Rom 1:3

“I Glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who by Him has given you such wisdom. For I have observed that ye are perfected in an immoveable faith, as if ye were nailed to the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, both in the flesh and in the spirit, and are established in love through the blood of Christ, being fully persuaded, in very truth, with respect to our Lord Jesus Christ, that He was the Son of God, "the first-born of every creature," God the Word, the only-begotten Son, and was of the seed of David according to the flesh, by the Virgin Mary; was baptized by John, that all righteousness might be fulfilled by Him; that He lived a life of holiness without sin, and was truly, under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch, nailed [to the cross] for us in His flesh. From whom we also derive our being, from His divinely-blessed passion, that He might set up a standard for the ages, through His resurrection, to all His holy and faithful [followers], whether among Jews or Gentiles, in the one body of His Church.”

“I Glorify God, even Jesus Christ, who has given you such wisdom. For I have observed that ye are perfected in an immoveable faith, as if ye were nailed to the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, both in the flesh and in the spirit, and are established in love through the blood of Christ, being fully persuaded with respect to our Lord, that He was truly of the seed of David according to the flesh, and the Son of God according to the will and power of God; that He was truly born of a virgin, was baptized by John, in order that all righteousness might be fulfilled by Him; and was truly, under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch, nailed [to the cross] for us in His flesh. Of this fruit we are by His divinely-blessed passion, that He might set up a standard for all ages, through His resurrection, to all His holy and faithful [followers], whether among Jews or Gentiles, in the one body of His Church.”

“Those, therefore, who allege that He took nothing from the Virgin do greatly err, [since,] in order that they may cast away the inheritance of the flesh, they also reject the analogy [between Him and Adam]. For if the one [who sprang] from the earth had indeed formation and substance from both the hand and workmanship of God, but the other not from the hand and workmanship of God, then He who was made after the image and likeness of the former did not, in that case, preserve the analogy of man, and He must seem an inconsistent piece of work, not having wherewith He may show His wisdom. But this is to say, that He also appeared putatively as man when He was not man, and that He was made man while taking nothing from man. For if He did not receive the substance of flesh from a human being, He neither was made man nor the Son of man; and if He was not made what we were, He did no great thing in what He suffered and endured. But every one will allow that we are [composed of] a body taken from the earth, and a soul receiving spirit from God. This, therefore, the Word of God was made, recapitulating in Himself His own handiwork; and on this account does He confess Himself the Son of man, and blesses "the meek, because they shall inherit the earth." The Apostle Paul, moreover, in the Epistle to the Galatians, declares plainly, "God sent His Son, made of a woman." And again, in that to the Romans, he says, "Concerning His Son, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was predestinated as the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord."”

“Well, I on my side will first explain the reason of his offence, that I may the more easily explode the scandal of our heretic. Now, that the very Lord Himself of all might, the Word and Spirit of the Father, was operating and preaching on earth, it was necessary that the portion of the Holy Spirit which, in the form of the prophetic gift, had been through John preparing the ways of the Lord, should now depart from John, and return back again of course to the Lord, as to its all-embracing original.”

“With a nature issuing from such fountal sources, and an order gradually descending to the birth of Christ, what else have we here described than the very flesh of Abraham and of David conveying itself down, step after step, to the very virgin, and at last introducing Christ,-nay, producing Christ Himself of the virgin? Then, again, there is Paul, who was at once both a disciple, and a master, and a witness of the selfsame Gospel; as an apostle of the same Christ, also, he affirms that Christ "was made of the seed of David, according to the flesh," -which, therefore, was His own likewise.”

“Thus does the apostle also teach respecting His two substances, saying, "who was made of the seed of David; " in which words He will be Man and Son of Man.”

“Without any doubt, he was made that which he had not previously been according to the flesh. But according to the Spirit he existed beforehand, and there was never a time when he did not exist.”

“"Concerning His Son which was made of the seed of David, according to the flesh." What dost thou, O Paul, that after lifting up our souls so, and elevating them, and causing great and unutterable things to pass show before them, and speaking of the Gospel, and that too the Gospel of God, and bringing in the chorus of the Prophets, and showing the whole of them heralding forth many years before those things which were to come: why dost thou again bring us down to David? Art thou conversing, oh tell me, of some man, and giving him Jesse's son for a father? And wherein are these things worthy of what thou hast just spoken of? Yea, they are fully worthy. For our discourse is not, saith he, of any bare man. Such was my reason for adding, "according to the flesh;" as hinting that there is also a Generation of the Same after the Spirit. And why did he begin from that and not from this the higher? It is because that was what Matthew, and Luke, and Mark, began from. For he who would lead men by the hand to Heaven, must needs lead them upwards from below. So too was the actual dispensation ordered. First, that is, they saw Him a man upon earth, and then they understood Him to be God. In the same direction then, as He Himself had framed His teaching, did His disciple also shape out the way which leadeth thither. Therefore the generation according to the flesh is in his language placed first in order, not because it was first, but because he was for leading the hearer from this up to that.”

