At the outset of this epistle it must be said what cause it was that the Apostle Paul did not, in this epistle, keep his usual custom — namely, of setting down either the term of his own name or the dignity of his rank. This, then, was the cause why he did not entitle it with his own name: because he was writing to the Jews, his own brethren, to whom he was hateful, because he himself taught that circumcision, the sabbath, and the other sacrifices which the law prescribed for observance ought not to be observed carnally after the Lord's passion. For those Jews who had believed contended to hold both — namely, to be baptized according to the grace of the Gospel, and to be circumcised, and also to observe the sabbath according to the precept of the law.
Wherefore, if the Apostle had placed his name at the opening of this epistle, it might have happened that his rivals, reading his name at the very front, would have disdained to receive it, and thus the profit of its reading would have been deferred. He did not place the name of his apostleship, moreover, because — being himself constituted the apostle of the Gentiles — if he had prefixed the name of his apostleship to the epistle directed to them, calling himself an apostle, it might perhaps have seemed to them that he wished to prefer himself to the Apostle Peter, who was their chief, ordained by the Lord, even as the same excellent preacher says in another place: For He who wrought in Peter unto the apostleship of the circumcision, wrought also in me among the Gentiles. And perhaps they would even say:
What is this, that Paul the teacher of the Gentiles prefers himself to our apostles Peter and James? — writing to those to whom he was ordained an apostle; for the writings of our own apostles can amply teach us. By which act he showed that he was not ignorant of their pride, and at the same time exhibited his own humility. In like manner the apostle John also, for the sake of humility and of this reasoning, omitted his own name in his epistle. Or certainly some say that, because the Apostle was about to name Christ in the epistle, saying: We have a High Priest and Apostle of our confession, Jesus the Just, he was unwilling to place the name of his own apostleship at the beginning of this epistle.
For he did not judge it fitting that, where he was about to call Christ 'Apostle,' he should there also name himself an apostle, and most of all in the title, lest he should seem to any to prefer himself to Christ. Some say this epistle to be Barnabas's, some Luke's, some Clement's, saying that if it were Paul's, he himself, in his usual manner — as in the others, so also in this — would place his own name at the head; but if it will not be Paul's, since it is not titled with his name, then it will be neither Barnabas's, nor Luke's, nor Clement's, nor anyone's, since it is titled with no one's name. To whom, then, of these is it to be ascribed? Certainly to that excellent preacher;
inasmuch as it is proved to be his by its lucid sense and its manner of speech, although it is set forth in a more subtle and clearer style than all his epistles. For it is reported that, sending this to the Hebrews, he wrote it in the Hebrew tongue, in which he was himself most skilled, while he wrote the rest in the Greek tongue. But after the Apostle's departure, Luke the evangelist rendered it in the Greek tongue; from which it was afterward translated into the Latin language, as were the rest also. CHAPTER ONE. In many portions and in many manners of old, God speaking to the fathers in the prophets, hath in these last days spoken to us in a Son.
The whole aim of the blessed Apostle in this epistle is that he may cause the Jews, his kinsmen — who are also called Hebrews, from Heber, in whom they were taken up by the law of Moses — to pass over to the grace of the Gospel, from carnal observance to spiritual; and at the same time he distinguishes the eminence of the grace which was given to the faithful through the Son from the legal shadows, which were exhibited by angelic ministrations. Whence here he first sets down that the prophets spoke to the Fathers in diverse modes and various forms of speech, saying: In many portions — that is, in many utterances; and in many manners — that is, in many qualities; of old — that is, in past time; God the Father speaking through the prophets to our Fathers.
