Lectio 4
Lecture 4
Christus homines non angelos apprehendit
Christ takes hold of men, not angels
2:14 Quia ergo pueri communicaverunt carni, et sanguini, et ipse similiter participavit eisdem: ut per mortem destrueret eum qui habebat mortis imperium, id est, diabolum: [n. 136]
2:14 Therefore because the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself in like manner has been partaker of the same: that, through death, he might destroy him who had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil: [n. 136]
2:15 et liberaret eos qui timore mortis per totam vitam obnoxii erant servituti. [n. 140]
2:15 And might deliver them, who through the fear of death were all their lifetime subject to servitude. [n. 140]
2:16 Nusquam enim angelos apprehendit, sed semen Abrahae apprehendit. [n. 147]
2:16 For nowhere does he take hold of the angels: but of the seed of Abraham he takes hold. [n. 147]
2:17 Unde debuit per omnia fratribus similari, ut misericors fieret, et fidelis pontifex ad Deum, ut repropitiaret delicta populi. [n. 150]
2:17 Wherefore, it behoved him in all things to be made like unto his brethren, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest before God, that he might be a propitiation for the sins of the people. [n. 150]
2:18 In eo enim, in quo passus est ipse et tentatus, potens est et eis, qui tentantur, auxiliari. [n. 154]
2:18 For in that wherein he himself has suffered and been tempted he is able to succour them also that are tempted. [n. 154]
136. Supra ostendit Apostolus convenientiam mortis Christi ex parte Patris mortem imponentis, hic ostendit idem ex parte ipsius Christi mortem patientis.
136. Having shown the suitability of Christ’s death from the standpoint of the Father causing it, the Apostle now shows the same thing from the standpoint of Christ enduring it (C. 2, L. 3).
De Christo vero dixit quod erat auctor salutis fidelium, ideo hic intendere quomodo per passionem effectus est auctor salutis eorum.
Therefore, he intends to show how he was made the author of salvation by his passion.
Et circa hoc tria facit.
And concerning this, he does three things.
Primo enim ostendit conditionem naturae, per quam mori potuit et pati;
First, he shows the condition of the nature through which he could suffer and die;
secundo ostendit utilitatem quam per mortem attulit, ibi ut per mortem;
second, the benefits he obtained by dying, at that, through death;
tertio probat quod proposuerat, ibi nusquam enim Angelos.
third, he proves what he had proposed, at for nowhere does he take hold.
137. Dicit ergo primo: ita dixi quod ipse et pueri sunt ex uno omnes et quod vocavit eos fratres, ergo conveniens fuit quod esset eis similis, non tantum quia impartitur eis participationem naturae divinae, quod est ex dono gratiae, sed etiam quia ipse naturam eorum assumpsit. Unde dicit quia ergo pueri communicaverunt carni et sanguini, et ipse similiter participavit eisdem.
137. He says, therefore, I have said that he and the children have all one origin and that he called them brethren. 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. Hence, he says, therefore because the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself in like manner has been partaker of the same.
138. Ubi notandum est, quod nomine carnis et sanguinis, aliquando ipsa natura carnis et sanguinis intelligitur, Gen. II, 23: hoc nunc os ex ossibus meis, et caro de carne mea,
138. Here it should be noted that by the name flesh and blood is sometimes understood the nature of flesh and blood: this is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh (Gen 2:23);
ut sic per carnem intelligas corpus, secundum illud Iob X, 11: pelle et carnibus vestisti me; per sanguinem vero intelligas animam, non quod anima sit ipse sanguis, sed quia non conservatur in corpore sine sanguine. Aliquando vero per carnem et sanguinem intelliguntur vitia carnis et sanguinis. Matth. XVI, 17: caro et sanguis non revelavit tibi.
then by flesh is understood the body: you have clothed me with skin and flesh (Job 10:11) and by blood, the soul: not as though the soul were blood, but because it is not preserved in the body without blood. Sometimes by flesh and blood are understood the vices of flesh and blood: flesh and blood have not revealed it to you (Matt 16:17).
