Hebrews 1:7

This is the way, dear friends, in which we found our salvation, Jesus Christ, the high priest of our offerings, the protector and helper of our weakness. Through him we fix our gaze on the heights of heaven. In him we see mirrored God’s pure and transcendent face. Through him the eyes of our hearts have been opened. Through him our foolish and darkened understanding springs up to the light. Through him the Master has willed that we should taste immortal knowledge. For, since “he reflects the glory of God,” “he is as much superior to the angels as the name he has obtained is more excellent than theirs.” For thus it is written: “He makes his angels winds, and his servants flames of fire.” But of his Son this is what the Master said: “You are my son, today I have begotten you. Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession.” And again he says to him, “Sit at my right hand till I make your enemies your footstool.” Who are meant by “enemies”? Those who are wicked and resist his will.

Let us see what the devil says to the Lord from the Scriptures: “It is written, ‘He will give his angels charge of you; on their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone.’ ” See how crafty he is, even in the texts he quotes. For he wishes to diminish the Savior’s glory, as if the Savior needed the help of angels. It is as if he would strike his foot unless he were supported by their hands. The devil takes this verse from Scripture and applies it to Christ. Yet it is written not of Christ but about the saints in general. Freely and in total confidence I contradict the devil. This passage cannot be applied to the person of Christ, for Christ does not need the help of angels. He is greater than the angels and obtained a better name than they by inheritance. For God never said to any of the angels, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you.” He has spoken to none of them as to a son. “He makes his angels winds, and his servants flames of fire.” But to his own Son he speaks properly and says countless things about him in the prophets.As I say, the Son of God does not need the help of angels. No, devil; learn rather that unless Jesus helps the angels, they dash their feet. We have just heard a passage about the angels, “that we are to judge angels.” If any of the angels is seen to stumble, he stumbles because he did not reach out his hand to Jesus. If Jesus had taken his hand, he would not have stumbled. For when someone trusts in his own strength and does not call upon the help of Jesus, he stumbles and falls.

In what manner, then, did He beget Him? First of all, divine operations cannot be known or declared by any one; but nevertheless the sacred writings teach us, in which it is laid down that this Son of God is the speech, or even the reason of God, and also that the other angels are spirits of God. For speech is breath sent forth with a voice signifying something. But, however, since breath and speech are sent forth from different parts, inasmuch as breath proceeds from the nostrils, speech from the mouth, the difference between the Son of God and the other angels is great. For they proceeded from God as silent spirits, because they were not created to teach the knowledge of God, but for His service. But though He is Himself also a spirit, yet He proceeded from the mouth of God with voice and sound, as the Word, on this account indeed, because He was about to make use of His voice to the people; that is, because He was about to be a teacher of the knowledge of God, and of the heavenly mystery to be revealed to man.

And it was never announced to any man, “Let all God’s angels worship him.” In fact, even though men are able to subject their fellow creatures, they will never force the angels to obey them. The angels are not materially formed. “He made,” Paul says, “his angels spirits and his ministers flames of fire.”

Since the Word knows the tabernacle of Moses to be a figure of the whole creation—I mean the entire system of things visible and invisible—shall we pass the first veil and, stepping beyond the realm of sense, look into the holy place, the intellectual and celestial creation? But not even this can we see in an incorporeal way, though it is incorporeal, since it is called—or is—fire and spirit. For he is said to make his angels spirits and his ministers flames of fire … though perhaps this “making” means preserving by that Word by which they came into existence. The angel then is called spirit and fire: spirit, as being a creature of the intellectual sphere; fire, as being of a purifying nature; for I know that the same names belong to the first nature. But, relative to us at least, we must reckon the angelic nature incorporeal or, at any rate, as nearly so as possible. Do you see how we get dizzy over this subject and cannot advance to any point unless it be as far as this: that we know there are angels and archangels, thrones, dominions, princedoms, powers, splendors, ascents, intelligent powers or intelligences, pure natures and unalloyed, immovable to evil or scarcely movable; ever circling in chorus around the first cause, or how should we sing their praises? Illuminated thence with the purest illumination or one in one degree and one in another, proportionally to their nature and rank … so conformed to beauty and molded that they become secondary lights and can enlighten others by the overflowing and largess of the first light? They are ministers of God’s will, strong with both inborn and imparted strength, traversing all space, readily present to all at any place through their zeal for ministry and agility of nature … different individuals of them embracing different parts of the world, or appointed over different districts of the universe, as knows the one who ordered and distributed it all. They combine all things in one, solely with a view to the consent of the Creator of all things. [They are] choristers of the majesty of the Godhead, eternally contemplating the eternal glory, not that God may thereby gain an increase of glory, for nothing can be added to that which is full—to God, who supplies good to all outside God’s self—but that there may never be a cessation of blessings to these first natures after God. If we have told these things as they deserve, it is by the grace of the Trinity and of the one Godhead in three persons, but if less perfectly than we have desired, yet even so our discourse has gained its purpose. For this is what we were laboring to show—that, if even the secondary natures surpass the power of our intellect, much more then does the first and—for I fear to say merely—that which is above all the only nature.