Then, to show how great a difference of grace there was between them and their fathers, he subjoined: In these last days, of the final age, He hath spoken to us through a Son. Now by saying: He hath spoken 'in' the prophets, and 'in' a Son, it is worth as much as if he said 'through' the prophets and 'through' the Son; because one preposition is often taken for another, as in many places of the epistle it is found that these prepositions are used indifferently. Let us consider, then, how in many utterances and many qualities God the Father spoke to the fathers of the Testament. In many utterances and many qualities He spoke to them, because He did not always reveal His secrets to them uniformly. For sometimes He spoke to them openly and through an angel:
as to Abraham, to whom He said: About this time I will come, and Sarah shall have a son. To Moses also, in giving the legal precepts: Thou shalt not kill; Thou shalt not commit adultery, and the rest of this kind. To Lot also, in leading him out of Sodom, and to very many others. But sometimes obscurely and through enigmas, as to Moses, to whom He said: I am who am: These things shalt thou say to the children of Israel: He who is hath sent me to you; sometimes in the habit of a soldier, as to Joshua; sometimes in the heart, as to David, who said: I will hear what the Lord God will speak in me; and to the rest of the prophets. Sometimes through a dream, as to Daniel. But how great a distance there is between the grace of the Gospel, which was given through the Son, and the law, which was administered through a servant:
so great is the difference between the ministers and helpers of the law — since servants were sent to servants — and between the promise and the grace which was given through the Son to sons, and which afterward, through sons, follows as administered to sons. Whom He hath appointed heir of all things. 'Heir' is so called from 'herus,' that is, 'lord,' because with free power he holds lordship over the inheritance. God the Father, then, appointed the Son heir of all things — that is, of the whole world, or of all creatures — not, however, according to the divinity by which He is co-eternal with the Father and co-equal with Him in the omnipotence of the Godhead, and by which He eternally possesses all things together with the Father;
but rather according to the humanity assumed by the Word was He constituted Lord and heir over all creation: as God the Father promised Him, saying: Ask of Me, and I will give thee the nations for thine inheritance, and the ends of the earth for thy possession. And the Son Himself, rising from the dead, speaks thus from the person of His humanity: All power (He says) is given to Me in heaven and in earth. Let us therefore not divide the persons, but distinguish the natures. Whence it is to be shrewdly observed that the Apostle in the epistle now speaks of the substance of the humanity, now of the substance of the deity: for what he said — that He was constituted by God the Father heir of all creatures — he referred to His humanity.
but wishing to make a distinction between the nature of His divinity and of His humanity, and to show what properly pertained to each nature, he added, saying: Through whom also He made the ages. 'Ages' (saecula) are so called from 'following' (sequendo), because they follow one another, returning and reverting into themselves. But here by 'ages' we ought to understand all things that were made in time. Therefore, that the Apostle might show that the same One had come into the world in the last days, and had temporally received the inheritance, who before all ages was with the Father, he said: Through whom God the Father made all things that were made in time. For what the evangelist John said: All things were made through Him, and without Him was made nothing — this the Apostle signified by saying:
Through whom He made also the ages — referring this to His divinity. Then, elegantly using certain steps of ascent, he arrived at that which is greater than all these, and rang out, saying: Who, being the brightness of glory and the figure of His substance. God the Father is light, as the same Apostle says, speaking of the Son: Who dwelleth (he says) in light inaccessible; and the Son is light, and the Holy Spirit is light. Likewise the Father is brightness, and the Son is brightness; and how brightness proceeds from brightness, it is impossible to define. But for this reason the Son is called the brightness of the Father: because, as in fire there are three things inseparable — namely, fire, heat, and brightness — and yet by the brightness fire and heat are shown to us:
though human things are not to be compared with divine: so the nature of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, inseparably conjoined and united, deigned through its Word — as through a brightness — to show itself, and moreover the mystery of the holy Trinity, the Son Himself saying: I and the Father are one, and, Go, baptize all nations, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. In a wonderful manner, therefore, the Apostle showed the whole substance of the deity of the Father and of the Son: so as to disclose two persons in glory and brightness. For by the brightness he declared the unity of essence with God the Father; but in the name of 'glory' he expressed the person of God the Father; and in the 'brightness,' the person of the Son;
