Lectio 3
Lecture 3
Christus excellit angelos
Christ excels the angels
1:4 tanto melior angelis effectus, quanto differentius prae illis nomen haereditavit. [n. 45]
1:4 Being made so much better than the angels as he has inherited a more excellent name than they. [n. 45]
1:5 Cui enim dixit aliquando angelorum: filius meus es tu, ego hodie genui te? Et rursum: ego ero illi in patrem, et ipse erit mihi in filium? [n. 48]
1:5 For to which of the angels has he said at any time: you are my son, today have I begotten you? And again: I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son? [n. 48]
1:6 Et cum iterum introducit primogenitum in orbem terrae, dicit: et adorent eum omnes angeli Dei. [n. 54]
1:6 And again, when he brings in the first begotten into the world, he says: and let all the angels of God adore him. [n. 54]
1:7 Et ad angelos quidem dicit: qui facit angelos suos spiritus, et ministros suos flammam ignis. [n. 58]
1:7 And to the angels indeed he says: he that makes his angels spirits and his ministers a flame of fire. [n. 58]
45. Sicut supra dictum est, Apostolus in toto capitulo intendit praeferre Christum angelis quantum ad excellentiam, unde posuit quatuor pertinentia ad excellentiam Christi, scilicet quantum ad originem quia Filius, quantum ad dominationem quia haeres, quantum ad operationem quia ipse fecit saecula, quantum ad honorem quia sedet ad dexteram maiestatis.
45. As mentioned above, the Apostle devotes this entire first chapter to extolling Christ over the angels by reason of his excellence; hence he lists four things pertaining to Christ’s excellence: first, his origin, because he is the Son; second, his dominion, because he is the heir; third, his power, because he made the world; fourth, his honor, because he sits at the right hand of majesty.
Modo Apostolus in parte ista ostendit, quod Christus quantum ad ista quatuor excedit angelos; et
But now the Apostle shows that Christ exceeds the angels in these four points:
primo quantum ad filiationem;
first, in his sonship;
secundo quantum ad dominationem, ibi et cum iterum introducit;
second, in his dominion, at and again, when he brings;
tertio quantum ad operationem creationis, ibi et tu in principio, domine, terram fundasti;
third, in the work of creation, at and you, O Lord, founded (Heb 1:10);
quarto quantum ad Patris confessionem, ibi ad quem autem Angelorum.
fourth, in regard to the Father’s confession, at for to which of the angels has he said (Heb 1:13).
Circa primum duo facit, quia
In regard to the first, he does two things:
primo praemittit intentum;
first, he states his proposition;
secundo propositum probat, ibi cui enim dixit.
second, he proves it, at for to which of the angels.
46. Dicit ergo tanto melior angelis, id est sanctior, et ideo propinquior, in quo proponit excellentiam Christi ad angelos. Eph. c. I, 20: constituens eum ad dexteram suam in caelestibus super omnem principatum et potestatem.
46. He says, therefore: being made so much better than the angels, i.e., holier and nearer to God. In these words he suggests Christ’s excellence as compared with the angels: setting him on his right hand in the heavenly places above all principality and power (Eph 1:20).
Sed tunc oritur quaestio quomodo Apostolus hoc intelligit, utrum secundum divinam naturam, vel humanam, quia secundum divinam non videtur verum, quia secundum illam genitus est, non factus; secundum vero humanam non est melior angelis, ut infra, II cap.: eum autem, qui modico quam angeli, et cetera.
But here a question arises. How does the Apostle mean this? Is it according to the divine nature or the human? Because according to the divine it does not seem to be true, for according to that nature he was begotten, not made; whereas according to the human nature, he is not better than the angels: but we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels (Heb 2:9).
Sed dicendum est, quod Christus secundum humanam naturam duo habuit in vita ista, scilicet infirmitatem carnis, et sic fuit minoratus ab angelis. Infra II cap.: eum qui modico, et cetera. Item, habuit gratiae plenitudinem, et sic etiam in humanitate maior fuit angelis in gratia et gloria. Io. I, 14: vidimus eum quasi unigenitum a Patre, plenum gratiae et veritatis.