“Many are sons by grace, but Christ is a son by nature.… By adding "according to the flesh" Paul has countered both Photinus and Arius. For if it is true that Christ was made according to the flesh, he most certainly was not made according to the substance of the Word.”

“Here he clearly shows two births; for through the words "concerning His Son," that is, the Son of God, he indicates the birth from above, and through the expression "of the seed of David" – the birth from below. And by the addition "according to the flesh," he showed that the birth according to the Spirit also belongs to Him. Therefore the Gospel is not about a mere man, for it is about the Son of God, nor about God alone, for it is about the One born of the seed of David according to the flesh, so that One and the Same is both, that is, both Son of God and Son of David. Therefore let Nestorius be ashamed at last. The Apostle also mentions His birth according to the flesh, as do the three Evangelists, in order to lead the listeners from it to the higher birth. So too the Lord Himself was first seen as a man, and then recognized as God.”

“Second, he continues the commendation on the part of the good things announced in the Gospel and which make up the content of the Gospel, which is Christ, whom he commends in three ways: first, from his origin; second, from his dignity or virtue, at who was predestined (Rom 1:4); third, from his liberality, at through whom we have received (Rom 1:5). He describes the origin of Christ in two ways. First he describes his eternal origin when he says, concerning his Son. In this he reveals the excellence of the Gospel, for the mystery of the eternal generation had been previously hidden; hence Solomon asks: what is his name and the name of his son, if you know? (Prov 30:4). But it has been revealed in the Gospel on the testimony of the Father: this is my beloved Son (Matt 3:17). Indeed, the Son of God is deservedly called the subject matter of the Holy Scriptures, which reveal the divine wisdom, as Deuteronomy declares: this will be your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of all the peoples (Deut 4:6). For the Son is said to be the Word and wisdom begotten: Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God (1 Cor 1:24). But men have erred in three ways about this sonship. For some said that he has an adoptive sonship; for example, Photinus taught that Christ derived his origin from the Virgin Mary as a mere man, who by the merits of his life reached such an exalted state that he could be called a Son of God above all other saints. But if this were true, Christ would not be described as lowering himself to manhood but as rising up to the Godhead, whereas it is said: I have come down from heaven (John 6:38). Others taught that this sonship was a sonship in name only, as Sabellius, who said that the Father himself became incarnate and for that reason took the name of Son, such that the person would be the same and the names alone different. But if this were true, the Son would not be described as sent by the Father; which is false, since he himself said that he came down from heaven to do the will of him who sent him (John 6:38). Others, such as Arius, taught that this sonship was a created one, so that the Son of God would be the most perfect creature, albeit produced from nothing after previously not existing. But if this were true, all things would not have been made through him, the contrary of which is stated in John (John 1:3). For the one through whom all things were made cannot himself have been made. These three opinions are excluded by the significantly added word, his, i.e., his very own and natural. For Hilary says: this true and personal Son is a Son by origin and not by adoption, in truth and not in name only, by birth and not by creation; for he comes forth from the Father as a word from the heart. Such a word belongs to the same nature, especially in God, in whom nothing inheres accidentally. Hence he himself says, I and the Father are one (John 10:30). The fact that he says 'one' frees you from Arius; that he says 'we are' frees you from Sabellius, as Augustine says. Second, he touches on the temporal origin when he says, who was made. Here right away the three aforementioned errors seem to find a defense in the fact that it says, who was made to him. For they do not admit an eternal Son but one that was made. But the words that follow destroy their goal. For when he says, who was made to him, the error of Sabellius is excluded. For he could not be made a Son for the Father if he were the same person as the Father; rather, through the Incarnation he will be the Son of the Virgin. By saying of the seed of David, he destroys Photinus's goal. For if he were made the Son of God by adoption, he would not be described as made from the seed of David but from the Spirit, who is the Spirit of adoption of sons (Rom 8:15), and from the seed of God (1 John 3:9). The words, according to the flesh, destroy Arius's opinion that he was created both according to the flesh and the divine nature. We should also recall that men have erred in a number of ways in regard to the mystery of the Incarnation itself. For Nestorius taught that the union of the Word with human nature consisted solely in an indwelling, in the sense that the Son of God dwelt in that man more fully than in others. But it is obvious that the substance of the dweller and that of the dwelling are distinct, for example, a man and a house. Accordingly, he taught that the person or hypostasis of the Word was distinct from that of the man, so that the Son of God would be one person and the Son of man another. This is shown to be false by the fact that the Apostle in Philippians calls this sort of union an emptying of himself (Phil 2:7). But since the Father and the Holy Spirit dwell in men, as John declares: we will come to him and make our home with him (John 14:23), it follows that they too would be emptying themselves, which is absurd. This opinion, therefore, is excluded when the Apostle says, concerning his Son who, namely, the Son of God, was made according to the flesh, i.e., having his flesh of the seed of David. He would not have spoken in this manner if the union were a mere indwelling. Furthermore, in regard to others in whom the Word dwells, it is never said that the Word was made this or that person, but that it was made to Jeremiah or Isaiah. Therefore, since the Apostle, after saying concerning his Son, added, who was made to him of the seed of David, the above error is clearly excluded. Others again, although they do not suppose two persons in Christ, do suppose two hypostases or supposita. But this amounts to the same thing, because a person is nothing other than a hypostasis or suppositum of a rational nature. Therefore, since there is only one hypostasis and suppositum in Christ, which is the suppositum or hypostasis of the eternal Word, that hypostasis cannot be said to have become the Son of God, because it never began to be the Son of God. Therefore, it is not altogether correct to say that man was made God or the Son of God. Yet if this is found to be taught by any teacher, it should be interpreted thus: it was made to be that man be God. Accordingly, it is correct to say that the Son of God was made man because he was not always man. Therefore, what is written here must be understood so that the who refers to the subject, the sense being that this Son of God was made of the seed of David, and not to the predicate, because then the sense would be that someone existing of the seed of David became the son of God, which is neither true nor correct, as has been said. Again, there were others who taught that the union was made by the conversion of the Word into flesh, as it is said that air is made to become fire. Hence Eutyches said that before the Incarnation there were two natures, but after the Incarnation only one. But this is clearly false because, since God is immutable—I, the Lord, do not change (Mal 3:6)—he cannot be changed into anything else. Hence, when it is said, was made, this should not be understood as a change but as a union without any divine change. For something can be newly said of something in a relative sense without the thing itself being changed; thus, a person remaining in one place comes newly to be on the right of something, which was moved from his right to his left. This is the way God is said to be Lord or Creator from a certain time, namely, by reason of a change affecting the creature. In the same way he is said to have been made something anew: Lord, you have become our refuge (Ps 90:1). Therefore, since union is a relation, it is through a change in the creature that God is newly said to have been made man, i.e., united in person to a human nature. Finally, there were others, namely Arius and Apollinaris, who said that Christ had no soul, but that the Word was there in place of the soul. But this is refuted by John: no one takes my soul (John 10:18). The words, according to the flesh, do not exclude a soul from Christ; rather, flesh stands for the entire man, as in Isaiah: all flesh shall see it together for the mouth of the Lord has spoken (Isa 40:5). It may be asked, since we believe that Christ was born of the Virgin, why the Apostle says he was made from a woman. The answer is this: that is born which is produced in the natural order, as fruit from a tree or children from parents; that which is produced from the will of one acting, not according to the order of nature, as a house by a carpenter, cannot be said to be born but made. Therefore, because Christ proceeded from the Virgin in the natural order in a certain respect, namely, that he was conceived from a woman and remained in her womb for a space of nine months, it is true to say that he was born. But because he proceeded in a certain respect not in the natural order but solely from divine power without male seed, he is said to have been made. Thus, Eve is described as made, not born, from Adam; Isaac was born, not made, from Abraham. Another question is why he is said to have descended of the seed of David in particular and not of the seed of Abraham, to whom the promises about Christ had been made: now the promises were made to Abraham (Gal 3:16). The answer is that this was done to give hope of pardon to sinners, for David was a sinner from whose seed Christ was born, while Abraham was a just man, and also to commend Christ's royal dignity to the Romans, who ruled the nations. The Apostle's words also exclude three errors of the Manicheans. First, their assertion that the God of the Old Testament and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ are not the same. This is excluded when the Apostle says, which God had promised before, through his prophets, in the holy Scriptures, i.e., of the Old Testament, concerning his Son. Second, their condemnation of the Old Testament writings, which the Apostle here calls holy. For no other writings were holy before the Gospel except those. Third, their claim that Christ had an imaginary body. This is excluded when the Apostle says that Christ was made of the seed of David, according to the flesh, to him, i.e., to the glory of the Father: I seek not my glory, but his who sent me (John 8:50).”