and thus the Son is brightness from brightness, as light from light, God from God, light from light, principle from principle. There follows: And the figure of His substance. As far as pertains to men, one thing is the figure, another the substance: because when the image and figure of some man is painted on a wall, that which is the figure is not that which is the substance. But the Apostle here placed 'figure' for the very substance and equality of essence: and what he here called 'figure,' elsewhere he called 'form,' saying: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant. For 'form' there, and 'figure' here, declare one quality of essence:
Christ, therefore, is the brightness of the Father and the figure of His substance: because through Him the Father was made manifest, as He Himself said: Father, I have manifested Thy name to men; and He is equal to Him in the substance of the deity. There follows: And upholding all things by the word of His power. By saying 'upholding,' he wished to express the ease of containing; and he placed 'upholding' for that which is 'governing and ruling.' The Word, then, of God the Father upholds all things which He made by the word of His power — that is, by the might of His power and by the word of His command He governs and rules all things. For it is no less to govern the world than to have created it; for in creating, the substances of things were produced out of nothing:
but in governing, the things that were made are contained, lest they return to nothing. Therefore, while all these things are ruled and mutually fitted together though warring against one another, the great and admirable judgment of God's power is declared. After so great a brightness of the divine majesty in the Son, he descends to the humble things of His incarnation, and likewise distinguishes the nature of the divinity and of the humanity, saying: Making the cleansing of sins. For what he said — Upholding all things by His governance and the ruling of His power — he referred to the divinity. But what he added — Making the cleansing of sins — pertains properly to His humanity, whether through the redemption of His passion and the water of baptism: as John says in his Apocalypse:
He hath washed us from our sins in His own blood. He sitteth at the right hand of the majesty on high. The order of the words is to be considered: for first he asserted that the Lord procured cleansing for us by His passion; and then he said that He sits at the right hand of the majesty on high. For Christ first redeemed us by the blood of His passion, and thus afterward penetrated the height of the heavens, where now He sits at the right hand of the Father. But His 'sitting' is put for 'dwelling' and 'being' in that place, as also 'the right hand' for supreme honour and dignity. For it is not to be supposed that the omnipotent Father, who is a spirit uncircumscribed, filling all things, has a right hand or a left, as we have:
or that the Son sits at His right hand as the sons of kings are wont to sit beside their father, with a throne placed for them; but, as we say, the right hand is taken for glory and the honour of dignity; since the Father also is written to be at the right hand of Christ, as is held in the psalm: The Lord at thy right hand hath broken kings in the day of His wrath. Both, therefore, are at the right hand, because there is nothing left-hand in the divinity; because the man assumed by the Word is now one with God in glory, and on the fortieth day exalted to the heavenly places. What is it, then — He sits at the right hand of the majesty — but to say, He dwells in the fullness of the paternal majesty? And when he said 'on high,' he showed that that Man was exalted above every creature, angelic and human;
whence there also follows: Made so much better than the angels, as He hath inherited a more excellent name beyond them. Here we ought to take 'made' or 'effected' for 'assumed,' as though he said: He inherited a name more distinguished and excellent than theirs — the name of sonship. For as great as the distance is between the name of a son and of a servant, by so much is He of greater dignity than the angels: since He is Creator (I speak according to the divinity), they creatures. That Man too is in this respect greater than all the angels and every creature: because the power which was in the whole Word, before all ages, rested in that Man assumed by the Word from the time of His conception.
Wherefore they are ministers and servants, as was declared in His temptation and passion, and also in His resurrection and ascension. But He exists as the proper Son and heir: which the Apostle also intimates to us when he subjoins: For to which of the angels did He at any time say, Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee? Understand: to none of the angels was this said. This is to be understood of the Word of God, which is eternal and consubstantial with the Father, not of any creature; though we read in the book of Job that angels are called sons of God. In Genesis also, sons; but this, when it happens, happens by an abuse of the term. When, then, did He say to Him: Thou art My Son? At the time of baptism, and on the mount the paternal voice thundered from heaven, saying:
This is My beloved Son. And in this, that He said, Thou art My Son, He manifests from His very essence that He is begotten. And it is to be noted that He did not say: Before all ages I have begotten Thee, or in past time; but, this day, He says, have I begotten Thee — which adverb is of present time: for in God neither do past things pass away, nor future things succeed; but all times are joined together to Him at once, because He has all things present. And the sense is: As I am always eternal, having neither beginning nor end, so I always have Thee co-eternal with Me. Such also is that which He said elsewhere: Before the day-star I begot Thee — that is, before the angelic creation, and before all ages.
