Lectio 2 Lecture 2 Humilitas Christi usque ad mortem Christ’s humility unto death ^2:5 Hoc enim sentite in vobis, quod et in Christo Jesu: [n. 51] ^2:5 For let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: [n. 51] ^2:6 qui cum in forma Dei esset, non rapinam arbitratus est esse se aequalem Deo: [n. 53] ^2:6 Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: [n. 53] ^2:7 sed semetipsum exinanivit, formam servi accipiens, in similitudinem hominum factus, et habitu inventus ut homo. [n. 56] ^2:7 But emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man. [n. 56] ^2:8 Humiliavit semetipsum factus obediens usque ad mortem, mortem autem crucis. [n. 63] ^2:8 He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross. [n. 63] 51. Postquam Apostolus posuit exhortationem suam, hic hortatur ad virtutem humilitatis, exemplo Christi. Et 51. After giving his exhortation, the Apostle urges them to the virtue of humility according to Christ’s example (Phil 2:2–4; C. 2, L. 1). primo inducit ad imitandum Christi exemplum; First, he exhorts them to follow the example of Christ; secundo ponit eius exemplum, ibi qui cum in forma, et cetera. second, he gives the example, at who being in the form of God. 52. Dicit ergo: sitis humiles, ut dixi, ideo hoc sentite, id est experimento tenete quod fuit in Christo Iesu. 52. He says, therefore: be humble, as I have said; hence let this mind be in you, i.e., acquire by experience the mind which was also in Christ Jesus. Notandum quod quinque modis debemus hoc sentire, scilicet quinque sensibus. Primo videre eius caritatem, ut ei conformemur illuminati. Is. XXXIII, 17: regem in decore suo videbunt, et cetera. II Cor. III, 18: nos autem omnes revelata facie gloriam Dei speculantes, et cetera. Secundo audire eius sapientiam, ut beatificemur. I Reg. X, 8: beati viri tui, et beati servi tui, hi qui stant coram te, et audiunt sapientiam tuam. Ps. XVII, 45: in auditu auris obedivit mihi. Tertio odorare gratias suae mansuetudinis, ut ad eum curramus. Cant. I, 3: trahe me post te, curremus in odorem unguentorum tuorum. Quarto gustare dulcedinem eius pietatis, ut in Deo semper dilecti simus. Ps. XXXIII, 9: gustate et videte quoniam suavis est Dominus. Quinto tangere eius virtutem, ut salvemur. Matth. IX, 21: si tetigero tantum fimbriam vestimenti eius, salva ero. Et sic sentite quasi tangendo per operis imitationem. It should be noted that we should have this mind in five ways according to the five senses: first, to see his glory, so that being enlightened, we may be conformed to him: your eyes will see the king in his beauty (Isa 33:17); and we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another (2 Cor 3:18); second, to hear his wisdom, in order to become happy: happy are these your servants, who continually stand before you and hear your wisdom (1 Kgs 10:8); as soon as they heard of me they obeyed me (Ps 18:44). Third, to smell the grace of his meekness, that we may run to him: your anointing oils are fragrant . . . draw me after you (Song 1:3); fourth, to taste the sweetness of his mercy, that we may always be in God: taste and see that the Lord is good (Ps 34:8); fifth, to touch his power, that we may be saved: if I only touch his garment, I shall be made well (Matt 9:21). 53. Deinde cum dicit qui cum in forma Dei, etc., proponit exemplum Christi. Et 53. Then when he says, who being in the form of God, he proposes the example of Christ. primo praemittit Christi maiestatem; First, he mentions Christ’s majesty; secundo ponit eius humilitatem, ibi semetipsum, etc.; second, his humility, at he humbled himself; tertio exaltationem, ibi propter quod, et cetera. third, his exaltation, at for which cause (Phil 2:9). Et primo maiestatem Christi praemittit, ut magis humilitas commendetur. Et duo proponit pertinentia ad Christi dignitatem, scilicet divinae naturae veritatem; secundo aequalitatem, ibi non rapinam. He mentions Christ’s majesty first in order that his humility might be more easily recommended. In regard to his majesty he proposes two things, namely, the truth of his divine nature, and second, his equality, at thought it not robbery. 54. Dicit ergo qui, scilicet Christus, cum in forma, et cetera. Unumquodque enim dicitur in natura generis vel speciei per suam formam, unde forma dicitur natura rei. Et sic esse in forma Dei est esse in natura Dei, per quod intelligitur quod sit verus Deus. I Io. ult.: ut simus in vero Filio eius Iesu Christo. Sed non est intelligendum quod aliud sit forma Dei et aliud ipse Deus: quia in simplicibus et immaterialibus idem est forma et id cuius est, maxime in Deo. 54. He says, therefore: who, namely, Christ, being in the form of God. For it is through its form that a thing is said to be in a specific or generic nature; hence the form is called the nature of a thing. Consequently, to be in the form of God is to be in the nature of God. By this is understood that he is true God: that we may be in his true Son, Jesus Christ (1 John 5:20). However, it should not be supposed that the form of God is one thing and God himself another, because in simple and immaterial things, and especially in God, the form is the same as that whose form it is. Sed quare potius dicit in forma, quam in natura? Quia hoc competit nominibus propriis Filii tripliciter. Dicitur enim et Filius, et Verbum, et Imago. Filius enim est qui generatur, et finis generationis est