December 21, 2025 – Fourth Sunday of Advent

The twenty-fourth psalm in the Septuagint carries the superscription “On the first day,” which is the Lord’s day, that is, the day of the Lord’s resurrection (AUGUSTINE, CASSIODORUS). It is also identified as the day of his ascension (PSEUDO-ATHANASIUS). The earth is the Lord’s, not ours (GREGORY OF NYSSA). It is his by virtue of his having created it (THEODORET). But it has become his again through the preaching of the gospel (AUGUSTINE) and will be revealed as such in the kingdom to come (PSEUDO-ATHANASIUS).

The next section addresses the character of those who belong to him (CASSIODORUS). The hill envisioned refers to the Lord’s righteousness (AUGUSTINE). We stand there only on Christ (ORIGEN). Such a one has his soul settled on eternity (AUGUSTINE), exhibiting purity in intention and action (THEODORET). Unlike Judas (EVAGRIUS), his speech is without deceit (CASSIODORUS), which reminds us to carefully weigh our words (CALLISTUS). God’s blessing comes to us based on his mercy (THEODORET, CASSIODORUS). Such are those who have been changed by his grace (ORIGEN), those who have been reborn (AUGUSTINE).

The psalm then speaks of the entry of the King of glory. This could not have been said of Solomon (JUSTIN MARTYR). The everlasting Word enters the temple gateway (PRUDENTIUS) announced by angels accompanying him (HIPPOLYTUS), being revealed to angels in heaven (THEODORET). Humankind has been redeemed for heaven (TERTULLIAN). The Lord opened the way for us (ATHANASIUS), and we are exalted in him (ATHANASIUS). Let us then ascend with Christ (GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS). Let us enter through heaven’s gate with him (JEROME). Let us be like him (ARNOBIUS THE YOUNGER). He enters heaven as the Lord of powers (EUSEBIUS), a spiritual victor (TERTULLIAN), clad in scarlet garments (ORIGEN). Because of this, the way for us is now open (AUGUSTINE), both the way out of death and the way into heaven (AUGUSTINE). It is he himself who comes thus (BEDE): Christ, the Son of God (ARNOBIUS THE YOUNGER), the One who glorifies us (CASSIODORUS).

THE LORD’S DAY. AUGUSTINE: This is a psalm for David, dealing with the glorification and resurrection of our Lord, which took place early in the morning on the first day of the week, now called the Lord’s day. _{EXPOSITIONS OF THE PSALMS 24.1}

THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK. CASSIODORUS: “The first day of the week” denotes the Lord’s Day, the first day after the Sabbath, the day on which the Lord rose from the dead. It is properly called the Lord’s Day because of the superiority of the miracle or because he established the world on it; for by the Lord’s rising from the dead on that day, he is known to have helped this world, since it is made known that he also made it. Since the whole psalm is sung after the resurrection, this heading has been placed at its head to teach the hearts of the faithful with the appropriate indication. _{EXPLANATION OF THE PSALMS 24.1}

THE ASCENSION. PSEUDO-ATHANASIUS: In this psalm he preaches about the ascension of our Lord and teaches the Gentiles how they may become worthy of the heavenly tabernacles. _{EXPOSITION ON PSALMS 24}

THE LORD’S, NOT OURS. GREGORY OF NYSSA: The foolish person counts as his own possession that which never actually belongs to him, seemingly ignorant in his greed that “the earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof,” for “God is king of all the earth.” It is the passion of having that gives people a false title of lordship over that which can never belong to them. “The earth,” says the wise preacher, “abides forever,” ministering to every generation, first one, then another, that is born on it. But people, though they are so little even their own masters that they are brought into life without knowing it by their Maker’s will, and before they wish are withdrawn from it, nevertheless in their excessive vanity think that they are its lords; that they, now born, now dying, rule that which remains continually. _{ON VIRGINITY 4}

THE CREATOR. THEODORET OF CYR: He is Lord of the whole world. He is its Lord, however, not by wresting authority or by depriving anyone else of lordship but by personally creating it and leading it from nonbeing into being. _{COMMENTARY ON THE PSALMS 24.2}

PREACHED TO ALL NATIONS. AUGUSTINE: This is true, for the Lord, now glorified, is preached to all nations to bring them to faith, and the whole world thus becomes his church. _{EXPOSITIONS OF THE PSALMS 24.2}

THE COMING KINGDOM. PSEUDO-ATHANASIUS: This verse teaches about God’s kingdom to come, in which he will reign over all. And in order to make known that as maker and natural Lord he will reign over it, he said [in the next verse], “He is its foundations.” _{EXPOSITION ON PSALMS 24}

SECOND SECTION. CASSIODORUS: After he taught briefly that everything which the Lord created belongs to him, he now embarks on the second section with a question; he answers by telling what sort of people they ought to be who desire to say that they are his. _{EXPLANATION OF THE PSALMS 24.3}

HILL OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. AUGUSTINE: Who will ascend to the towering heights of the Lord’s righteousness? _{EXPOSITIONS OF THE PSALMS 24.3}

STAND ON CHRIST. ORIGEN: Where should you stand, you who seek sanctification from God? The writer says, “You have established my feet on the rock.” “Christ was the rock.” Let us learn about the one who follows these promises. _{SELECTIONS FROM THE PSALMS 24.3}

SETTLED ON ETERNITY. AUGUSTINE: Who, then, will climb up there and stay there? Only a person innocent in action and pure in thought. “One who has not received his soul in vain,” that is, a person who has not consigned his or her soul to the things that pass away but realizes that it is immortal and longs for a settled and changeless eternity. “Or sworn deceitfully to a neighbor”: such a person’s dealings with others are free from deceit, just as the things of eternity are simple and straightforward. _{EXPOSITIONS OF THE PSALMS 24.4}

PURE INTENTIONS AND ACTIONS. THEODORET OF CYR: It is appropriate, he is saying, for him who desires to ascend that mountain both to purify his soul of idle thoughts and to keep his hands away from such pursuits. He put “hands” in place of pursuits, and by “heart” he implied desires: with the latter we form our intentions, and by the former we put them into action. _{COMMENTARY ON THE PSALMS 24.4}

NOT LIKE JUDAS. EVAGRIUS OF PONTUS: Truly Judas ascended onto the mountain of the Lord, but he did not stand in his holy place. He was not innocent in hands or pure in heart, but a thief who was taking the money. _{NOTES ON THE PSALMS 23[24].4}

NO DECEIT. CASSIODORUS: Truthful swearing is certainly not forbidden in the Old Testament, but since the cause of perjury often arises for human nature from the weakness of the mind, in the New Testament it states that it is more beneficial not to swear oaths at all. . . . One who is going to do something other than promised swears deceitfully, not believing that it is perjury to wickedly manipulate someone who makes the mistake of trusting him. _{EXPLANATION OF THE PSALMS 24.4}

WEIGH YOUR WORDS. CALLISTUS OF ROME [DUB.]: Let no one speak deceitfully to his neighbor. The mouth of the malevolent is a deep pit. The innocent person, while he believes easily, falls readily; but though he falls, he rises; and the shuffler, with all his arts, goes headlong to ruin, from which he can never rise or escape. Therefore let everyone weigh well his words, and let him not say to another what he would not say to himself. _{EPISTLE 2.5}

BLESSING BASED ON MERCY. THEODORET OF CYR: Now, it was quite appropriate for him to associate mercy with blessing: even what are thought rewards are given to human beings only on account of divine lovingkindness. I mean, all the righteousness of human beings is not nearly sufficient for gifts bestowed by God and certainly not for those yet to come, which even surpass human imagining. _{COMMENTARY ON THE PSALMS 24.4}

BLESSING COMES THROUGH GOD’S KINDNESS. CASSIODORUS: The one who will judge is the very one who blesses; the one who could have issued a sentence of incommutable damnation declares innocence. Therefore he wanted the value of the kindness to be acknowledged because of the worthiness of the one who overlooks offenses. . . . The blessing of acquittal follows mercy so that this blessing might be perceived to have come not through merits, but through the Lord’s kindness. For there is no one who does not have need to be shown mercy. Transgressions are forgiven so that a crown may come, just as freedom will not be able to be granted until slavery has first been removed. Our savior is the Lord Christ by whom blessedness is bestowed and sins are loosened. What he said earlier should not disturb us: “He will receive blessing from the Lord”; later he added, “And mercy from God his savior,” while in the order of things he pardons our sins first, and afterwards the gifts of his blessings follow. You often find that the order is varied so that mercy is placed first. . . . This figure is called anastrophe or an inversion, when we express a thought in a reversed order. _{EXPLANATION OF THE PSALMS 24.5}

THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN CHANGED. ORIGEN: No one seeking the face of God will see his face and live, . . . unless he or she has been changed. _{SELECTIONS FROM THE PSALMS 24.6}

THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN REBORN. AUGUSTINE: It speaks of them as a “generation” because those who seek him are born like this. “Of those who seek the face of the God of Jacob.” They are seeking the face of the God who gave first place to the one born later. _{EXPOSITIONS OF THE PSALMS 24.6}

The first seven verses of Romans 1 serve as an introduction to the whole epistle, and the Fathers made many comments on them that nowadays would normally be found in a general preface. They were especially fascinated by the name Paul itself and sought to discern why it had been changed from Saul. The Fathers were also interested in the fact that Paul called himself a servant (slave), which is not surprising given the fact that they were living in a slave-holding society. Nor were they slow to link the apostle’s sense of his calling to God’s foreknowledge and predestination. This tendency to move from particular details to universal concepts is typical of the ancients generally, and so we must not be surprised to discover that verses like these could be used as a basis for profound theological reflections.

