(Which he had promised before by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)
All Commentaries on Romans 1:2 Go To Romans 1
Thomas Aquinas
AD 1274
25. The person of the writer described [n. 16], now the task committed to him is commended, namely, the gospel, which has already been commended from two viewpoints in the preceding verse. On of these concerns the usefulness it has due to its content, which is signified by its very name, "gospel," which implies that in it good things are announced. The other is based on the authority it has on the side of its author, which is set out when it says, of God. Now the Apostle pursues these two commendations further: first, on the part of the author; secondly, on the part of its content there [n. 28] at "concerning his Son" (v. 3). 26. From the first viewpoint the Gospel is commended in four ways: First, by its antiquity. This was required against the pagans, who belittled the Gospel as something suddenly appearing after all the preceding centuries. To counter this he says which he promised beforehand; because, although it began to be preached at a certain point in time, it had been foretold previously in a divine way: "Before they came to pass, I announced them to you" (Is 48:5). Secondly, from its reliability, which is indicated when he says, he promised, because the promise was made beforehand by one who does not lie: "We bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers, this he has fulfilled" (Ac 13:32). 19 Thirdly, from the dignity of its ministers or witnesses, when he says, through his prophets, to whom had been revealed the things fulfilled concerning the Incarnate Word: "The Lord will not make a word," namely, make it be incarnate, "without revealing his secret to his servants the prophets" (Amos 3:7); "To him all the prophets bear witness," and so on (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" (Jer 23:16). Hence, he says: "One of themselves spoke, a prophet of their own" (*** 1:12). There are even prophets of demons who are inspired by an unclean spirit, such as the prophets whom Elijah slew (1 Kg 18). But those are called God’s prophets who are inspired by the divine Spirit: "I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh and you sons and daughters will prophesy" (Joel 2:28). Fourthly, from the way it was delivered, because these promises were not merely spoken but recorded in writing. Hence he says in the holy scriptures: "Write the vision; make it plain upon tablets" (Hab 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 to have eternal life by them (Jn 5:39). 27. He adds, holy, to distinguish these writings from those of the Gentiles. They are called holy first because, as it is written: "Men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" (2 Pt 1:21); "All Scripture is inspired by God" (2 Tim 3:16). Secondly, because 20 they contain holy things: "Give thanks to his holy name" (Ps 97:12). Thirdly, because they make holy: "Make them holy in the truth; thy word is truth" (Jn 17:17). Hence, it says in 1 Macc (12:9): "We have as encouragement the holy books which are in our hands." 28. Secondly [n. 25], 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; secondly, from his dignity or virtue, there [n. 42] at "who was predestined" (v. 4); thirdly, from his liberality, there [n. 60] at "through whom we have received" (v. 5). 29. He describes the origin of Christ in two ways [cf. n. 34]. 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?" (Pr 30:4). But it has been revealed in the Gospel on the testimony of the Father: "This is my beloved Son" (Mt 3:17). Indeed, the Son of God is deservedly called the subject matter of the Holy Scriptures, which reveal the divine wisdom, as Deuteronomy (4:6) declares: "This will be your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of all the peoples." 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). 30. But men have erred three ways about this sonship. 21 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 says in Jn (6:38): "I have come down from heaven." 31. 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 (Jn 6:38). 32. 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 1(:3). For the one through whom all things were made cannot himself have been made. 33. 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 22 9 See book 3 of Hilary’s De Trinitate. 10 See Augustine’s Tractates on the Gospel of John, number 36. comes forth from the Father as a word from the heart."9 Such a word belongs to the same nature, especially in God, to whom nothing inhere accidentally. Hence he himself says, "I and the Father are one" (Jn 10:30). "The fact that he says one frees you from Arius; that he says we are frees you from Sabellius," as Augustine says.10 34. Secondly, 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 for 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, 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 incarnation he will be the son of the Virgin. By saying, descended from David, he destroys Photinus’ 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 8:23) and from the seed of God (1 Jn 3:9). The words, according to the flesh, destroy Arius’ opinion that He was created both according to the flesh and the divine nature. 35. 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. 23 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 that fact that the Apostle in Philippians 2(:7) 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 (14:23) declares: "We will come to him and make our home with him," 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, from 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 from the seed of David, the above error is clearly excluded. 36. 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 suppositum or hypostasis 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. 24 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 from the seed of David, and not to the predicate, because then the sense 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. 37. 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, he 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. 25 11 Aquinas here supplies the word "soul" from the previous verse in the Vulgate, which is a more literal rendering of the Greek than our English translations. 38. 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 (10:18): "No one takes my soul."11 The words, according to the flesh, do not exclude a soul from Christ; rather, flesh stands for the entire man, as in Isaiah 40(:5), "All flesh shall see it together for the mouth of the Lord has spoken." 39. 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. 40. Another question is why he is said to have descended from the seed of David in particular and not from the seed of Abraham, to whom the promises about Christ had been made: "Now the promises were made to Abraham" (Gal 3:16). 26 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 righteous man; and to commend Christ’s royal dignity to the Romans, who ruled the nations. 41. 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 promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, i.e. of the Old Testament, concerning his Son. Secondly, their condemnation of the Old Testament writings, which the Apostle here calls holy. For no other writings were holy before the Gospel except those. Thirdly, their claim that Christ had an imaginary body. This is excluded when the Apostle says that Christ was made from 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" (Jn 8:50) 27 12 The Douay renders the Vulgate as follows: "Some of the people determined to do this…." This translation takes destinaverunt in the second of the two senses proposed by Aquinas, which fits the context better and in fact seems a better rendering of the Greek text of Maccabees. Here one must reckon with the possibility that the student transcribing the lecture has supplied a biblical example where Aquinas had either none or some other example.