forma. Et ideo, ut ostendatur perfectus Dei Filius, dicit in forma, quasi habens perfecte formam Patris. Similiter verbum non est perfectum nisi quando ducit in cognitionem naturae rei; et sic Verbum Dei in forma Dei dicitur, quia habet totam naturam Patris. Similiter nec imago dicitur perfecta, nisi habeat formam cuius est imago. Hebr. I, 3: cum sit splendor gloriae, et figura substantiae eius, et cetera. But why does he say, in the form, rather than in the nature? Because this belongs to the proper names of the Son in three ways: for he is called the Son, the Word and the Image. Now the Son is the one begotten, and the end of begetting is the form. Therefore, to show the perfect Son of God he says, in the form, as though having the form of the Father perfectly. Similarly, a word is not perfect unless it leads to a knowledge of a thing’s nature; and so the Word of God is said to be in the form of God, because he has the entire nature of the Father. Finally, an image is not perfect, unless it has the form of that of which it is the image: he reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature (Heb 1:3). 55. Sed numquid habet eam perfecte? Sic, quia non rapinam, et cetera. Quod posset dupliciter intelligi. 55. But does he have it perfectly? Yes, because he thought it not robbery to be equal with God. This can be taken two ways. Uno modo de humanitate, et ita non intelligebat Paulus, quia hoc esset haereticum; quia hoc esset rapina, si referretur ad humanitatem. In one way, of his humanity. But this is not the way Paul understood it, because it would be heretical; for it would be a robbery if it referred to his humanity. Ideo exponendum est alio modo, scilicet de divinitate, secundum quam dicitur de Christo. Repugnat etiam rationi aliter dicere, quia natura Dei non est receptibilis in materia; quod autem aliquis existens in natura aliqua magis vel minus participet eam, est ex materia, sed ibi non est; ergo dicendum est, quod arbitratus est non esse rapinam, scilicet se esse aequalem Deo, quia est in forma Dei, et cognoscit bene naturam suam. Et quia cognoscit hoc, ideo dicitur Io. V, 18: aequalem se Deo facit; sed hoc non fuit rapina: sicut quando diabolus et homo volebat ei aequari. Is. XIV, 14: ero similis Altissimo, etc., et Gen. c. III, 5: eritis sicut dii. Haec autem fuit rapina; ideo pro hac Christus venit satisfacere. Ps. LXVIII, 5: quae non rapui, tunc exsolvebam. Therefore, it must be explained in another way, namely, of his divinity, according to which equality with God is said of Christ. It is contrary to reason to say otherwise: because the nature of God cannot be received in matter; but the fact that someone existing in a certain nature participates in that nature to a greater or lesser degree is due to the matter; which is not the case here. Therefore, we must say that he thought it not robbery to be equal with God, because he is in the form of God and knows his own nature well. And because he knows this, it is stated in John: he called God his Father, making himself equal with God (John 5:18). But this was not a robbery, as it was when the devil and man wished to be equal to him: I will make myself like the Most High (Isa 14:14); you will be like God (Gen 3:5), for which Christ came to make satisfaction: what I did not steal must I now restore? (Ps 69:4). 56. Deinde cum dicit sed semetipsum, etc., humilitatem Christi commendat. 56. Then when he says, but emptied himself, he commends Christ’s humility. Primo quantum ad mysterium Incarnationis; First, as to the mystery of the Incarnation; secundo quantum ad mysterium passionis, ibi humiliavit se, et cetera. second, as to the mystery of the passion, at he humbled himself. Circa primum ponit humilitatem; In regard to the first: first, he mentions his humility; secundo eius modum et formam. second, its manner and form. 57. Dicit ergo sed semetipsum, et cetera. Sed quia erat plenus divinitate, numquid ergo evacuavit se divinitate? Non, quia quod erat permansit et quod non erat, assumpsit. Sed hoc est intelligendum secundum assumptionem eius quod non habuit, sed non secundum assumptionem eius quod habuit. Sicut enim descendit de caelo, non quod desineret esse in caelo, sed quia incepit esse novo modo in terris, sic etiam se exinanivit, non deponendo divinam naturam, sed assumendo naturam humanam. 57. He says, therefore, he emptied himself. But since he was filled with the divinity, did he empty himself of that? No, because he remained what he was; and what he was not, he assumed. But this must be understood in regard to the assumption of what he had not, and not according to the assumption of what he had. For just as he descended from heaven, not that he ceased to exist in heaven, but because he began to exist in a new way on earth, so he also emptied himself, not by putting off his divine nature, but by assuming a human nature. Pulchre autem dicit exinanivit. Inane enim opponitur pleno. Natura autem divina satis plena est, quia ibi est omnis bonitatis perfectio. Ex. XXXIII, 19: ostendam tibi omne bonum. Natura autem humana, et anima non est plena, sed in potentia ad plenitudinem; quia est facta quasi tabula rasa. Est ergo natura humana inanis. Dicit ergo exinanivit, quia naturam humanam assumpsit. How beautiful to say that he emptied himself, for the empty is opposed to the full! For the divine nature is sufficiently full, because every perfection of goodness is there. I will show you all good (Exod 33:19). But human nature and the soul are not full, but capable of fullness, because it was made as a slate not written upon. Therefore, human nature is empty. Hence he says, he emptied himself, because he assumed a human nature. 