Thomas Aquinas Commentary Romans 1:2-3

"which he promised afore through his prophets in the holy scriptures, concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh," — Romans 1:2-3 (ASV)

1. Having described the writer, the Apostle now commends the task committed to him: the Gospel. The Gospel was already commended from two perspectives in the preceding verse. The first concerns its usefulness, based on its content, which is signified by its very name, Gospel, implying that good things are announced in it. The second is based on its authority, derived from its author, which is established when it says, of God (Romans 1:1).

   The Apostle now develops these two commendations further:

   • First, regarding its author.
   • Second, regarding its content, at the phrase concerning his Son.

2. From the first viewpoint—that of its author—the Gospel is commended in four ways:

   1. By its antiquity. This was necessary to counter the pagans, who scorned the Gospel as something that suddenly appeared after all the preceding centuries. To refute this, the Apostle says, which he had promised before. For although the Gospel began to be preached at a specific point in time, it had been divinely prophesied long before: before they came to pass, I announced them to you (Isaiah 48:5).

   2. By its reliability. This is indicated when he says, he had promised, because the promise was made in advance by one who does not lie: we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers, this he has fulfilled (Acts 13:32).

   3. By the dignity of its ministers or witnesses, when he says, through his prophets, to whom the things fulfilled concerning the incarnate Word had been revealed: the Lord will not make a word—that is, make it become incarnate—without revealing his secret to his servants the prophets (Amos 3:7); to him all the prophets bear witness (Acts 10:43).

      It is significant that he says, his prophets, for some prophets spoke by a human spirit: they speak visions of their own minds, not from the mouth of the Lord (Jeremiah 23:16). For this reason, he says to Titus: one of themselves spoke, a prophet of their own (Titus 1:12). There are even prophets of demons who are inspired by an unclean spirit, such as the prophets whom Elijah slew (1 Kings 18:40). But those are called God’s prophets who are inspired by the divine Spirit: I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh and your sons and daughters will prophesy (Joel 2:28).

   4. By the way it was delivered, because these promises were not merely spoken but recorded in writing. Therefore he says, in the Scriptures: write the vision; make it plain upon tablets (Habakkuk 2:2). For it was the custom to record only important matters worthy of remembrance and of being handed down to later generations. Consequently, as Augustine says in City of God XVIII, the prophecies about Christ made by Isaiah and Hosea began to be written when Rome was being founded, under whose rule Christ would be born and his faith preached to the Gentiles: you search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life (John 5:39).

3. He adds holy to distinguish these writings from those of the Gentiles. They are called holy for three reasons. First, because, as it is written: men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21); all Scripture is breathed out by God (2 Timothy 3:16). Second, because they contain holy things: give thanks to his holy name (Psalms 97:12). Third, because they make people holy: sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth (John 17:17). For this reason, it is said: we have as an encouragement the holy books that are in our hands .

4. Second, he continues the commendation based on the good things announced in the Gospel, which make up its content. This content is Christ, whom he commends in three ways:

   1. From his origin.
   2. From his dignity or power, at who was declared to be (Romans 1:4).
   3. From his generosity, at through whom we have received (Romans 1:5).

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. As Solomon asks: what is his name, and what is his son's name, if you know? (Proverbs 30:4). But it has been revealed in the Gospel on the testimony of the Father: this is my beloved Son (Matthew 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 the peoples (Deuteronomy 4:6). For the Son is said to be the Word and begotten wisdom: Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God (1 Corinthians 1:24).

6. But people have erred in three ways about this sonship. Some, for example, said that he has an adoptive sonship. Photinus taught that Christ, as a mere man, derived his origin from the Virgin Mary and, 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).

7. Others taught that this sonship was a sonship in name only. Sabellius, for instance, said that the Father himself became incarnate and for that reason took the name of Son, so that the person would be the same and only the names 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).

8. Others, such as Arius, taught that this sonship was a created one, so that the Son of God would be the most perfect creature, although 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.

9. These three opinions are excluded by the significantly added word, his, that is, his very own and natural Son. 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. Therefore, he himself says, I and the Father are one (John 10:30). As Augustine says, “The fact that he says ‘one’ frees you from Arius; that he says ‘are’ frees you from Sabellius.”

10. Second, he touches on the temporal origin when he says, who was made. Here, the three previously mentioned errors seem to find a defense in the fact that it says, who was made for him. For they do not admit an eternal Son but one that was made. But the words that follow destroy their position.

    When he says, who was made for 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 would be the Son of the Virgin.

    By saying of the seed of David, he destroys the position of Photinus. 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 as sons (Romans 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 according to both the flesh and the divine nature.

11. We should also recall that people have erred in a number of ways regarding 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 one who dwells and that of the dwelling are distinct, like 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 (Philippians 2:7). But since the Father and the Holy Spirit also dwell in human beings, as John declares, we will come to him and make our home with him (John 14:23), it would follow that they too would be emptying themselves, which is absurd. This opinion, therefore, is excluded when the Apostle says, concerning his Son who, as the Son of God, was made according to the flesh—that is, having his flesh of the seed of David. He would not have spoken this way if the union were a mere indwelling.

    Furthermore, regarding others in whom the Word dwells, it is never said that the Word was made this or that person, but that the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah or Isaiah. Therefore, since the Apostle, after saying concerning his Son, added, who was made for him of the seed of David, the error of Nestorius is clearly excluded.

12. Others, while not proposing two persons in Christ, do propose 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 entirely correct to say that a man was made God or the Son of God. Yet if this is found to be taught by any teacher, it should be interpreted to mean that it was brought about for that man to 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 word who refers to the subject, the meaning being that this Son of God was made of the seed of David. It does not refer to the predicate, because then the meaning would be that someone existing from the seed of David became the Son of God, which is neither true nor correct, as has been said.

13. Again, there were others who taught that the union was made by the conversion of the Word into flesh, just as air is said to become fire. From this, 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 (Malachi 3:6)—he cannot be changed into anything else. Therefore, when it is said, was made, this should not be understood as a change but as a union without any divine change.

    Something can be newly said of a thing in a relative sense without the thing itself being changed. For example, a person who remains in one place newly comes to be on the right of an object that was moved from their right side to their left. In this 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 been our dwelling place (Psalms 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—that is, united in person to a human nature.

14. 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 from me (John 10:18). The words, according to the flesh, do not exclude a soul from Christ; rather, flesh stands for the entire person, as in Isaiah: all flesh shall see it together, for the mouth of the Lord has spoken (Isaiah 40:5).

15. It may be asked why, since we believe that Christ was born of the Virgin, the Apostle says he was made from a woman. The answer is this: that which is produced in the natural order, like fruit from a tree or children from parents, is said to be born. That which is produced by the will of an agent, not according to the order of nature—like a house by a carpenter—is said to be made, not born.

    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 nine months—it is true to say that he was born. But because he proceeded in another 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.

16. 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 (Galatians 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. It was also done to commend Christ’s royal dignity to the Romans, who ruled the nations.

17. The Apostle’s words also exclude three errors of the Manicheans.

    1. 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 of the Old Testament, concerning his Son.

    2. Their condemnation of the Old Testament writings, which the Apostle here calls holy. For no other writings were holy before the Gospel except those of the Old Testament.

    3. 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, for him—that is, for the glory of the Father: I do not seek my own glory; there is One who seeks it (John 8:50).