If all creation worships Christ—for by the name “angels” he denotes the higher rational beings, just as also in the passage “to what angel has he ever said, ‘Sit at my right hand’?” he himself is also above them—and the word of the Scriptures forbid us to worship creation in as much as it says, “Beware lest you lift up your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, you be drawn away and worship them.” Just as one is kept from worshiping the fixtures of the heavens, so also one is kept from worshiping other created beings, even if one happens upon a certain individual surpassing others. One must maintain firmly that Christ was the Creator, not a creation, even if for our sake he united himself to created flesh endowed with a reasonable and intellectual soul, and thus is worshiped as God by all creation.

Is it then Angels only? No; for hear what follows: "And of His Angels He saith, Which maketh His Angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire: but unto the Son, Thy Throne, O God, is for ever and ever." Behold, the greatest difference! that they are created, but He uncreated. While of His angels He saith, who "maketh"; wherefore of the Son did He not say "Who maketh"? Although he might have expressed the difference as follows: "Of His Angels He saith, Who maketh His Angels spirits, but of the Son, 'The Lord created Me': 'God hath made Him Lord and Christ.'" But neither was the one spoken concerning the Son, nor the other concerning God The Word, but concerning the flesh. For when he desired to express the true difference, he no longer included angels only, but the whole ministering power above. Seest thou how he distinguishes, and with how great clearness, between creatures and Creator, ministers and Lord, the Heir and true Son, and slaves?

For just as in the matter of “radiance” and “exact image of his nature” he imitated John, calling him “the Word” and saying that he was God, so also here he imitated John. Just as John said, “This one was in the beginning, all things were created through him,” so also does Paul, although he says, “these things were not” instead of saying, “This one was.” “To the angels is said, ‘who makes them’; but to the Son, ‘your throne.’ ” This proves the point: That which was made was not in existence previously, but he who has an eternal throne always was with his Father.

The mention of the angels’ “service” (wind) shows their quickness, while the mention of “ministry” (flames) shows their power. When he says that the angels have been made these things, he presents how they also have the ability to be these things. And he distinguishes them from the “Creator” and “God” and “throne” and “scepter of the kingdom,” all of which are symbols of his highest honor and worthiness. For also the phrase God reveals his highest nature, and throne and scepter set forth the certainty of this apart from human honors and worthiness. Then also the phrase “forever and ever” proves this, for the word Creator shows those things that have come into existence have their beginning in time, but this passage demonstrates the eternity of his kingdom.

“Your throne, O God, is forever.” Through this he teaches us that the phrase “he sat down at the right hand of the majesty on high” was meant in human fashion. As God he has a throne that is eternal and a kingdom that is without beginning or end, but here human things are associated with it.

Both phrases, “brings the firstborn” and “let them worship,” suggest the incarnation. Whence does he, the one who supports all things by the word of his power and is maker and creator of the ages, come into the world? How is he “firstborn” if he is only begotten? If even after the incarnation the angels adored him, did they not offer him this honor before the incarnation? He was everywhere as God, yet as man he came into the world.

When he introduces his only begotten, that is, when it was pleasing for him to reveal in the flesh his only begotten son to the inhabitants of the universe, he says, “Let all the angels who serve him, worship him,” and “you will see the angels ascending and descending upon the Son of man.”

"Who makes His angels spirits." For they are created beings, therefore he says, "Who makes." Behold the greatest difference: that some are created, while the One is uncreated; for the act of creating denotes the production from non-being into being. It is not only to angels that the exceptional pertains, but also to every functional power. He did not say, "Having created," but "Creating," that is, sustaining by the Word, according to which they came into being.

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; secondly, His dominion, because He is the heir; thirdly, His power, because He made the world; fourthly, His honor, because He sits on the right hand of majesty. But now the Apostle shows that Christ exceeds the angels in these four points: first, in His sonship; secondly, in His dominion (v.6); thirdly, in the work of creation (v.10); fourthly, in regard to the Father’s confession (v.13). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he states his proposition; secondly, he proves it (v.5).

