the condition of its nature, an angel is greater than man. But because the angels were not subject to servitude or deserving of death, He did not assume an angel. If He had, this would have been on account of the dignity of its nature. But we have never read that He assumed an angel, but only the seed of Abraham—that is, a human nature, not in the abstract but in an individual, and from the seed of Abraham. He adds this so that the Jews, who glory in being of the seed of Abraham, might venerate Christ more.

He says significantly that He take hold of, because that which flees is properly said to be taken hold of. Not only did human nature flee from God, but also the children of Abraham: But they refused to hearken, and pulled away the shoulder, and stopped their ears, that they should not hear (Zechariah 7:11). 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 a great and marvelous thing for our flesh to be seated above and to be adored by angels and archangels. As I turn this over in my mind, I experience excessive joy, imagining great things about the human race.”

But it might have seemed better to assume an angelic nature than a human one. Likeness is the reason making the Incarnation of a divine person fitting. But a more express likeness of God is found in the angelic nature than in the human, because the former is the seal of resemblance. Therefore, it would seem more fitting to take hold of an angel than of the seed of Abraham. Furthermore, sin is found in the angelic nature just as in the human. Therefore, if He took hold of human nature to free it from sin, it seems there was more reason to take hold of the angelic.

I answer that a nature is assumable by the Son of God depending on its fitness to be united to the person of the Word. This fitness depends on two things: dignity, in that the nature is capable of attaining to the Word Himself by knowing and loving Him; and need, in that it is subject to a reparable sin. Although the first is found in the angelic nature, the second is not. But both are found in human nature, which is capable of knowing and loving God and which has a reparable sin; consequently, it is assumable. Although the first condition is found in an angelic nature, it lacks the second. A sin is irreparable not because of its gravity, but because of the condition of the nature. What death was to men, the fall was to the angels. It is clear that all the sins of man, whether small or great, are reparable before death; after death, they are irreparable and remain forever. Therefore, the angelic nature is not assumable.

Then (v. 17), he concludes with a likeness. As if to say: Therefore, because He did not assume an angel but the seed of Abraham, it was necessary for him in all things to be made like his brothers. In all things, I say, in which they are brothers—not in guilt but in punishment. Therefore, it was necessary for Him to have a nature that could suffer; hence, He was one tempted in all things as we are, without sin (Hebrews 4:15). Likewise, they are brothers as to grace: Behold, what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called children of God (1 John 3:1); Those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son (Romans 8:29).

Next, he shows the usefulness of that resemblance when he says, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest. Here he does two things: first, he mentions the likeness; second, he explains it (v. 18).

As mediator, Christ has two functions. One sets Him over the whole human race as judge: He gave him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man (John 5:27). The other is in relation to God, before whom He intercedes for us as our advocate. In a judge, mercy is desired, especially by the guilty; but in an advocate, faithfulness is desired. Both of these qualities were exhibited by Christ during His Passion. Hence, regarding the first, he says that by His Passion He was made like His brothers, that he might become merciful.

But was He not merciful from all eternity? It seems so, because his tender mercies are over all his works (Psalms 145:9). Mercy consists in having a heart grieved at another’s misfortune. This can happen in one way by merely recognizing the misfortune, which is how God recognized our wretchedness without suffering. It can happen in another way by experiencing our misfortune, which is how Christ experienced our misery, especially during the Passion. In addition, He is a faithful advocate; hence, He is called a faithful high priest. But Christ being come a high priest of the good things to come (Hebrews 9:11); and it is required that He be faithful: Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful (1 Corinthians 4:2). All this was so that He might make propitiation for the sins of the people, for whom He willed to die.

Then, when he says, For in that he himself has suffered and been tempted, he shows its utility. It is as if to say: I do not speak of Christ as God, but as man. Therefore, in that—that is, in the nature which He assumed—He experienced our cause as His own. Hence he says, he suffered and was tempted; therefore, he is able to help them also that are tempted. Alternatively, He became merciful and faithful because in suffering and being tempted He has a disposition toward mercy. He says, tempted, not by the flesh but by the enemy: Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil (Matthew 4:1). For in Christ there was no rebellion of the lower powers against the higher, but He suffered for us in the flesh: Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow his steps (1 Peter 2:21); Forasmuch then as Christ has suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind (1 Peter 4:1).