All the Fathers accepted the validity of Old Testament prophecy concerning the coming of Christ, but they were capable of seeing this from many different angles. Some stressed the importance of the gospel as distinct from the coming of Christ in the flesh; others focused on the role of the prophets, and Augustine was concerned to point out that there had been Gentiles as well as Jews who had foretold his coming. Especially from the fourth century onward, the Fathers all emphasized that Christ was the eternal Son of God, because this had by then become the main point in dispute with the Arians. But John Chrysostom was bold enough to point out that in the order of revelation believers came to know the human Christ before they understood that he was God. Romans 1:4 received an enormous amount of attention from the Fathers, because it seemed to suggest that Jesus of Nazareth was merely a man who was “designated” Son of God after his resurrection. All of them took great pains to insist that this was not what Paul meant. Of particular interest in this respect is the lengthy passage from Origen, which obviously has been touched up by Rufinus. In the authentically Origenist part we find that the great biblical scholar was prepared to admit that Joseph could be called the father of Jesus in an allegorical sense. This use of allegory is the exact opposite of what a modern commentator would suppose, since for moderns it is not the fatherhood of Joseph but the doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ that causes problems and might be regarded as an allegorical reading of those Old Testament texts that are quoted as prophecies of his coming.

Paul received his commission by grace, not because he had any special entitlement to it. Moreover, the word apostle had more than one meaning, and it was not always restricted to a special office as it is in Romans 1:5. Since the gift of God is given to all, all believers from all nations are called to the obedience of faith, even though not all are Jews and not all are apostles. God’s love has presented us with grace, and grace with peace. Paul prayed that all who are called might receive the grace of God, by which all believers enjoy salvation, and peace, by which God gives to all the restoration of excellent behavior.

Called to Be an Apostle. Origen: The first question which occurs to us concerns the name Paul itself. Why is he, who in Acts was called Saul, now called Paul? In Holy Scripture we find that among the ancients, many names were altered, e.g., Abram was renamed Abraham, Sarai became Sarah, and Jacob became Israel. In the Gospels too, Simon was changed to Peter, and the sons of Zebedee became known as sons of thunder.

But these things occurred by divine command, and we read nothing of the sort in the case of Paul. Because of this, some people have imagined that the apostle took the name of Paul, the proconsul of Cyprus, whom he converted to the Christian faith, in the same way that rulers are in the habit of adding the names of conquered peoples to their titles, e.g., Parthicus would indicate someone who conquered the Parthians, Gothicus a victor over the Goths, and so on. In the same way the apostle would have called himself Paul to indicate that he had conquered the proconsul Paul.

We cannot exclude this reason completely, but given that no such custom can be found in Holy Scripture, we ought rather to seek a solution from the examples which we do have. And indeed we find in the Scriptures that some people have two or even three different names, e.g., Solomon is also called Jedidiah, Zedekiah is also called Mattaniah, Uzziah is also called Azariah, and there are many others in the books of Judges, Samuel and Kings who have double names. But even the Gospels do not abandon this custom, e.g., Matthew was called Levi . . . and Thaddeus sometimes appears as Lebbaeus. Obviously the Gospel writers did not get the names of the apostles wrong, but given that it was the custom of the Hebrews to have two or three names, they gave different names to one and the same man. It seems to us that it is in accordance with this custom that Paul appears to have a second name, and that as long as he was ministering to his own people he was called Saul, which was probably the name his parents gave him, but that when he was writing laws and commandments for the Greeks and other Gentiles, he was called Paul. Scripture makes it clear when it says: “Saul, who is also called Paul,” that the name Paul was not then being given to him for the first time but was already habitual.

But why does Paul call himself a slave, when elsewhere he says: “For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of sonship, by which we cry Abba! Father!” . . . We may understand this as an expression of humility . . . and that would not be wrong. Nor is the reality of Paul’s freedom compromised by this in any way. As he himself says: “Though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all.”. . . For he serves Christ not in the spirit of slavery but in the spirit of adoption, for Christ’s service is more noble than any freedom.

“Called” is the name given to everyone who believes in Christ and is therefore a general term, although it is applied to each one according to what God has foreseen and chosen in him. He may be called to be an apostle or a prophet or a teacher; as free from a wife or as bound in marriage, and this is determined by the diversity of grace given to everyone, as it is written: “Many are called but few are chosen.”

In Paul’s case, he was not called to be an apostle in the general sense, but he was also chosen according to the foreknowledge of God to be “set apart for the gospel of God,” as he says elsewhere: “God set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace.” Heretics wrongly claim that he was set apart from his mother’s womb on account of the goodness of his nature, just as from the opposite side of the fence we read in the Psalms of those “sinners who were separated from the womb” because of their evil nature.

But we say that Paul was chosen neither by accident nor because of some natural difference, but he himself attributed the causes of his election to him who knows everything before it happens. . . . For God foresaw that Paul would labor more abundantly than anyone else in the gospel . . . and for that reason Jesus set him apart in his mother’s womb for the gospel. Had he been chosen by fate, as the heretics maintain, or by some inherently better nature, he would not have been afraid of being condemned if he failed to preach the gospel.

God’s foreknowledge, by which those who will labor and succeed are known, comes first, and his predestination follows afterwards, so that foreknowledge cannot be regarded as the cause of predestination. With men, merits are weighed according to past actions, but with God they are weighed according to future behavior, and anyone who thinks that God cannot see our future just as easily as he can see our past is an unbeliever. _{Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans.}

Called as Servant and Apostle. Eusebius of Emesa: Some people argue quite pointlessly as to whether the participle called is meant to modify servant or apostle. It applies to both, since everyone is called, and called equally, both to faith and grace and to election and the apostolic order. _{Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church.}

From Restlessness to Rest. Ambrosiaster: Saul changed his name to Paul, and the change was permanent. Because Saul means restlessness or trial, when he came to faith in Christ he called himself Paul, i.e., rest, because our faith is peace. For whereas previously he had inflicted trials on the servants of God because of his desire to fulfill the law, later he himself endured trials on account of the hope which before he had denied because of his love of Judaism.

In calling himself a “servant of Jesus Christ,” Paul shows that he has been delivered from the law, and he puts both names, Jesus and Christ, in order to signify the person of God and man, for in both he is Lord, as Peter the apostle testifies, saying: “He is the Lord of all.” And because he is Lord, he is also God, as David says: “For the Lord himself is God.” The heretics deny this. Marcion, it seems, denied Christ and his body out of hatred for the law, although he confessed Jesus. The Jews and Photinus denied that Jesus was God out of their zeal for the law. For whenever Scripture says either “Jesus” or “Christ,” it sometimes means the person of God and sometimes the person of the man, e.g.: “there is one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things.” “Called to be an apostle.” Because Paul acknowledged the Lord and confessed him he became the perfect servant and shows that he was promoted, saying that he was called to be an apostle, i.e., a messenger sent by the Lord to do his work. By this he shows that he had merit with God because he served Christ and not the law.