The answer is that Christ had two things according to the human nature in this life, namely, the infirmity of the flesh, and in this way he was lower than the angels: but we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels (Heb 2:9); but he also had fullness of grace, so that even in his human nature he was greater than the angels in grace and glory: we have seen him as it were the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth (John 1:14).
Sed hic non est intellectus. Apostolus enim non intelligit, quod melior fuerit quantum ad gratiam, sed propter unionem humanae naturae ad divinam: et sic dicitur factus, inquantum per illius unionis factionem pervenit ad hoc quod esset melior angelis, et diceretur et esset Filius Dei.
But this is not how the Apostle understood it, for he does not mean that he was made better in regard to grace, but by reason of the union of human nature with the divine; so he is said to be made, inasmuch as by effecting that union he became better than the angels, and should be called and really be the Son of God.
47. Et ideo subdit quanto differentius prae illis nomen haereditavit.
47. Hence, he continues, as he has inherited a more excellent name than they.
Et quantum ad hoc nomen, ostendit differentiam quantum ad tria, scilicet quantum ad nominis significationem, quia proprium nomen angelorum est quod dicuntur angeli, quod est nomen ministri. angelus enim idem est quod nuntius. Nomen autem proprium Christi est, quod dicitur Filius Dei. Et hoc nomen est valde differentius ab illo, quia quantamcumque differentiam ponis, adhuc est maiorem dare, cum distent in infinitum. Prov. c. XXX, 4: quod nomen eius? Et quod nomen filii eius, si nosti? Est enim nomen Filii eius sicut et Patris incomprehensibile. Phil. II, 9: et dedit illi nomen, quod est super omne nomen.
In regard to this name he discloses three differences: first, as to the signification of the name, because the proper name of angels is that they are called angels, which is the name of a messenger. For an angel is a messenger. But the proper name of Christ is that he is called the Son of God; and this name is vastly different from ‘angel,’ because no matter how great a difference you might imagine, there would still remain a greater difference, because they are infinitely apart: what is his name, and what is the name of his son, if you know? (Prov 30:4). For the name of the Son, as that of the Father, is incomprehensible: he gave him a name which is above every name (Phil 2:9).
Sed forte dices, quod etiam angeli dicuntur filii Dei. Iob I, 6 et II, 1: cum assisterent filii Dei coram Domino, et cetera. Dicendum est, quod si dicuntur filii Dei, hoc non est essentialiter et per naturam, sed per quamdam participationem. Ipse autem est essentialiter Filius Dei, et ideo habet nomen differentius prae illis: et hoc est secundum, quia differunt quantum ad modum. Ps. LXXXVIII, 7: quis est similis Deo in filiis Dei? Quasi dicat: nullus per naturam.
But one might say that even the angels are called sons of God: on a certain day when the sons of God came to stand before the Lord (Job 1:6). I answer that if they are called sons of God, they are not so essentially and by nature, but by a certain participation. But he is essentially the Son of God and, therefore, has a name more excellent than the others. And this is the second difference, because they differ as to mode: who among the sons of God shall be like to God? (Ps 89:7). As if to say: no one by nature.
Quantum ad tertium dicit, quod illud nomen haereditavit. Haereditas enim consequitur originem. Unde Christus, quod Filius sit, habet ex origine, et per naturam; angeli autem ex dono gratiae. Matth. XXI, 38: hic est haeres. Unde ipse nomen haereditavit, non autem angeli, et haec est tertia differentia.
As to the third, he says that he inherited that name, for inheritance follows upon origin. Hence, Christ is the Son by origin and by nature, but the angels by a gift of grace: here is the heir (Matt 21:38). Hence, he inherited that name, but not so the angels: and this is the third difference.
48. Deinde cum dicit cui enim dixit aliquando Angelorum, probat quod dixit; et
48. Then when he says for to which of the angels has he said, he proves what he has said:
primo agit de nomine secundum quod convenit Christo secundum divinitatem;
first, he discusses the name inasmuch as it belongs to Christ according to his divinity;
secundo secundum humanitatem, ibi et rursum, ego ero, et cetera.
second, inasmuch as it belongs to him according to his human nature, at and again: I will be.