And again, I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son. Dost thou see how he distinguished the twofold nature in Christ? For what he said a little above, This day have I begotten Thee, refers to the divinity of eternity; but what he added, I will be to Him a Father, refers, without any doubt, to the essence of the humanity. Whence he also fittingly used the verb of future time, saying: I will be. For when God the Father said to David: When thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will raise up thy seed, which shall come forth from thy loins; and I will establish his throne above thy throne: and he shall be to Me a son, and I will be to him a Father — it was still future that the Word of God the Father should assume man in the virginal womb, in the unity of His person:
or because He should be the Son of God in truth, not adoptive, but proper. But this sentence can also look back to what precedes, so that it be read under interrogation: Again, to which of the angels did He say: I will be to him a Father? And understand: to none. Or certainly absolutely and affirmatively, in this manner: Again God the Father says of Him: I will be a Father. And when again He brought in the firstborn into the world, He said: And let all the angels of God adore Him. Every only-begotten can be called firstborn, because he first opens the womb of the mother; not, however, is every firstborn only-begotten, who has other brothers following. But the Lord Jesus, both according to divinity and according to humanity, can be called both only-begotten and firstborn.
He is only-begotten according to divinity, because in the nature of the divinity He has no brothers following; according to humanity too He is the only-begotten of blessed Mary, who after Him bore no others — as Helvidius calumniates. Then He is firstborn according to the essence of the divinity, as He testifies through Solomon, saying: I, wisdom, came forth from the mouth of the Most High, firstborn before every creature. According to the humanity by which He is firstborn among many adoptive brethren: of whom He Himself said to Mary: Go to My brethren, and say to them. But what the Apostle says — When again God the Father brought in His firstborn Son into the world — these words seem to sound as though He had now been introduced a second time.
But how this is to be understood, the evangelist John openly makes manifest, saying: He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world knew Him not. The Word, therefore, of God the Father, through whom all things were made, being of one essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit, is everywhere, and fills all things. Because by encompassing He fills all things, and He encompasses the things to be filled; by governing He presides, by presiding He governs. And because He was in the world, where He assumed flesh, and while He was inaccessible to our sight, because He was not seen: He calls the very assumption of flesh a second entrance; for while He who was invisible to human sight, having assumed flesh, presented Himself visible, He was as it were introduced again.
It should be noted that what the Apostle calls an 'entering in,' this Truth itself in the Gospel calls a 'going out,' saying: 'I went forth from the Father, and came into the world.' Rightly, then, does he call the assumption and manifestation of his Incarnation a 'going out,' because we were outside, cast out from God beyond the hall of paradise, the palace of the eternal King, placed in the prison of this world and banished into exile. For example: just as accused men are shut out from the royal hall when they incur the king's displeasure, and are consigned to exile and closed up in prison; yet just as a good mediator, wishing to obtain pardon for them, does not first bring them into the king's hall, but himself goes out, and there enters into the business of conversing with them:
and thus, having corrected and chastened them, he brings them into the king's presence; in like manner the Lord Jesus showed himself. For he went forth to us from the presence of the paternal majesty, by taking flesh and making himself visible, and he conversed with us the precepts of the eternal King; and thus, having corrected and chastened us by his preaching and miracles, and confirmed us in his faith, and cleansed us from our sins by his passion, he brought us into the hall, into the presence of the paternal majesty, when, ascending into heaven, he opened to us the entrance of the heavenly kingdom. But by saying that he was 'brought into the world,' he signifies this: that in committing the world to him, he declares him to be the Lord of the whole world:
For then shall he possess the world, when he is acknowledged by all as Lord of the whole earth. But take this as said not of the substance of the Word, but of the essence of the man. And what follows, 'And let all the angels of God adore him,' is as if he said: All the angels are mine and his, for through him were they made. Then, therefore, did they adore him, when they announced his nativity, and when, as he hungered, they drew near and ministered to him; or when they guarded his sepulchre; and daily too do they adore him, because they obey his gaze. But did God the Father command only the angels to adore him? No, but rather every creature. And to the angels indeed he says: 'Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.'