“Set apart for the gospel of God.” The gospel of God is good news, by which sinners are called to forgiveness. For since as a Pharisee the apostle held a teaching post among the Jews, he now says that he has been set apart from the preaching of Judaism for the gospel of God, so that abandoning the law, he might preach Christ who justifies those who believe in him, which the law could not do. This does not go against the law but affirms it, since the law itself says that this will happen in the future, in the words of Isaiah the prophet: “There will come from Zion one who will break and remove the captivity of Jacob, and this will be a testimony of me, when I shall take away their sins.” _{Commentary on Paul’s Epistles}

Set Apart. Apollinaris of Laodicea: Paul was set apart and dedicated to evangelism, like the offerings which the law says were set apart for God and for the priests. _{Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church}

Called from Heaven. Severian: Paul here preaches the divinity of Christ to a world which was ignorant of it. Many people saw the Lord, and others believed in him without seeing, but Paul was called from heaven: “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” He was more highly favored than the other apostles, for the Lord called Peter and James and John and made them his disciples; he did not immediately make or call them apostles. But he made Paul an apostle as soon as he called him. Thus the gospel is preached according to the plan of God. _{Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church}

The Name of Paul. Chrysostom: Moses wrote five books, but nowhere did he put his own name to them . . . nor did Matthew, John, Mark or Luke. But St. Paul everywhere in his epistles puts his own name. Why? Because the others were writing to people who were present, and it would have been superfluous for them to have announced themselves when they were present. But Paul sent his writings from a distance and in the form of a letter, and so he had to add his name.

Why did God change his name and call him Paul instead of Saul? It was so that even in this respect he might not come short of the apostles but that he might also have the same preeminence that the chief of the disciples had and on that basis be more closely united with them. Paul also calls himself the “servant” of Christ, and there are many kinds of servitude. One is related to creation, “for all things are thy servants.” Another comes from faith and a third is civil subjection, as it says: Moses my servant is dead. Indeed, all the Jews were servants, but Moses in a special way, since his light has shone most brightly in the community. Paul was a servant in all of these senses, and therefore he puts this term first, in the place of greatest dignity.

He says of himself, in all of his epistles, that he is “called,” thereby demonstrating his own candor in admitting that it was not because he sought that he found but that when he was called, he came near and obeyed. _{Homilies on Romans 1}

A Servant First. Theodore of Mopsuestia: All things are servants of Christ, and he is Lord of all. Therefore Paul calls himself a servant first of all, thereby encouraging the rest to do likewise. He also recalls the unique lordship of the Son but not in such a way as to deny the lordship of the Father, which is confessed by everybody. In saying that he was set apart, he showed that he was not only called but also chosen from among many as useful for the preaching of the gospel. _{Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church}

Called and Set Apart. [Pseudo-]Constantius: Just as the names of other saints both in the Old and in the New Testament, e.g., Abraham and Peter and the rest, were changed in accordance with the advance and increase of their merits, so also Paul, as he grew in the grace of God, changed his name. He was a servant not out of fear but out of love, as he himself says: “It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me.” He reveals that he was not only “called” to the grace of apostleship but “set apart” for preaching to the Gentiles, as he himself records: “We to the Gentiles and they to the circumcision.” Called therefore by Christ to the apostleship, he was set apart for preaching to the Gentiles by the Holy Spirit, so that it might be revealed that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all of one substance. _{The Holy Letter of St. Paul to the Romans}

Called Forth. Augustine: By these two words, called and set apart, Paul distinguishes between the church, which is acceptable to God, and the synagogue, whose glory has faded away. The church (i.e., ecclesia) is so called because it “calls forth”: the synagogue, because it “gathers together.” _{Rudimentary Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans 2.1-3, 5}

Paul’s New Name. Pelagius: Do we wonder why he writes Paul, given that he was called Saul before? Doubtless he did this following the habit of the saints. When they advanced in virtue they were addressed with a different name, so that they might be new people even in name, e.g., Abraham, Sarah and Cephas. . . . Paul earned the office of an apostle by faithful and matchless service. He was set apart in Acts 13:2. Gospel . . . means “good news”, i.e., of Christ’s birth, suffering, resurrection and ascension into heaven. _{Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans}

The Salutation of Grace. Theodoret of Cyr: Civil governors and military commanders put their titles at the beginning of their letters in order to boast and show off. But St. Paul says that he was born out of due time, that he is the chief of sinners and that he is unworthy of his apostleship. Nevertheless, when writing his letters, he starts with the words imposed on him by grace, for the benefit of those who receive them. For when the recipients realized the importance of the person who was writing to them, they would read the letter with greater earnestness and attention. _{Interpretation of the Letter to the Romans}

The Promise of the Gospel. Origen: You the reader must decide whether this is to be understood simply of the gospel which was promised by God through the prophetic Scriptures or whether this is said in order to distinguish it from another gospel, which John calls “eternal” in the book of Revelation. This gospel will be revealed when the shadow passes and the truth comes, when death will be swallowed up and eternity restored. It seems that those eternal years of which the prophet spoke also belong to this eternal gospel: “I had the eternal years in mind.”

It must be understood that what was predicted by the prophets concerning Christ was also predicted concerning the gospel, although the Evangelist Mark seems to make a distinction between Christ and the gospel when he says: “Whoever has left father or mother . . . for my sake or for the gospel.” But if promises referring specifically to the gospel are what is required, you will find an abundance of them in the prophets, to wit: “The Lord will give his word with great power to those who preach the good news,” and: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news.” _{Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans}

Promised Beforehand. Ambrosiaster: “Which he had promised.” In order to prove that the hope of faith was fulfilled and completed in Christ, Paul says that Christ’s gospel was already promised by God beforehand, so that on the basis of the promise Paul could teach that Christ was the perfect author of [eternal] life.

“Through his prophets.” In order to show even more clearly that the coming of Christ was a saving event, Paul also indicated the people through whom God gave his promise, so that it might be seen from them just how true and magnificent the promise is. For nobody uses great forerunners to announce some minor thing.

“In the holy scriptures.” Paul added this on top of his argument in order to give greater confidence to believers and show his approval of the law. The Scriptures are holy because they condemn sins and because in them is contained the covenant of the one God and the incarnation of the Son of God for the salvation of mankind, by the evidence of numerous signs. _{Commentary on Paul’s Epistles}

Through His Prophets. Severian: Paul says “his prophets” because there are also prophets of idols, and by the word his he distinguishes one type of prophet from another and one gospel from another. For there are many gospels, but they are moral and temporary, whereas that of Christ proclaims in the holy Scriptures the enjoyment of eternal blessedness. These prophets are his because they are not of another god but of the Father of Christ. _{Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church}

Word as Act. Chrysostom: When God is about to do some great thing, he announces it a long time before in order to accustom men’s ears to it, so that when it comes they will accept it. The prophets not only spoke, but they wrote what they spoke; nor did they merely write, but by their very actions they represented what would come, e.g., Abraham when he offered up Isaac; and Moses when he lifted up the serpent, and when he spread out his hands against Amalek, and when he offered the paschal Lamb. _{Homilies on Romans 1}

Whether There Are Prophets Among the Gentiles. Augustine: The prophets arose from the Jewish people, and Paul testifies that the gospel, in which believers are justified by faith, had been promised earlier through them. . . . For there are Gentile prophets as well, in whom also are found some things which they heard of Christ and prophesied. This sort of thing is even said about the Sibyl [Virgil, Eclogues 4.4] . . . but the writings of the Gentiles, so very full of superstitious idolatry, ought not to be considered holy just because they say something about Christ. _{Rudimentary Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans 3}

No Other Christ. Pelagius: Paul preaches no other Christ than the Christ whose gospel the prophets promised would go forth from Jerusalem. He declares that they are prophets of God and that the Scriptures which prophesied about Christ are holy. This entire passage contradicts the Manichaeans, for it says that the gospel was promised beforehand through God’s prophets and in the Holy Scriptures and that according to the flesh Christ came from the lineage of David, i.e., from the Virgin Mary, just as Isaiah had foretold. _{Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans}

Why Scripture Is Holy. Theodoret of Cyr: The Old Testament is full of predictions of Christ’s coming. Paul did not call them “holy” by accident but, first of all, in order to teach that he recognized that the Old Testament was divinely inspired, and secondly, in order to exclude all other writings. For only the divinely inspired Scriptures are of any use. Indeed, Paul says that they are the image of the promise which was to come. _{Interpretation of the Letter to the Romans}

Son of God and of David. Ignatius: I glorify God . . . that you are fully persuaded that our Lord was truly of the seed of David according to the flesh and the Son of God according to the will and power of God. _{Epistle to the Smyrneans 1}

Never a Time When He Did Not Exist. Origen: 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. _{Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans}

Concerning the Son. Ambrosiaster: “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. _{Commentary on Paul’s Epistles}