Aliquando vero ipsa corruptibilitas carnis et sanguinis. I Cor. XV, 50: caro et sanguis regnum Dei non possidebunt, neque corruptio incorruptionem. Sed hic non intelligitur de vitiis: Christus enim assumpsit naturam sine peccato, sed cum passibilitate, quia assumpsit carnem similem peccatrici. Rom. VIII, v. 3: in similitudinem carnis peccati. Ipse ergo communicavit vel pueris, vel etiam carni et sanguini, et totum similiter, quia scilicet non carni phantastice, ut dixit Manichaeus, nec accidentaliter, ut dixit Nestorius, sed verae carni et sanguini, sicut et pueri, et in unitate personae.
But sometimes they signify the corruptibility of flesh and blood: flesh and blood shall not possess the kingdom of God, nor corruption incorruption (1 Cor 15:50). But here it does not refer to vices, for Christ assumed a nature without sin, but with the possibility of suffering, because he assumed a flesh similar to the sinner: in the likeness of sinful flesh (Rom 8:3). Therefore, like the children, he is partaker of flesh and blood, and all in the same way: for it was not imaginary flesh, as the Manicheans say, not was it assumed in the accidental way, as Nestorius said. But true flesh and blood, such as children have, were assumed into the unity of the person.
139. Quod autem hic dicitur quod Christus communicavit carni et sanguini, non est intelligendum secundum quod dicunt vitia carnis et sanguinis, quia non assumpsit culpam, nec commisit; sed secundum quod dicunt ipsam substantiam carnis animatae, quia carnem et animam assumpsit. Item est intelligendum de passibilitate carnis, quia assumpsit naturam nostram passibilem. Ut sit sensus quia pueri, idest fideles, habuerunt naturam passibilem, et ipse, scilicet Christus, participavit eisdem, vel pueri, scilicet in natura carnis et sanguinis, vel eisdem, id est, carni et sanguini, non quidem phantastice, ut delirat Manichaeus, nec accidentaliter, ut fingit Nestorius, sed similiter, scilicet nobis, id est, eo modo quo nos participamus, id est, secundum rei veritatem, scilicet personaliter et substantialiter. Nos enim participamus eis in persona, et Christus etiam similiter assumpsit ea in unitatem personae. Io. I, 14: Verbum caro factum est. Potest etiam per carnem et sanguinem intelligi caro et sanguis Christi, secundum illud Io. VI, 55: qui manducat meam carnem et bibit meum sanguinem: quibus pueri, scilicet apostoli, communicaverunt in coena, et Christus similiter participavit eisdem, scilicet carni et sanguini, quia ipse similiter sumpsit, ut Chrysostomus expresse dicit super Matth. XXVI: ipse (inquit) Christus bibit sanguinem suum. Unde Lc. XXII, 15: desiderio desideravi, et cetera.
139. That Christ is a partaker of flesh and blood is not to be understood as referring to the vices of flesh and blood, because he did not take on sin or commit any, but as referring to the very substance of animated flesh, because he assumed flesh and soul. It also included the possibility of suffering because he assumed our nature capable of suffering. Therefore, the sense is: because the children, i.e., the faithful, have a nature capable of suffering, Christ himself in like manner has been partaker of the same; or the children, namely, in the nature of flesh and blood; or the same, i.e., of flesh and blood, not indeed, in appearance, as Mani said deliriously, nor in an accidental way, as Nestorius imagined, but in like manner, namely, as us, that is, in the same way that we partake, that is, according to the truth of the thing, namely, in a personal and substantial way. For we partake of flesh and blood through our person; and Christ in like manner assumed them to his person: the Word was made flesh (John 1:14). By flesh and blood can also be understood the flesh and blood of Christ according to the statement: he that eats my flesh and drinks my blood (John 6:55), of which the children, i.e., the apostles, partook at the last supper and of which Christ partook, as Chrysostom expressly says about Matthew 26: he drank his own blood. Hence, with desire I have desired to eat this pasch with you, before I suffer (Luke 22:15).
140. Consequenter ostendit utilitatem quam per mortem attulit, cum dicit ut per mortem destrueret, et cetera.
140. Then he shows the benefits his death brought, when he says that through death, he might destroy.
Et circa hoc facit duo.
In regard to this he does two things.