As for his saying, 'and to the angels indeed God the Father,' or the divine Scripture, 'says,' it is as if he said 'concerning the angels,' putting 'to' for 'concerning'; for the Apostle does not preserve the order or sense of the prepositions. And the meaning is: He whom the angels are commanded to adore makes angels out of these his own spirits as often as he wills; he also makes a flame of fire his ministers, because those who stand in his presence he renders burning and enkindled in his love; according to what is said elsewhere: 'On whom the angels desire to look.' For as to his saying 'Who maketh his angels spirits,' he set it forth in inverted order; for he ought to have said, 'Who maketh his spirits angels.' But it must be known that 'angel' is the name of an office, not of a nature;
for they are indeed always spirits, but by no means are they always called angels, save when they are sent; for 'angel,' a Greek word, is in Latin called 'messenger' (nuntius). If you seek the name of their nature, it is 'spirit'; from the fact that one is sent, 'angel.' For example, just as 'man' is the name of a nature, but 'soldier' is the name of an office. It is also said in another way: The ministers of Almighty God are also the priests and prelates of the Church; according to what Malachi said: 'The lips of the priest keep knowledge, and they seek the law from his mouth, for he is the angel of the Lord of hosts.' The priests of the Church, therefore, are angels, when they announce to their hearers the joys of the heavenly homeland, saying: 'Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.' And:
'The just shall shine as the sun, and shall be as the angels of God in heaven.' But they are a flame of fire when they threaten their hearers with the terror of hell-fire, saying: 'Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit shall be cut down and cast into the fire.' 'But to the Son'—understand, says the Psalmist—'Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of equity is the sceptre of thy kingdom.' Behold how, and with how great clarity, he distinguishes the angelic creature from the Son, who created all things. 'Throne' in Greek is in Latin called 'royal seat,' as also is 'solium.' By the throne we can understand the kingdom in one sense; by the sceptre, which is a golden rod, is understood the power of the kingdom. The Psalmist therefore says, speaking to the Son of God:
'O God, thy kingdom and the power of thy dominion shall abide for ever and ever.' Something similar Gabriel says to Mary: 'He shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end.' This is the kingdom about which the crowds cried out: 'Blessed be the kingdom of our father David that cometh.' Concerning it the Lord himself said to Pilate: 'My kingdom is not of this world.' Otherwise: By the throne, as the seat of those who judge, we may not incongruously understand the judgment, which proceeds from the seat. This is the judgment of which the Son of man says: 'The Father judgeth no man, but hath given all judgment to the Son'; and of which the Psalmist says: 'Give to the king thy judgment, O God, and thy justice to the king's son,' that is, to Christ.
The throne of God, therefore, shall abide for ever and ever, because the last judgment, which he will give to the elect, saying: 'Come, ye blessed of my Father,' and to the reprobate: 'Go into everlasting fire,' shall stand by an eternal separation between the two, as the Gospel testifies and says: 'Then shall these go into everlasting punishment, but the just into life everlasting.' And what follows: 'The sceptre of equity is the sceptre of thy kingdom.' By the sceptre of equity is understood the rectitude of his sentence and judgment, or the just power of his kingdom; which sceptre rules the just with justice, and strikes the wicked justly and rightly, governing and judging all without any respect of persons. 'Thou hast loved justice, and hated iniquity.'
This sceptre brings it about, both that justice be loved and iniquity be hated; for no one can perfectly love justice unless he has hated iniquity. And 'iniquity' (iniquitas), which is so named, is understood as whatever is done against the divine law; for the love of truth is the hatred of falsehood. And because the Lord loved justice, in that he did not sin, and hated iniquity—which the first man deserved to receive—he sets it forth, saying: 'Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.' The Psalmist addresses the Son of God and says: 'O God, God, thy God the Father, hath anointed thee with the oil of exultation, because thou didst hate iniquity and love justice.'
It is not, therefore, to be understood that the Son of God, according to the nature of his divinity, in which he is equal to the Father, can have a God; for he himself, together with the Father, is true God. But according to that which he is man, he has God the Father; because he was made by him; and therefore the Psalmist says: 'God, thy God, hath anointed thee.' He was anointed, not with visible oil, but with the fullness of the Holy Spirit, who from the day of his baptism rested upon him in the form of a dove; nor did the fullness of the Holy Spirit remain in him only from the time of his baptism, but rather from the time of his conception; according to what Isaiah testifies, saying: 'The Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and of understanding,' and so forth.
He says he was anointed with the oil of exultation or gladness, because Christ never sinned, never had sadness from the recollection of sin. For what is it to be anointed with the oil of gladness, but to have no stain of sin? For the conscience of the saints then more and more rejoices and bursts into gladness, when it is bitten by no recollection of any grievous sin. Indeed the Holy Spirit, who rested in Christ, guarded him, that he might be conceived without sin, born without sin, and pass from this world without the stain of sin; according to what is written of him: 'He did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth.' But what is it that the Psalmist said: 'God hath anointed thee above thy fellows'?