A Generation According to the Spirit. Chrysostom: Paul is here hinting that there is also a generation of Christ according to the Spirit. Why then did he begin from the flesh, and not from the higher principle? First, it was because that was where Matthew, Luke and Mark started from too. Anyone who wants to lead men by hand to heaven must lead them upward from below. This was the way the actual dispensation [of grace] was ordered. First, they saw Christ as a man on earth, and then later they understood that he is God. His disciple therefore followed the same order in which Christ himself had framed his teaching. Thus the generation according to the flesh comes first, not because it was first in actual fact but because he was leading his hearers upward from one thing to the other. _{Homilies on Romans 1}

According to the Flesh. Pelagius: 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. _{Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans}

Designated Son of God. Origen: Let no one think that we are reading more into this text than the meaning itself permits. For although in Latin translations one normally finds the word predestined here, the true reading is designated and not predestined. For designated applies to someone who already exists, whereas predestined is only applicable to someone who does not yet exist, like those of whom the apostle said: “For those whom he foreknew he also predestined.” . . . Those who do not yet exist may be foreknown and predestined, but he who is and who always exists is not predestined but designated. These things are said by us concerning those who speak blasphemously about the only begotten Son of God and ignoring the difference between designated and predestined think that Christ is to be numbered among those who were predestined before they existed. But he was never predestined to be the Son, because he always was and is the Son, just as the Father has always been the Father. . . . The apostle makes an essential distinction when he says that “from the seed of David according to the flesh” Christ was made, but as “the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness” he is designated.

And when he says “Son of God” it is not without reason that he adds “in power,” indicating by this that in substance he is the Son according to the Spirit of holiness. For Christ is called “the power of God and the wisdom of God.” . . . But we want to know what to make of the soul of Jesus, if what is born of the seed of David is according to the flesh and what is designated in power is according to the Spirit of holiness the Son of God and in the substance of God. The soul, however, is not mentioned either with the flesh, with the Spirit of holiness or with the substance of God’s power, although the Savior himself speaks of it elsewhere: “My soul is very sorrowful, even unto death” and: “Now is my soul troubled.” Here he means the soul which he laid aside of his own free will, which went down to hell and of which it is said: “Thou dost not leave my soul in hell.” It is certain that this soul was not born of the seed of David, for he says that what was born of the seed of David was according to the flesh.

The soul cannot be included with the things which are according to the flesh, nor in that which is designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness. I think that the apostle is here following his usual custom, knowing that the soul is always midway between the spirit and the flesh. Either it joins itself to the flesh and is made one with the flesh or it associates itself with the spirit and is made one with the spirit. From this it may be concluded that when the soul is united with the flesh, men become carnal, and that when it is united with the spirit, men become spiritual. For this reason, Paul does not mention the soul independently but only as flesh or spirit. For he knows that the soul must necessarily attach itself to one or other of these, as it does in those to whom he says: “But you are in the flesh and not in the spirit,” and: “Whoever joins himself to a harlot is one body with her,” calling the harlot here “flesh” or “body,” but “whoever joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with him.”

Some people come to us raising the most serious problems as to how Christ can be descended from the seed of David when it is clear that he was not born from Joseph, in whom the line of David descends from one generation to the other. Unpleasant as it is to have to argue according to the literal sense of the text, some of our people answer by saying that Mary was already engaged to Joseph and that before they came together, she was found with child by the Holy Spirit. According to the law, she was therefore already united to Joseph’s tribe and family. . . . Whether you think this line of argument is valid is up to you, dear reader, to decide!

In our opinion, these things must be understood according to the spiritual or allegorical sense, according to which there is no reason why Joseph should not be called the father of Christ, even though he was not his father. For in the generations recorded by Matthew it is stated that Jehoshaphat begat Joram and Joram begat Uzziah, but in 2 Kings it is said that Jehoshaphat begat Ahaziah and Ahaziah begat Joash and Joash begat Amaziah, and Amaziah begat Azariah, who was also called Uzziah. . . . Matthew therefore left three generations out! The explanation for this is surely not to be sought on the historical level but in conjunction with the spiritual understanding. . . . It is therefore enough for us to say, in answer to our opponents, that just as Jesus is called the son of Joseph even though he did not descend from him, and Uzziah is called the son of Joram even though Joram was not his father, so can we also reckon that Christ was born of the seed of David according to the flesh. What we accept as reason and proof in the case of Joram and Joseph must, we think, be allowed to stand in the case of David as well.

How it is that he who is said to have been made from the seed of David according to the flesh should be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead is not hard to understand for anyone who has read that it is written: “For it was fitting that he, for whom and by whom all things exist, in bringing many sons to glory, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through suffering.” Now the end of Christ’s sufferings is the resurrection, and after the resurrection “he will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him.” And again: “Even though we once regarded Christ from a human point of view, we regard him thus no longer.” Thus everything which is in Christ is now the Son of God.

How this all relates to him who is designated Son of God in power is hard for us to understand unless we accept that, because of the indissoluble union of the Word and the flesh, everything which pertains to the flesh may be attributed to the Word also, and everything which pertains to the Word may be attributed to the flesh also. For we often find Jesus referred to in either nature as both Christ and Lord. _{Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans}

Because of His Resurrection from the Dead. Ambrosiaster: When Paul speaks about the Son of God he is pointing out that God is Father, and by adding the Spirit of holiness he indicates the mystery of the Trinity. For he who was incarnate, who obscured what he really was, was then predestined according to the Spirit of holiness to be manifested in power as the Son of God by rising from the dead, as it is written in Psalm 84: “Truth is risen from the earth.” For every ambiguity and hesitation was made firm and sure by his resurrection, just as the centurion, when he saw the wonders, confessed that the man placed on the cross was the Son of God. . . . Note that Paul did not say “because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ” but “because of his resurrection from the dead,” because the resurrection of Christ led to the general resurrection. For this power and victory in Christ appears to be all the greater, in that a dead man could do the same things as he did when he was alive. By this fact he appeared to dissolve death, in order to redeem us. Thus Paul calls him our Lord. _{Commentary on Paul’s Epistles}

According to the Spirit of Holiness. Chrysostom: What is being said here has been made obscure by the complex syntax, and so it is necessary to expound it. What is he actually saying? “We preach,” says Paul, “him who was made of David.” But this is obvious. How then is it obvious that this incarnate person was also the Son of God? First of all, it is obvious from the prophets [cf. v. 2], and this source of evidence is no weak one. And then there is the way in which he was born [cf. v. 3], which overruled the rules of nature. Third, there are the miracles which he did, which were a demonstration of much power, for the words in power mean this. Fourth, there is the Spirit which he gave to those who believe in him, through whom he made them all holy, which is why he adds: “according to the Spirit of holiness.” For only God could grant such gifts. Fifth, there was the resurrection, for he first and he only raised himself, and he also said that this was a miracle which would stop the mouths even of those who believed arrogantly, for he said: “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.” _{Homilies on Romans 1}

In Power. [Pseudo-]Constantius: By saying “in power” Paul shows that Christ was conceived not in the normal human way, but that he was procreated from a virgin, without intercourse with a man. He also tells us the time from which he was called to the apostolate, viz., from that time when Christ the Lord was raised from the dead. _{The Holy Letter of St. Paul to the Romans}

Human and Divine. Augustine: Paul had to oppose the unbelief of those who accept our Lord Jesus Christ only according to the man whom he put on but do not understand his divinity, which sets him apart from every other creature. _{Rudimentary Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans 4}

Weakness and Power. Augustine: Christ is the son of David in weakness according to the flesh but Son of God in power according to the Spirit of sanctification. . . . Weakness relates to David but life eternal to the power of God. _{Rudimentary Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans 5}

The Assumption of Humanity by the Word of God. Augustine: Jesus was predestined, so that he who was to be the Son of David according to the flesh should nonetheless be in power the Son of God, according to the Spirit of sanctification, for he was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary. This is that unique act, performed in an ineffable manner, the assumption of a man by the Word of God, so that he might truly and properly be called at once the Son of God and the Son of Man—the Son of Man because of the man who was assumed, the Son of God because of the only begotten God who assumed him. _{On Predestination 15.31}

The Glorification of Christ. Augustine: With respect to this predestination Christ was glorified before the foundation of the world, so that as a result of his resurrection from the dead he might have glory at the Father’s right hand, where he now sits. Thus, when he saw that his predestined glorification had come, in order that what had already been done by predestination might now also take place in fact, he prayed: “Father, glorify thou me in thy own presence with the glory which I had with thee before the world was made.” _{Commentary on John 105.8}