Primo enim ostendit utilitatem istam ex parte diaboli, qui tenebat;
First, he shows its usefulness on the part of the devil, who had the power;
secundo ex parte nostra, qui tenebamur, ibi ut liberaret eos.
second, on our part who were held, at and might deliver them.
141. Dicit ergo: ideo participavit carni et sanguini, id est, assumpsit naturam in qua posset pati et mori, quod non poterat in divina, ut per mortem destrueret eum qui habebat mortis imperium, id est diabolum.
141. He says, therefore: he has been partaker of flesh and blood, i.e., he assumed a nature in which he could suffer and die, which he could not do in the divine nature, that, through death, he might destroy him who had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil.
Sed quomodo habet diabolus mortis dominium? Hoc enim est solius Dei. I Reg. II, 6: Dominus vivificat, et mortificat, et Deut. c. XXXII, 39: ego occidam, et ego vivere faciam.
But how does the devil have the power of death? For this is God’s prerogative: the Lord kills and makes alive (1 Sam 2:6); I will kill and I will make to live (Deut 32:39).
Respondeo. Dicendum est quod aliter habet dominium mortis iudex, quia scilicet quasi mortem infligens, cum per mortem punit; aliter latro, quasi scilicet mortem sibi ex demerito acquirens. Primo modo Deus habet mortis imperium. Gen. II, 17: quacumque die comederis ex eo, morte morieris. Secundo modo diabolus, qui suadendo homini peccatum, morti ipsum addixit. Sap. II, 24: invidia diaboli mors intravit in orbem terrarum.
I answer that a judge has the power of death in one way, because he inflicts death, when he punishes with death; but a thief has it another way in the sense of deserving death because of demerit. God has the power of death in the first way: for in what day you shall eat of it, you shall die the death (Gen 2:17). But the devil in the second way, because by persuading man to sin, he yielded him over to death: by the envy of the devil, death came into the world (Wis 2:24).
Dicit autem destrueret, non quantum ad substantiam quam habet incorruptibilem, non quantum ad malitiam, ut aliquando diabolus bonus fiat (ut dicit Origenes), sed quantum ad potestatis dominium. Io. XII, 31: nunc iudicium est mundi, nunc princeps mundi huius eiicietur foras. Col. II, 15: expolians principatus et potestates traduxit confidenter, palam triumphans illos in semetipso.
But he says, that he might destroy him, not as to his substance, which is indestructible, nor as to his malice, so that the devil would become good at some time (as Origen says), but as to his power. Now is the judgment of the world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out (John 12:31). Despoiling the principalities and powers (Col 2:15).
142. Et hoc factum est per mortem Christi triplici ratione. Una est ex parte Christi. Iustitiae enim est vera ratio, ut victor victum sibi subiiciat. II Pet. II, 19: a quo enim quis superatus est, huius et servus est. Christus enim vicit diabolum. Apoc. V, 5: vicit leo de tribu Iuda. Et ideo iustum est diabolum sibi esse subiectum. Lc. XI, 21: cum fortis armatus custodit atrium suum, et cetera.
142. This was accomplished by the death of Christ in three ways: first, on the part of Christ, for the true nature of justice is that the victor subject the vanquished to himself: for by whom a man is overcome, of the same is he the slave (2 Pet 2:19). But Christ overcame the devil: the Lion of the tribe of Judah has prevailed (Rev 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).
Alia ratio est ex parte diaboli. Iustitia enim exigit, quod qui male utitur potestate sibi concessa, amittat eam. diabolo autem data est permissive in peccatores quos seduxit, sed non in bonos. Quia ergo hanc extendere praesumpsit etiam in ipso Christo, qui peccatum non fecit Io. XIV, 30: venit princeps mundi huius, et in me non habet quicquam ideo meruit illam perdere.
Second, on the part of the devil: for justice requires that a person who unjustly uses power granted him should lose it. But the devil has 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.
Tertia ratio est ex parte nostri, quia iustum est, quod victus sit servus victoris, ut dictum est. Homo autem per peccatum servus erat diaboli Io. VIII, 34 s.: qui facit peccatum servus est peccati et ita subiectus diabolo, et obnoxius peccato. Christus autem solvit pretium pro peccato nostro. Ps.: quae non rapui, tunc exsolvebam. Sublata ergo causa servitutis, scilicet peccato, per Christum est homo liberatus.