“"Concerning his Son." It was fitting, since God promised his own Son to the world, that he should promise him through great men, so that from them it might be known how very powerful the one who was being preached was and so that he might include his future coming in the Holy Scriptures. And what is preached by the Holy Scriptures cannot be shown to be false."Who was descended from the seed of David according to the flesh." He who was the Son of God according to the Holy Spirit (that is, according to God, because God is Spirit and without any doubt he is holy), is said to have been made the Son of God according to the flesh by Mary, as it is written: "The Word became flesh." Christ Jesus is both Son of God and Son of Man. As he is truly God, so also he is truly man. For he would not be truly man if he were not of flesh and soul. Otherwise he would be incomplete. For although he was the Son of God in eternity, he was not known by the creation until, when God wanted him to be revealed for the salvation of mankind, he made him visible and corporeal, because God wanted him to be known through his power to cleanse humans from their sins by overcoming death in the flesh. Therefore he was made of the seed of David. As he was born a king from God before the beginning of time, so also he would acquire birth from a king according to the flesh, being made from a virgin by the work of the Holy Spirit, i.e., born. Thus by the reverence reserved for him because of this fact, he who by his birth was distinguished from the law of nature would be recognized as being more than a man. This had been predicted by Isaiah the prophet: "Behold a virgin will conceive in her womb." Hence when the newborn child appeared to be worthy of honor, a certain providence of God was discerned concerning a future visitation of the human race.”