The Resurrection. Pelagius: Christ was predestined as to the spirit of sanctification, so that because of his incorruptibility he might rise again before anyone else and open the way of resurrection for the children of God. . . . The nature of the resurrection (not of all who rise from the dead but of those who belong to Christ) is prefigured by Christ. _{Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans}

Sonship in Power and Sonship by Grace. Cyril of Alexandria: As Christ was predestined to be the Son of God in power, so we too have been predestined to be sons of God, not however in power but by grace, having been made worthy of such a calling and having received it only by the will of God the Father. There is a big difference here between Emmanuel and us. For even if he was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, and so we can say that the Son of God was one of us in his humanity, still, in power and in truth he is the natural Son, and it is through him that we are made sons as well. . . . We stand in the same relation to him as images do to their original. _{Commentary on Romans}

Resurrection the Pivot. Theodoret of Cyr: Before his crucifixion and death the Lord Jesus Christ did not appear to be God either to the Jews or even to the disciples. For they were offended by human things, as when they saw him eating and drinking and sleeping and urinating, and not even his miracles made them change their minds. So, for instance, when they saw the miracle which he performed with the sea, they said: “Who is this, that even the sea and the winds obey him?” . . . But after he rose from the dead and ascended into heaven, and the Holy Spirit came, and after miracles of every kind which they performed by calling on his adorable name, all those who believed recognized that he was God and the only begotten Son of God. _{Interpretation of the Letter to the Romans.}

Confirmation as the Son of God. John of Damascus: By his miracles and resurrection and by the descent of the Holy Spirit, it was made plain and certain to the world that Christ was the Son of God. _{Orthodox Faith 4.18}

To Faith Through Grace. Origen: Paul says that he has received grace and apostleship through Christ, the mediator between God and men—grace with respect to his patience in many labors and apostleship with respect to his preaching authority. For Christ was himself called an apostle, i.e., one who was sent by the Father, because he said that he had been sent to preach the gospel to the poor. And everything which is his, he gives to his disciples also. Grace is said to be spread on his lips. For he gives grace to his apostles, by which those who are struggling may say: “I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I but the grace of God which is with me.” . . . It was only through the grace which had been given to the apostles that the Gentiles, who were strangers from the covenant of God and from the life of Israel, could believe in the gospel. Through this grace it is said that they came to faith because of the preaching of the apostles, and it is recorded that by the grace given to them the sound of the name of Christ went out into all the world, reaching even those who were at Rome. _{Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans}

Its Power Made Credible Through Deeds. Ambrosiaster: After the resurrection Christ was revealed as the Son of God in power. He gave grace to make sinners righteous and appointed apostles, of whom Paul says here that he is one, so that the apostleship might be granted by the grace of God’s gift and not because the apostles were Jews. They received this authority from God the Father through Christ the Lord, so that as representatives of the Lord they might make his teaching acceptable by signs of power. Unbelieving Jews, who had been jealous of this power when they saw it in the Savior, were all the more tormented at seeing it admired by the masses in his servants. For power bears witness to the teaching, so that although what is preached is incredible to the world, it might be made credible by deeds. He says that the apostles have been sent to preach the faith to all nations, that they might obey and be saved, that the gift of God may appear to have been granted not only to the Jews but to all the nations, and that this is the will of God, to have pity on all in Christ and through Christ, by the preaching of his ambassadors. _{Commentary on Paul’s Epistles}

Not of Ourselves. Chrysostom: See the candor of the servant. He wants nothing to be his own but everything to be his master’s. And indeed it was the Spirit who gave him this freedom. . . . Paul says: “We have not achieved the apostleship by ourselves.” It was not by much labor and toil that we were given this dignity, but we received grace, and the successful result is a part of the heavenly gift. . . . It was the apostles’ duty to go about and preach, but conviction belonged to God, who worked in them. _{Homilies on Romans 1}

Grace, Then Apostleship. Augustine: Paul preserves the main point of his case very well, so that no one would dare say that he has been led to the gospel because of the merits of his previous life. How could one claim this, when even the apostles themselves . . . could not have received their own apostleship unless they had first . . . received grace, which cleanses and justifies sinners? _{Rudimentary Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans 6}

Sent by the Holy Spirit. Pelagius: Paul received grace in baptism and apostleship when he was sent by the Holy Spirit, for apostle means “sent” in Greek. The purpose of this was that the Gentiles might submit not to the law but to faith. _{Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans}

Different Callings. Origen: Paul is said to be called to be an apostle, and the Romans are also called, though not to be apostles. Rather they are called to be holy in the obedience of faith. We have already spoken above about the different callings. _{Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans}

Called and Sent. Ambrosiaster: This is by the mission of us who are preaching the name of Christ to all the nations, among whom you too have been called, because the gift of God has been sent to all, so that when they hear that they have been called along with others, they will know that they must not act as if they are under the law, since the other nations accepted the faith of Christ without the law of Moses. _{Commentary on Paul’s Epistles}

Including Yourselves. Apollinaris of Laodicea: Paul says this in order to show that the Romans too, made up as they were of all the nations inhabiting the world, rightly accepted the preaching of his message. _{Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church}

The Romans with Others. Chrysostom: Paul does not say that God called the others along with the Romans but the Romans along with the others. _{Homilies on Romans 1}

Salvation to Jews and Others. Augustine: Paul teaches here that this salvation had come not only to the Jews, as some Jewish Christians thought. _{Rudimentary Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans 6}

Appointed. Theodoret of Cyr: Paul tells them here that he is not doing anything improper, nor invading fields assigned to others, for God had appointed him to preach to the Gentiles. _{Interpretation of the Letter to the Romans}

Grace and Peace. Origen: The blessing of peace and grace, which the apostle Paul gives to all God’s beloved to whom he is writing, is, I think, analogous to the blessing of Noah on Shem and Japheth, which was fulfilled in the Spirit toward all those who were blessed in the same way. It is comparable to the blessing with which Abraham was blessed by Melchizedek and Jacob by his father Isaac, and the twelve patriarchs who were blessed by their father Israel; or the blessing of Moses, with which he blessed the twelve tribes of Israel. I do not think that the blessing of the apostle’s, by which he blessed the churches of Christ, is inferior to any of these. . . . The apostle writes in the Spirit of God and blesses in the Spirit. Therefore it is through the same Spirit that those who are blessed by the apostle receive their blessings, as long as those on whom the blessing comes are found to be worthy of it. Otherwise it will happen as it is written: “And if a son of peace is there, your peace shall rest upon him; but if not, it shall return to you.” What is written about peace will also be the case with grace, because Paul aligns grace with peace. _{Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans}

Father as God, Son as Lord. Tertullian: I will not speak of gods at all, nor of lords, but I shall follow the apostle, so that if the Father and the Son are both to be invoked, I shall call the Father “God” and invoke Jesus Christ as “Lord.” _{Against Praxeas 13}

To All God’s Beloved in Rome. Ambrosiaster: “To all God’s beloved in Rome, who are called to be saints.” Although Paul is writing to the Romans, nevertheless he indicates that he is writing to those who are in the love of God. Who are these, if not those who believe rightly concerning the Son of God? These are the ones who are holy and who are said to have been called. For someone who understands incorrectly is not said to have been called, just as those who act according to the law have not rightly understood Christ and have done injury to God the Father, by doubting whether there is full salvation in Christ. Therefore they are not holy, nor are they said to have been called.

“Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” Paul says that grace and peace are with those who believe rightly. It is grace by which sinners have been cleansed and peace by which former enemies have been reconciled to the Creator, as the Lord says: “Whatever house you enter and they receive you, say: Peace be to this house.” And so as to teach that without Christ there is no peace or hope, Paul added that grace and peace are not only from God the Father but also from the Lord Jesus Christ. He says that God is our Father because of our origin, since all things are from him, and that Christ is Lord, because we have been redeemed by his blood and made children of God. _{Commentary on Paul’s Epistles}

The Fruit of the Spirit. Ambrose: There is one grace on the part of the Father and the Son, and there is one peace on the part of the Father and the Son, but this grace and peace is the fruit of the Spirit. _{The Holy Spirit 11.125}

Few Are Chosen. Severian: Paul does not say “to the saints” lightly—for “many are called but few are chosen” and not all have remained in their calling—but so that he would not be throwing holy things to dogs. . . . According to the heretics, if Christ is the Lord and God is our Father, then the Father will be a servant of Christ, for as the son is, so is the father. But it is not like that at all. Paul said that God is our Father, in order to show his grace, and that Christ is Lord, in order that the Romans should not become proud and think that because they too were sons of God they could despise the glory of the Son or raise themselves up beyond what was natural. Paul called God “the Father” because he judges no one, but the Son he called “Lord,” because he is the judge. He calls God “the Father” so as to point out his guardianship over us. He calls the Son “Lord” so that we might understand that we are called sons by the goodness of God but that Jesus is the true God by nature and our Lord. _{Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church}

Called to Be Saints. Chrysostom: See how often Paul uses the word called! . . . And he does so not out of longwindedness but out of a desire to remind them of the benefit which calling brings. For since it was likely that among those who believed there would be some consuls and rulers as well as poor and common men, Paul casts aside inequality of rank and writes to them all under one common heading. But if in the most important and spiritual things everything is laid out as common to both slaves and free men, e.g., the love of God, the calling, the gospel, the adoption, the grace, the peace, the sanctification, etc., how could it be other than the utmost folly to divide those whom God had joined together and made to be of equal honor in the higher things, for the sake of things on earth? For this reason, I presume, from the very start this blessed apostle casts out this mischievous disease and then leads them to the mother of blessings—humility.

“Grace and peace!” Christ told his apostles to make peace their first word when entering into houses. So it is from this that Paul always starts also, for it was no small war which Christ put an end to, but a many-sided and enduring conflict. And it was not because of anything we had done, but by his grace. Since then love presented us with grace and grace with peace . . . he prays over them that they may abide constant and unmoved, so that no other war may ever break out, and he beseeches the God who gave this peace to keep it firmly settled. _{Homilies on Romans 1}

Inclusion. Theodore of Mopsuestia: Paul says to all because with Christ everyone is equal. When he says: “to those beloved of God, called to be holy,” he cuts out unbelievers. The forgiveness of sins and the gift of sonship may be what he means by “grace,” and the defeat of the invisible enemies, from whom Christ has delivered us, may be what he means by “peace,” as well as the refusal of the body to rebel against the reasonings of the soul and godly agreement with one another. _{Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church}

The Spirit’s Gifts. [Pseudo-]Constantius: “Called to be saints” because he was writing to those who possess the grace of the Holy Spirit, and he therefore preaches that gifts from the Father and the Son are to be bestowed on them. In saying this he is not overlooking the Holy Spirit but showing that the gifts of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are common to all three. Moreover, Paul the apostle himself frequently demonstrates that the spiritual gifts which are given to men come from the Holy Spirit. _{The Holy Letter of St. Paul to the Romans}

Emphasizing God’s Grace. Augustine: Here again Paul has emphasized God’s grace rather than the saints’ merit, for he does not say “to those loving God” but rather “to God’s beloved.” _{Rudimentary Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans 7}

Forgiveness and Reconciliation. Augustine: Instead of saying “greetings,” Paul says “Grace to you and peace.” Grace then is from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, by which our sins, which had turned us from God, are forgiven; and from them also is this peace, whereby we are reconciled to God. Since through grace hostilities dissolve once sins are remitted, now we may cling in peace to him from whom our sins alone had torn us. . . . But when these sins have been forgiven through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, we shall have peace with no separation between us and God. _{Rudimentary Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans 8}

Recalling God’s Benefits. Pelagius: Paul is called to be an apostle to all believers, whom God loves impartially, without showing any preference for Jew or Greek. They are saints because of God’s calling, not because of their own holiness. Paul’s greeting is designed to recall God’s benefits and to pray that they may remain perfect in us, because our sins have been freely forgiven. . . . Paul also insists that Jews and Gentiles live in peace, since both of them have received the same grace. _{Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans}

Peace Restores Virtue. Gennadius of Constantinople: First Paul prays that the Romans might receive the grace of God, by which all believers enjoy salvation. Then he asks for peace, by which God gives to all the restoration of virtue. For the one who accepts the gospel way of life has peace with God. The one who serves him is amenable to everyone. _{Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church}

No one can explain the mystery of his birth, nor is it possible to explain (Chrysostom). His corporeal birth was in time, but his divine Sonship was before time. The one was from a virgin mother, the other from God the Father. He assumed visible flesh to demonstrate his invisible divinity (Chromatius).

The angel laid open to Joseph all things that were in his mind—what he felt, what he feared, and what he was resolved to do—so that he might be instructed in self-restraint and consoled (Chromatius, Chrysostom, Anonymous). He gave to Joseph the honor of giving a name to the Savior and called him to exhibit a father’s care toward the child (Chrysostom).

The typological analogies between Adam’s rib and Joseph’s dread and between the conceptions of Elizabeth and Mary are explored (Anonymous). The nativity is best understood in relation to the coming salvation and its prophetic expectation, which had been already promised by the Lord speaking through Isaiah (Chrysostom).

The virgin held in her womb what the whole world could not contain (Anonymous). Jesus’ birth does not diminish his incorruptibility (Origen). The miracle of the genealogy is that he who adopted and begot fathers was born from their sons! They were made his fathers whose son he was not; in turn he treated them with a favor by being their son (Anonymous).

The Virgin did not later enter into physical relations (Chrysostom), for it is not plausible that the one who bore God, who was worthy of carrying God in her womb, would subsequently have carnal relations with a man (Chromatius). As Christ would later commit Mary to his disciple, so now he commits her to Joseph (Chrysostom). The angel gave to Joseph the honor that belongs to a father—that of naming the child (Chrysostom).

His Birth Does Not Diminish His Incorruptibility. Origen: Why does the Evangelist make mention here of “birth,” whereas at the start of the Gospel he had said “generation”? For in this place he says, “Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way,” but there “The book of the generation.” … What then is the difference between “birth” and “generation”? How are either of them to be understood as applied to Christ?

Note that this, my spoken word, in its own proper nature, is intangible and invisible. But when it is written down in a book, in a manner of speaking, it takes on a body. It is then both seen and touched. So it is with the fleshless, bodiless Word of God. The Word is neither seen nor described according to his Godhood but becomes, through his incarnation, subject to both sight and description. For this reason there is the “book” of his “generation” as of one who is made flesh. But here the point under investigation is not why he says “book” instead of “vision” or “account” … Rather, it is why, when Matthew had previously mentioned “generation,” he here speaks of “birth.” What is “birth” as distinguished from “generation”?

There is a difference between generation and birth. For “generation,” or “coming into being,” is the original formation of things by God, while “birth” is the succession from others caused by the verdict of death that came on account of the transgression. And even now, “generation” has something incorruptible and sinless about it, whereas “birth” implies that which is subject to passion and sin. The Lord in his eternal generation is incapable of sin. His being born did not undermine his eternal generation, which is incorruptible. But upon being born he assumed what is passible. That does not imply that he assumed what is subject to sin. He continued to bear the original Adam incapable of being lessened, either in respect of corruptibility or as regards the possibility of sin. Hence the “generation” in the case of Christ is not according to some procession from nonbeing into being. It is rather a transition [a path, a way] from existing “in the form of God” to the taking on of “the form of a servant.” Hence his “birth” was both like ours and above ours. For to be born “of woman” is like our birth, but to be born “not of the will of the flesh” or “of man” but of the Holy Spirit is above ours. There is here an intimation, a prior announcement of a future birth to be bestowed on us by the Spirit. _{Fragment 11.}

The Simple Mystery of the Conception. Chrysostom: Do not speculate beyond the text. Do not require of it something more than what it simply says. Do not ask, “But precisely how was it that the Spirit accomplished this in a virgin?” For even when nature is at work, it is impossible fully to explain the manner of the formation of the person. How then, when the Spirit is accomplishing miracles, shall we be able to express their precise causes? Lest you should weary the writer or disturb him by continually probing beyond what he says, he has indicated who it was that produced the miracle. He then withdraws from further comment. “I know nothing more,” he in effect says, “but that what was done was the work of the Holy Spirit.”

Shame on those who attempt to pry into the miracle of generation from on high! For this birth can by no means be explained, yet it has witnesses beyond number and has been proclaimed from ancient times as a real birth handled with human hands. What kind of extreme madness afflicts those who busy themselves by curiously prying into the unutterable generation? For neither Gabriel nor Matthew was able to say anything more, but only that the generation was from the Spirit. But how from the Spirit? In what manner? Neither Gabriel nor Matthew has explained, nor is it possible.