The third reason is on our part: for it is just that the vanquished be the servants of the victor. But man by sin 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 did I pay that which I took not away (Ps 69:5). Therefore, when the cause of servitude was taken away, man was set free by Christ.
143. Sciendum est autem, quod nulla alia satisfactio fuit conveniens.
143. But it should be noted that no other satisfaction was suitable.
Homo enim erat debitor, unus autem bene potest satisfacere pro alio ex caritate. Nullus autem pro tota humana natura, quia non habet potestatem super illam. Nec etiam ipsum humanum genus sufficienter poterat satisfacere, quia totum erat peccato obnoxium. Nec etiam angelus, quia ista satisfactio est ad gloriam, quae excedit facultatem naturae angeli. Oportuit ergo esse hominem qui deberet satisfacere, et Deum, qui solus habet potestatem super totum humanum genus, qui posset pro toto humano genere satisfacere. Per mortem ergo Dei et hominis destruxit eum qui habet mortis imperium.
For man was in debt; but one man can satisfy for another out of charity, although no one can 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 unto glory, which exceeds the power of an angel. Therefore, it was necessary that the one who satisfied be man and God, who alone has power over the whole human race. By the death of God and man, therefore, he destroyed him who had the empire of death.
144. Consequenter cum dicit ut liberaret eos, etc., ponitur alia utilitas ex parte nostra.
144. Then when he says and might deliver them, another advantage on our part is mentioned.
Circa quod sciendum est, quod homo intantum est servus peccati, inquantum inducitur ad peccandum. Inter omnia vero duo sunt, quae inducunt ad peccandum efficacissime, scilicet praesentium bonorum amor male inflammans, praesentium etiam poenarum timor male humilians. De his Ps. LXXIX, 17: incensa igni, quantum ad primum, et suffossa, quantum ad secundum.
In regard to this it should be noted that a man is a servant of sin to the extent that he is induced to sin. But the most effective inducements to sin are the love of transitory goods and the fear of present punishments: things set on fire, as to the first and dug down as to the second, shall perish at the rebuke of your countenance (Ps 80:17).
Haec autem duo in idem reducuntur, quia quanto quis amat bonum aliquod, tanto timet malum sibi contrarium. Ista sunt quibus homo ligatur et detinetur in peccato, magis tamen per timorem movetur, quam per amorem. Unde videmus, quod saevae bestiae poenarum timore retrahuntur a maximis voluptatibus, et sic timor maxime ligat homines. Inter omnes autem, timor mortis est maximus. Est enim finis terribilium. Unde si homo timorem istum superat, superat omnes; et hoc superato, superatur omnis amor mundi inordinatus.
But these two amount to the same thing, because the more a person loves something, the more he fears its evil contrary. These are the things by which man is bound and retained in sin; but he is moved more by fear than by love. Hence, we see that savage beasts are kept from the greatest pleasures through fear of punishment; and thus fear most of all binds men. Among all fears, however, 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 when fear is overcome, all disordered love of the world is overcome.
Et ideo Christus per mortem suam fregit hoc ligamen, quia abstulit timorem mortis, et per consequens amorem vitae praesentis. Quando enim considerat homo, quod Filius Dei, Dominus mortis, mori voluit, non timet mori. Et inde est quod ante mortem Christi dicebat ille in Eccli. XLI, 1: o mors, quam amara est memoria tua. Sed post mortem Christi clamat Apostolus, Phil. I, 23: desiderium habens dissolvi et esse cum Christo. Unde Matth. X, 28: nolite timere eos qui occidunt corpus, et cetera.
Thus Christ by his death broke this fear, 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 (Sir 41:1); but after Christ’s death the Apostle expresses a desire to be dissolved and be with Christ (Phil 1:23): Hence, we are told: fear not those who kill the body (Matt 10:28).
Dicit ergo ut liberaret eos, qui timore mortis obnoxii erant servituti, scilicet peccati, per totam vitam, quam nimis appetebant.
He says, therefore, and might deliver them, who through the fear of death were all their lifetime, as they were desiring too much, subject to servitude, namely, the servitude of sin.