49. Quantum ad primum inducit auctoritatem Ps. II, 7: Dominus dixit ad me, et cetera. Et hoc est cui enim angelorum, etc., quasi dicat: nulli angelorum dicta sunt haec verba, sed tantum Christo.
49. In regard to the first, he introduces the authority of the Psalm: the Lord said to me: you are my son (Ps 2:7). And this in answer to the question: to which of the angels has he said at any time: you are my Son? As if to say: he never said these words to any of the angels, but to Christ alone.
Ubi tria possunt notari. Primo modus originis in verbo dixit; secundo singularitas filiationis, ibi Filius meus es tu; tertio eius auctoritas, ibi ego hodie.
Here three things are to be noted: first, the manner of his origin, in the word, said; second, the uniqueness of his sonship, in the words, you are my Son; third, its eternity, when he says, today have I begotten you.
Modus iste non est carnalis, sed spiritualis et intellectualis. Deus enim spiritus est, Io. c. IV, 24, et ideo non generat carnaliter, sed spiritualiter et intellectualiter. Intellectus autem dicendo, generat verbum, quod est conceptus eius, et ideo signanter dixit, quod Dominus dixit ad me, id est, Pater dixit Filio. Dicere ergo intellectus Patris, nihil aliud est, quam in corde Verbum concipere. Ps. XLIV, v. 2: eructavit cor meum verbum bonum. Iob XXXIII, 14: semel loquitur, et secundo idipsum non repetit. Eccli. XXIV, 5: ego ex ore Altissimi prodii.
The manner of his origin is not carnal, but spiritual and intellectual: for God is spirit (John 4:29); consequently, he does not engender in a carnal way, but in a spiritual and intellectual way. But the intellect, when it speaks, engenders a word, which is its concept; therefore, it is significant that he says that the Lord said to me, i.e., that the Father said to the Son. Consequently, for the Father’s intellect to speak is to conceive the Word in his heart: my heart has uttered a good word (Ps 45:1); God speaks once, and repeats not the selfsame thing the second time (Job 33:14); I came out of the mouth of the Most High (Sir 24:5).
Sed quantum ad secundum, generatio ista est singularis, quia dicit Filius meus es tu, quasi dicat: etsi multi alii filii dicuntur, tamen esse Filium naturalem est sibi proprium; alii autem dicuntur filii Dei, quia sunt participes verbi Dei. Io. X, 35 illos dixit deos ad quos sermo Dei factus est; sed Christus est ipsum Verbum. Matth. XVII, 5: hic est Filius meus dilectus.
But as to the second, this generation is unique, because he says, you are my Son, as if to say, many others are called sons, nevertheless, it is his unique property to be the natural Son of God; but others are called sons of God because they partake of the word of God: he called gods those who heard the word of God (John 10:35); but Christ is the Word itself: this is my beloved Son (Matt 17:5).
Sed quantum ad tertium, ista generatio non est temporalis, sed aeterna, quia hodie genui te. Differt autem tempus ab aeternitate, quia tempus variatur sicut motus, cuius mensura est in variatione et successione. Et ideo nominatur per successionem praeteriti et futuri. Aeternitas autem est mensura rei immobilis, et ideo non est ibi variatio per successionem, sed semper est praesens; et ideo notatur per adverbium praesentis temporis, scilicet hodie, id est, in aeternitate. Verum quia illud quod fit, quia nondum est, incompletum per consequens est; quod autem factum est, completum est, et ita perfectum; ideo non dicit genero te sed genui, quia perfectus est. Sed tamen ne putetur esse generatio eius tota in praeteritione, et per consequens in defectione, addit, hodie.