Do not imagine that you have untangled the mystery merely by hearing that this is the work of the Spirit. For we remain ignorant of many things, even while learning of them. So how could the infinite One reside in a womb? How could he that contains all be carried as yet unborn by a woman? How could the Virgin bear and continue to be a virgin? Explain to me how the Spirit designed the temple of his body. _{The Gospel of Matthew, Homily 4.3.}

The Mystery of His Divinity. Anonymous: Such, according to Matthew, was the exceptional genealogy of Christ. He has made it clear that Jacob begot Joseph, to whom Mary was betrothed when she bore Jesus. Yet no one hearing this should suppose that the birth of Christ came about in the same usual manner as that of his forefathers. … “After Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, she was found to be with child before they had married.” That is, the child was from a virgin but had [an adoptive, legal] human father. While enumerating his line, Matthew shows him to have descended from the seed of David according to the promises of God. But in explaining that his birth happened in a way quite beyond human nature, he reveals the mystery of his divinity. It was not fitting that the only Son of God should be born in the human way. For he was born not for himself but for humanity. He was indeed born into flesh that would undergo corruption. But Christ was born in order to heal corruption itself. Human corruption is not derived from the uncorrupted state of a virgin. It does not make sense that the only Son of God, who was born to heal corruption, might be born of a corrupt union. Humanity is born out of the necessity to exist. Christ, however, was not born out of the necessity of nature to exist but by his merciful will to save. He was appropriately born contrary to the law of human nature because he was beyond nature.

Behold the strange and wonderful birth of Christ. It came through a line that included sinners, adulterers and Gentiles. But such a birth does not soil the honor of Christ. Rather, it commends his mercy.

This is the miracle: He who adopted and begot fathers was born from their sons! They were made his fathers whose son he was not. He did them a favor by being their son. They, however, offered him nothing by being his forefathers. Among men, fathers adopt whomever they wish to be their sons. This son, however, adopted fathers whom he chose for himself. Among men, sons receive the honor of birth from their fathers. But in Christ’s case, the fathers received honor from the son. _{Incomplete Work on Matthew, Homily 1.}

His Corporeal Birth and His Divinity. Chromatius: For blessed Matthew, after enumerating the genealogy of Christ, added the following regarding hope for our salvation: “After Mary, mother of Jesus, had been betrothed to Joseph, she was found to be pregnant by the Holy Spirit before they were married.” This is the heavenly mystery, this sacrament obscured and hidden by the Holy Spirit. … The bodily birth of Christ was in time; his divine birth was before time. The one in this age, the other before the ages. The one from a virgin mother, the other from God the Father. Angels and men stood as witnesses at the corporeal birth of the Lord, yet at his divine birth there was no witness except the Father and the Son, because nothing existed before the Father and the Son. But because the Word could not be seen as God in the glory of his own divinity, he assumed visible flesh to demonstrate his invisible divinity. He took from us what is ours in order to give generously what is his. _{Tractate on Matthew 2.1.}

The Self-Restraint of Joseph. Chrysostom: Do you not see here a man of exceptional self-restraint, freed from that most tyrannical passion, jealousy? What an explosive thing jealousy is, of which it was rightly spoken: “For the soul of her husband is full of jealousy. He will not spare in the day of vengeance.” And “jealousy is cruel as the grave.” And we too know of many that have chosen to give up their lives rather than fall under the suspicion of jealousy. But in this case it was not a matter of simple suspicion, as the burden of Mary’s own womb entirely convicted her. Nevertheless Joseph was so free from the passion of jealousy as to be unwilling to cause distress to the Virgin, even in the slightest way.

To keep Mary in his house appeared to be a transgression of the law, but to expose and bring her to trial would cause him to deliver her to die. He would do nothing of the sort. So Joseph determined to conduct himself now by a higher rule than the law. For now that grace was appearing, it would be fitting that many tokens of that exalted citizenship be expressed. It is like the sun not yet arisen, but from afar more than half the world is already illumined by its light. So did Christ, when about to rise from that womb—even before his birth—cast light upon all the world. In this way, even before her birth pains, prophets danced for joy and women foretold what was to come. And John, even before his birth, leaped in the womb. The Gospel of Matthew, Homily 4.4.

Joseph’s Inward Musing. Anonymous: Perhaps Joseph thought within himself:

“If I should conceal her sin, I would be acting against God’s law, and if I should publicize it to the sons of Israel, they would stone her. I fear that what is in her womb is of divine intervention. Didn’t Sarah conceive when she was ninety years of age and bring forth a child? If God caused that woman who was like dry wood to flower, what if the Godhead wanted to cause Mary to bear a child without the aid of a man?

“Does the conception of a woman depend on a man? If the conception of a woman depends always on a man, doubtless when a man so desires, the woman will conceive. But in this case it is not when the man so desires that the woman conceives but when God so desires. Therefore, if a woman’s conception does not depend on a man but on God, what is so incredible if God should wish to give her offspring without a man?

“What shall I do then? I will put her away secretly, because it is better in an uncertain matter that a known prostitute should get off free than that an innocent person should die. It is indeed more just that an unjust person should escape justly than that a just person should die unjustly. If a guilty person should escape once, he can die another time. But if an innocent person should die once, he cannot be brought back.”

Incomplete Work on Matthew, Homily 1.

Eve and Mary—The Word of Death and Life. Chromatius: While St. Joseph, yet uninformed of so great a mystery, wanted to put away Mary quietly, he was advised in a dream by an angel who said to him, “Do not be afraid, Joseph, son of David, to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is begotten in her is of the Holy Spirit.”

St. Joseph is made aware of the heavenly mystery, lest he think otherwise about Mary’s virginity. He is also made aware of this that he might exclude the evil of suspicion and receive the good of the mystery.

Notice here too the order of a mystery: The devil first spoke to Eve the virgin long ago, and then to a man, that he might administer to them the word of death. In the latter case, a holy angel first spoke to Mary and then to Joseph, that he might reveal to them the word of life. In the former case, a woman was chosen unto sin; in the latter case, she was chosen unto salvation. In the former case, the man fell through the woman; in the latter case, he rose through the virgin.

The angel therefore said to Joseph, “Do not be afraid, Joseph, son of David, to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is begotten in her is of the Holy Spirit.” And he added, “She shall bring forth a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins.”

But this name of Lord which was given to Jesus from the virgin’s womb is not new to him but old. For Jesus translated from Hebrew into Latin means “Savior.” This name is agreeable to God because he says through the prophet: “Just God and a Savior; there is none beside me.” Lastly, when the Lord himself would speak through Isaiah about the bodily origin of his nativity, he says, “The Lord called me from the womb, from the body of my mother he named my name.”

And that he might more fully show us the sacrament of his incarnation, he went on to say, “He made my mouth like a sharp sword … he made me a polished arrow, in his quiver he hid me away.” By the arrow he signified his divinity; by the quiver he assumed a body from the Virgin in which his divinity was covered with a garment of flesh.
Tractate on Matthew 2.3-4.

The Consolation of Joseph. Chrysostom: How then did the angel assure Joseph? Hear and marvel at the wisdom of these words: “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife.” The angel instantly puts him in mind of David, from whose seed the Anointed One would spring. … By saying “fear not,” he indicates that Joseph had been afraid, lest he might give offense to God by retaining an adulteress under the law.

The angel did not only mention her by name but also simply called her “your wife.” He would not have called her so if she had been unfaithful. … But what is meant by “[Do not fear] to take Mary your wife”? It means to retain her in his house. For he was intending to put her away. It is as if the angelic voice prompted: “Retain her just as if she has been committed to you by God, not by her parents alone. God is committing her not for marriage but to dwell with you. By my voice he is committing her to you.” Just as Christ would later commit Mary to his disciple, so now he commits her to Joseph.
The Gospel of Matthew, Homily 4.6.

Why Joseph Also Needed a Revelation. Anonymous: Hearing Mary’s words and reflecting on her life did not allow Joseph to think badly of her. But as he reflected on her conception he still was not able to think well of her completely. Joseph’s mind fluctuated between two alternatives. He was fearful of keeping her, while he did not dare to betray her. It was thus necessary that Joseph also have a revelation.

Therefore the angel appeared to him for three reasons. First, lest an ignorant but just man should do an unjust thing for a just cause. Next, for the sake of her mother’s honor, for if Mary had been put away—not among believers but among unbelievers—the woman could not be above foul suspicion. Third, realizing it was a holy conception, Joseph would in the future keep himself more diligently under control in her regard. …

But why didn’t the angel come to Joseph before the virgin’s conception? That he might not suffer the fate of Zacharias, who incurred the blame of unfaithfulness on the conception of his wife who was already an old woman. For it was even more incredible that a virgin rather than an old woman could conceive.
Incomplete Work on Matthew, Homily 1.