46. - He says, therefore: [Being made] having become as much superior to 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). 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). 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 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’ (Jn. 1:14). 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. - Hence, he continues, as he has obtained a more excellent name than they. 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 thou knowest?’ (Pr. 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). 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’ (Jb. 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. 88:7). As if to say: No one by nature. 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:’ (Mt. 21:38). Hence, He inherited that name, but not so the angels: and this is the third difference.

48. - Then (v.5) he proves what he has said: first, he discusses the name inasmuch as it belongs to Christ according to His divinity; secondly, inasmuch as it belongs to Him according to His human nature (v. 5b).

49. - In regard to the first he adduces the authority of Ps. 2 (v.7): ‘The Lord said to me: You are my son; this day have I begotten you.’ And this in answer to the question: To what angel has God ever said, You are my son? As if to say: He never said these words to any of the angels, but to Christ alone. Here three thing are to be noted: first, the manner of His origin, in the word, said; secondly, the uniqueness of His sonship, in the words, You are my son; thirdly, its eternity when he says, This day have I begotten you. But the manner of His origin is not carnal, but spiritual and intellectual: ‘For God is spirit’ (Jn. 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. 44:1); ‘God speaks once, and repeats not the selfsame thing the second time’ (Jb. 33:14); ‘I came out of the mouth of the Most High’ (Sir. 24:5). But if 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’ (Jn. 10:35). But in regard to the third, that generation is not temporal, but eternal, because this day I have 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: this day, 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 I have begotten, because He is perfect. Yet, lest it be supposed that His entire engendering took place in the past, he adds, today, and joins the past to the present, saying, I have begotten you today. This teaches us that this engendering is always going on and is always complete. Consequently, in the word, today, permanence is designated; but in I have begotten, perfection. 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. 109:3). But this could be explained also of temporal generation. As if to say: today, i.e., in time I have begotten you.

50. - Then (v. 5b) 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’ (Is. 9:6). But in 2 Sam. (7:14) and (1 Chr. 28) we find these very works spoken by the Lord to David in regard to Solomon, through whom Christ was prefigured.

51. - Yet it should be noted that in the Old Testament some things are said of figures not insofar as they are things, but insofar as they are figures; and then they do not apply to Christ, except insofar as He is prefigured. For example in Ps. 71 certain things are said of David or of Solomon, only inasmuch as they prefigured; but other things are said of them, inasmuch as they are men. Such things can then be considered as applying to them as well as to Christ. Thus, ‘and he will rule from sea to sea’ can never be verified of Solomon. So, in the present instance, although certain things are said of Solomon, they can also be said of Christ, Who was prefigured by him.

52. - He says, therefore, I will be, which is in the future tense, to denote that the Incarnation of the Son was to occur at some future time: ‘But when the fullness of time was come, God sent his Son made of a woman’ (Gal. 4:4). But above, when He spoke of the eternal generation, He said, You are, without implying any movement; but here, when He speaks of the temporal, He says, unto me a Son, which denotes the terminus of some motion. For assumption implies a movement toward sonship. And because every movement occurs through the action of something heading toward a definite effect, he first mentions the action of the maker, because the assumption was not made in virtue of the human but of the divine, when he says, I will be to you a Father, i.e., I will assume him into a union with the person of the Son. Then he mentions the effect which resulted, because he was assumed into a personal union with the Son: He shall be to me a Son. Luke says of he first: ‘The power of the Most High’, i.e., of the One making the assumption, ‘will over-shadow you’ (Lk. 1:35). Of the second it says in Rom. (1:3): ‘Who was made to him of the seed of David.’

53. - Again, I will be to him, i.e., I will glorify him to his honor and profit: ‘Glorify me, Father’ (Jn. 17:5). And he will be to me, i.e., to my honor, by manifesting my name to men: ‘I have manifested your name to the men’ (Jn. 17:6).

54. - Then (v.6) he speaks of Christ’s dominion, whereby He is heir of all things. Here he does three things: first, he describes His dominion, particularly over the angels; secondly, the nature of that dominion on the part of the angels (v.7); thirdly, on the part of Christ (v.8).

55. - In regard to the first he adduces the authority of a psalm when he says, And let all God’s angels worship him. This is from Ps. 96: ‘The Lord has reigned, let the earth rejoice.’ For worship is paid only to the Lord; therefore, if the angels worship Him, He is their Lord. The Apostle, when he adduces this authority, first touches on the Psalmist’s intention when he says, and again, when he brings the first-born into the world. Thus the Psalmist is speaking of Christ’s coming into the world; consequently, he says, and when the Scripture brings in, i.e., was to bring in the first-born into the world. As if to say: ‘We have already said that Christ is a Son above the angels; therefore, He is principally begotten by the Father. Hence, He deserves to be called the first-born: ‘That he might be the first-born among many brethren’ (Rom. 8:29). But this first-born would have to be introduced into the world. And note how precisely the Apostle speaks: for he first says that He is from the Father, I will be to him a Father; secondly, that He was assumed into a unity of person, and he will be to me a Son.