But in regard to the third, that generation is not temporal, but eternal, because today have I begotten you. Now, time differs from eternity because time varies as the motions whose measure it is; therefore, it is named by the succession of past and future. But eternity is the measure of an unchangeable thing; consequently, in eternity there is not variation due to succession of past and future, but there is only the present. Therefore, it is signified by an adverb of the present tense: today, i.e., in eternity. But that which is coming to be, because it does not yet exist, is incomplete; and that which has come to be is complete and, therefore, perfect. Consequently, he does not say, I begot you, but have I begotten, because he is perfect. Yet, lest it be supposed that his entire engendering took place in the past, he adds, today.
Et coniungit praesenti praeteritum, scilicet hodie et genui, ut scias ipsam generationem semper esse, et perfectam esse, et sic in hodie permanentia, in genui vero perfectio designatur
And he joins the past to the present, saying, today have I begotten you. This teaches us that this engendering is always going on and is always complete. Consequently, in the word, today, permanence is designated; but in have I begotten, perfection.
Ut sit sensus: perfectus es, Fili, et tamen generatio tua aeterna est, et semper a me generaris: sicut lumen in aere perfectum est, et tamen semper procedit a sole. Mich. V, 2: egressus eius a principio a diebus aeternitatis. Ps. CIX, 3: ex utero ante luciferum genui te.
As if to say: you are perfect, Son; and yet your generation is eternal and you are always being engendered by me, as light is perfect in the air and yet is always proceeding from the sun: his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity (Mic 5:2); from the womb before the day star I have begotten you (Ps 110:3).
Posset etiam hoc exponi de generatione temporali, ut dicat hodie, id est in tempore, genui te.
But this could be explained also of temporal generation. As if to say: today, i.e., in time, have I begotten you.
50. Consequenter cum dicit et rursum: ego ero illi in patrem, etc., propositum ostendit, secundum quod convenit Christo secundum humanitatem, et hoc per aliam auctoritatem. Secundum Glossam istud dicitur in Isaia ego ero illi in patrem, sed tamen non invenitur aliquid huic simile in Isaia nisi illud: et filius datus est nobis. Sed II Reg. c. VII, 14 et I Par. XXII, 10 habentur ista eadem verba Domini dicentis ad David de Salomone, per quem figurabatur Christus.
50. Then when he says and again: I will be to him a Father, he clarifies his conclusion that this belongs to Christ according to his human nature. And he does this by another authority. According to a Gloss, Isaiah says: I will be to him a father, yet nothing like this is to be found in Isaiah, except the statement: a son has been given to us (Isa 9:6). But in 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles we find these very words spoken by the Lord to David in regard to Solomon, through whom Christ was prefigured (2 Sam 7:14 and 1 Chr 28:6).
51. Sciendum est autem, quod in Veteri Testamento quaedam dicuntur de eo quod est figura, non inquantum quaedam res, sed inquantum est figura, et tunc non exponitur de illo, nisi inquantum refertur ad figuratum. Verbi gratia in Ps. LXXI quaedam dicuntur de David, vel de Salomone, inquantum figurabant Christum tantum. Quaedam vero etiam secundum quod sunt homines quidam, et istorum dicta de ipsis possunt exponi et de Christo; sicut illud: Deus, iudicium tuum regi da: quia illud potest convenire Salomoni. Illa vero quae dicuntur de ipsis inquantum sunt figura, numquam de ipsis possunt exponi, sicut illud: et dominabitur a mari usque ad mare, etc.; quia nullo modo verificari potest de Salomone. Sic et in proposito, licet ista dicta sint de Salomone, tamen possunt exponi de Christo, qui praefigurabatur per illum.
51. Yet it should be noted that in the Old Testament some things are said of what is a figure, not insofar as it is a certain thing, but insofar as it is a figure; and then they do not apply to that thing except insofar as it is referred to the thing prefigured. For example, in Psalm 72, certain things are said of David or of Solomon only inasmuch as they prefigured Christ; but other things are said of them inasmuch as they are men. Such things can be applied to them and also to Christ. Thus, give to the king your judgment, O God (Ps 72:1) can be applied to Solomon. But those things that are said of them insofar as they are figures can never be applied to them. Thus, and he will rule from sea to sea (Ps 72:8) can never be verified of Solomon. So, in the present instance, although certain things are said of Solomon, they can be applied to Christ, who was prefigured by him.