58. Tangit ergo, primo, naturae humanae assumptionem, dicens formam servi accipiens. Homo enim ex sua creatione est servus Dei, et natura humana est forma servi. Ps. XCIX, 3: scitote quoniam Dominus ipse est Deus, et cetera. Is. XLII, 1: ecce servus meus, et cetera. Ps. III, 4: tu autem, Domine, susceptor meus es, et cetera. 58. First, he touches on the assumption of human nature when he says, taking the form of a servant. For by reason of his creation man is a servant, and human nature is the form of a servant: know that the Lord is God! It is he that made us, and we are his (Ps 100:3); behold my servant, whom I uphold (Isa 42:1); but you, O, Lord, are a shield about me (Ps 3:3). Cur dicitur convenientius formam servi, quam servum? Quia servus est nomen hypostasis vel suppositi, quod non est assumptum sed natura: quod enim suscipitur, distinguitur a suscipiente. Non ergo Filius Dei assumpsit hominem; quia daretur intelligi quod homo esset aliud a Filio Dei, cum tamen Filius Dei factus sit homo. Accepit ergo naturam in persona sua, ut esset idem in persona Filius Dei et Filius hominis. But why is it more fitting to say the form of a servant, rather than servant? Because servant is the name of a hypostasis, which was not assumed, but the nature was; for that which is assumed is distinct from the one assuming it. Therefore, the Son of God did not assume a man, because that would mean that he was other than the Son of God; nevertheless, the Son of God became man. Therefore, he took the nature to his own person, so that the Son of God and the Son of man would be the same in person. 59. Secundo tangit naturae conformitatem, dicens in similitudinem hominum factus, scilicet secundum speciem. Hebr. II, 17: debuit per omnia fratribus assimilari. 59. Second, he touches on the conformity of his nature to ours when he says, being made in the likeness of men, namely, according to species: therefore he had to be made like his brethren in every respect (Heb 2:17). Et si dicas quod in Domino Iesu Christo non convenit speciem accipere, verum est, quae resultet ex divinitate et humanitate, quasi divinitas et humanitas convenissent in unam naturam communem. Unde sequeretur quod divina natura (ut ita loquar) mutaretur. If you say that it is not fitting to speak of a species in the Lord Jesus Christ: it is true in the sense that a new species does not arise from his divinity and humanity, as though his divinity and humanity agreed in having one common species of nature, for it would follow that his divine nature, so to say, would have changed. 60. Tertio naturae humanae conditiones ponit, dicens et habitu inventus ut homo, quia defectus omnes et proprietates continentes speciem, praeter peccatum, suscepit. Et ideo habitu inventus ut homo, scilicet in exteriori conversatione, quia esuriit ut homo, fatigatus fuit, et huiusmodi. Hebr. IV, 15: tentatum per omnia pro similitudine absque peccato. Bar. III, 38: post haec in terris visus est, et cum hominibus conversatus est. 60. Third, he mentions the conditions of his human nature when he says, and in habit found as a man. For he assumed all the defects and properties associated with the human species, except sin; therefore, he says, and in habit found as a man, namely, in his external life, because he became hungry as a man and tired and so on: one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sinning (Heb 4:15); afterward he appeared upon earth and lived among men (Bar 3:38). Et sic habitum possumus referre ad exteriores habitudines. Thus, we can refer habit to outward activities. 61. Vel habitu, quia ipsam humanitatem accepit quasi habitum. Est autem habitus quadruplex. Unus mutat habentem, et ipse non mutatur, ut stultus per sapientiam. Alius mutatur et mutat, ut cibus. Alius, qui nec mutat, nec mutatur, ut annulus adveniens digito. Alius, qui mutatur, et non mutat, ut vestimentum. Et per hanc similitudinem natura humana in Christo dicitur habitus, qui sic advenit divinae personae, quod non mutavit ipsam; sed mutata est in melius, quia impleta est gratia et veritate. Io. I, 14: vidimus gloriam eius, gloriam quasi unigeniti a Patre, plenum gratiae et veritatis. 61. Or in habit, because he put humanity on as a habit. For there are four kinds of habit or ways in which something is ‘had’: one changes a person without itself being changed, as a fool by wisdom; another is changed and also changes the possessor, as food; a third neither changes the possessor nor is changed, as a ring worn on the finger; another is changed and does not change the possessor, as a dress. And by this likeness the human nature in Christ is called a habit or ‘something had’; because it comes to the divine person without changing it, but the nature itself was changed for the better, because it was filled with grace and truth: we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth (John 1:14). Dicit ergo in similitudinem hominum factus, ita tamen quod non mutatur, quia habitu inventus est ut homo. He says, therefore, being made in the likeness of men, but in such a way that he is not changed, because in habit found as a man.