56. - But now he brings Him to the notice of men, calling the Incarnation His introduction to the world. But on the other hand, Christ calls it a departure: ‘I have come out of the Father, and am come into the world’ (Jn. 16:28). The answer is that His going out is also an introduction, for if a person seeks to be reconciled to a prince, a mediator first goes out to him and later introduces him. A like situation is found in 1 Sam. (20:42) between David and Jonathan. Thus, Christ, the mediator of God and men, first went to the men and then brought them back reconciled: ‘For it became him who had brought many children into glory’ (inf. 2:10). Or He introduces Him to men’s hearts, because the Scripture, speaking of Christ’s coming, says that he must be acceptable to men’s hearts. But this acceptance takes place by faith: ‘That Christ may dwell by faith in your hearts’ (Eph. 3:17): ‘Declare his glory among the Gentiles’ (Ps. 95:3). For when Scripture says that the Gentiles should believe, it says that Christ is about to enter their hearts.

57. - The use of the word, again, is explained in a number of ways. Chrysostom says that the Scripture speaks of the Incarnation of the Word, which is an introduction, not once but again and again. Or another way: He was first in the world invisibly by the power of His divinity, but He introduces Him into the world again according to a visible presence of His humanity. Or another way: because he had said above, to him a Father, i.e., I will assume Him to my personal unity; and when He introduced Him again, namely, the first-born, He is introduced to the unity of person, because it is not enough to say that He is introduced, unless mention is made how He is introduced, because He is not introduced as though belonging to the world or as the angels, but above all: ‘The host of heaven adored you’ (Neh 9:5); ‘All the angels stood round about the throne, and the ancients fell down before the throne and adored God’ (Rev. 7:11).

58. - Then (v. 7) the reason is given on the part of the angels, why they adore Him. As if to say: It is just that they adore, because they are ministers; hence, he says, he makes his angels winds [spirits] and his servants flames of fire [ministers]. For God sometimes acts by enlightening the intellect: ‘He enlightens every man coming into the world’ (Jn. 1:9); but sometimes he moves a man to His work: ‘You have worked our works in us’ (Is. 26:9). God does the first of these by means of His angels: ‘You enlighten wonderfully from the everlasting hills’ (Ps. 75:5). He also does the second in us through His angels, as Dionysius said. Inasmuch as he enlightens through them, they are called messengers; for it is the office of a messenger to declare the things which are in his master’s heart. But inasmuch as they are mediators of divine works, they are both messengers and ministers. But what sort they are is described by bodily things best suited for this: one is air, whose properties are well, suited to a messenger, although the property of fire best suits a minister. For air is receptive of light and of impressions; it gives a true picture of what it receives, and it moves rapidly. These are the characteristics that a good messenger should have, namely, that he receive the news well, report it accurately and do so swiftly. And these characteristics are found in angels: for they receive divine illuminations well, since they are clean mirrors, according to Dionysius: ‘Their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father who is in heaven’ (Mt. 18:10). Furthermore, they best transmit what they receive: ‘God signified the things which must shortly come to pass, sending by his angel to his servant, John’ (Rev. 1:1). And they are swift: ‘Go, you swift angels, to a nation rent and torn to pieces’ (Is. 18:2). But they are called spirits, because every invisible substance is called a spirit; hence, even the air is called a spirit. Furthermore, they are fire, inasmuch as they are ministers. But of all the elements fire is the most active and most efficacious for acting; hence in Ps. 103 (v. 5) is says of angels: ‘You make your ministers a burning fire. Fire also causes heat, by which charity is signified: ‘The lamps thereof are fire and flames’ (S of S 8:6). Again, fire always moves upward; so, too, the angels and good ministers always refer what they do to God’s glory, as is clear of Tobias’ angel: ‘Bless the God of heaven’ (Tob. 12:6). He does not say, ‘Bless me’, but ‘bless the God of heaven.’ Not so the evil angel who says: ‘All these will I give you, if falling down you will adore me’ (Mt. 4:9). But the good angel, as a good minister, says: ‘See you do it not’ (Rev. 22:9); and he continues: ‘Adore God’ (Rev. 22:9).