The Exoneration of Mary. Chrysostom: The very thing which had made him afraid and for which he would have cast her out—this very thing, I say, was a just cause why he should take her and retain her in his house. This more than entirely did away with his distress. It is as if the angel were saying, “For she is not only free from unlawful sexual relations but her very conception is above all natural causes. So not only put away your fear but rejoice even more greatly, ‘for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.’ ”

What a strange thing he spoke of, surpassing human reasoning and all the laws of nature. How then might one be made able to believe such an announcement that would be so wholly unexpected? Only by viewing this event in relation to past disclosures in Scripture. For with this intent the angel laid open to Joseph all things that were in his mind—what he felt, what he feared, what he was resolved to do—so that he would be wholly reassured.
The Gospel of Matthew, Homily 4.6.

Joseph to Name Jesus. Chrysostom: It was as if the angel were saying to Joseph,

“Do not imagine that, because he is conceived of the Holy Spirit, you have no part in the ministry of this new dispensation. In the conception you had no part. You never touched the virgin. Nevertheless I am giving you what pertains to a father. I give you the honor of giving a name to the One who is to be born. For you, Joseph, shall name him. For though the offspring is not your own, yet you are called to exhibit a father’s care toward him. So on this occasion, at this moment of giving him a name, you stand in significant relation with the one who is born.”

Then, lest anyone should out of all this suspect him to be the father, hear what follows and with what exact care the angel states it: “She shall bring forth a Son.” He does not say “bring forth to you” but merely “she shall bring forth,” putting it indefinitely—since it was not merely to him that she brought forth, but to the whole world.
The Gospel of Matthew, Homily 4.6.

Mary’s Conception Compared with Elizabeth’s. Anonymous:

“She will bring forth a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.” He did not say, “She will bear you a son,” as he said to Zacharias: “Behold, your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son.” The woman who conceived from a man bore her husband a son. Mary’s case is greater than Elizabeth’s. The woman who had not conceived from a man did not bear him a son but bore only herself a son.

See in what way the similarity here follows in everything that happened with Adam. At that time the woman alone, tasting of the fruit of the tree, was seduced and brought forth death, but Adam did not share in her seduction. He did not sin through being seduced by the devil but because he consented to the woman’s act. Likewise, submitting to the Holy Spirit, Mary alone believed, saying, “Behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.” Joseph then actually had nothing in common with her conception, but later he was saved only by being silent and consenting. Joseph was assisted in a dream—not openly—so that even as when Adam was asleep God created the woman, so when Joseph was asleep he was given a wife by divine influence.
Incomplete Work on Matthew, Homily 1.

The Savior from Sin. Anonymous:

The Evangelist here interprets the meaning of Jesus in the Hebrew language, saying, “He shall save his people from their sins.” Therefore, while a doctor, who has no real power over human health, is unashamed to call himself a doctor simply because of his ability to prepare herbs, how much more worthy is the one who is called Savior, through whom the whole world is saved?
Incomplete Work on Matthew, Homily 1.

The Coming Salvation. Chrysostom:
Having established Joseph’s faith by all means—by past expectations, by future hopes, by present grace and by the honor given to himself—the angel then rings in the prophet also to give expression in support of all these, proclaiming beforehand the good things that are to occur to the world through the Son: Sins are removed and done away.

“For he will save his people from their sins.” Here again the coming event exceeds all human expectation. From what are the people being saved? Not from visible warfare or barbarians but something far greater: from their own sins, a work that had never been possible to anyone before.
The Gospel of Matthew, Homily 4.7.

The Promise Is from God. Chrysostom:
To make what he said easier to understand, the angel makes reference to Isaiah, and not to Isaiah only but to God who speaks through Isaiah. For he does not refer this saying to Isaiah as such but to the God of all. Hence he did not say simply that “All this took place to fulfill what was spoken by Isaiah” but “All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet.” The mouth indeed was Isaiah’s, but the oracle was wafted from above.
The Gospel of Matthew, Homily 5.2.

Not by Chance. Anonymous:
“Now all this came to pass.” What is meant by “all”? That the Virgin would marry her kinsman, that she would be preserved chaste, that the angel would speak to Joseph in a dream, that he would be instructed to accept her as his wife, that the boy would be called Jesus and that the Virgin would bring forth the Savior of the world.

“All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet,” saying, “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bring forth a son.” Grace is witnessed through the prophets so that the Old and New Testaments may harmonize, grace may compensate for the weakness of the learned and what was predicted long ago might not seem to happen solely by chance.
Incomplete Work on Matthew, Homily 1.

God Among Us. Chrysostom:

Why then do they not call him Emmanuel instead of Jesus Christ? Because the text says not “you shall call” but “his name shall be called.” This means that the multitude and the outcome of the events themselves will cause him to be called Emmanuel. For here he puts the event as a name. This is customary in Scripture, to substitute names for the actual events.

Therefore to say “they shall call him ‘Emmanuel’” means nothing else than that they shall see God among us. Admittedly God has always been among us, but never before so openly.

The Gospel of Matthew, Homily 5.2-3.

Joseph’s Response. Chromatius:
Joseph therefore learns from the angel about the sacrament of the heavenly mystery and happily complies with the angel’s word. Rejoicing, he abides by the divine plan. He accepts holy Mary and glories in exultant praise because he was deemed worthy to hear that the virgin mother of such great majesty was called by the angel to be his wife.
Tractate on Matthew 3.1.

Mary’s Continuing Virginity. Chromatius:
But concerning what the Evangelist said, “And he did not know her till she had borne her firstborn son,” not a few careless people insist on asking whether after the Lord’s birth the holy mother Mary had relations with Joseph. But this is not admissible on the grounds of either faith or truth. Far be it indeed that after the sacrament of so great a mystery and after the birth of the sublime Lord, one should believe that the Virgin Mary was intimate with a man.

Remember that Miriam the prophetess of the Old Testament (the sister of Moses and Aaron) remained a virgin unsullied by man, having beheld the light of heavenly signs after the plagues of Egypt and the parting of the Red Sea and the Lord’s glory going in advance and seen in a pillar of fire and clouds. It is not plausible therefore that the Mary of the Gospel, a virgin bearing God, who beheld God’s glory not in a cloud but was worthy of carrying him in her virginal womb, had relations with a man.

Noah, who was made worthy to converse with God, declared that he would abstain from the conjugal need. Moses, after hearing God calling him from the bush, abstained from conjugal relations. Now are we to believe that Joseph, the man who always did what was right, had relations with holy Mary after the birth of the Lord?
Tractate on Matthew 3.1.

Whether “Until” Implies a Limited Time. Chrysostom:
And when Joseph had taken her, “he had no relations with her until she had borne a son.” Matthew has here used the word until not that you should suspect that afterward Joseph did know her but to inform you that before the birth the Virgin was wholly untouched by man.

But why then, it may be said, has he used the word until? Because it is common in Scripture that this expression is used without reference to specific, limited times.

• In the narrative of the ark it was said that “the raven did not return until the earth was dried up,” yet the raven did not return even after that time.
• When discussing God the Scripture says, “You are from everlasting to everlasting,” but there is no implication here that some limit is being fixed—rather the opposite.
• When preaching the gospel beforehand and saying, “In his days may righteousness flourish, and peace abound, until the moon be no more!” it is not thereby setting a temporal limit to this beautiful part of creation.

So then here likewise, it uses the word until to make certain what was before the birth, but as to what follows, it leaves some further inference to be made. So it is necessary to learn what Matthew teaches: that the Virgin was untouched by man until the birth. But the rest is left for you to perceive, both as a consequence of the previous narrative and what was later acknowledged: that not even after having become a mother and having been counted worthy of a new sort of travail and a childbearing so strange, could that righteous man ever have permitted himself to have sexual relations with her.
The Gospel of Matthew, Homily 5.3.

She Held What the World Could Not Contain. Anonymous:
The One whom the world was neither able to contain nor worthy to receive, Mary alone was able to hold as it were in the little chamber of her womb. Joseph saw that she would remain a virgin after childbirth. He saw the mystery of the star as it shone above the child’s head, and it pointed out the child to the magi who had arrived. Standing aside, he gave testimony, for he was speechless. Further, he saw the magi in adoration, presenting their hallowed gifts. He heard them speaking about how they had come from the east to Jerusalem, following the star, which did not disdain to pay tribute to men that it might reveal God’s glory.

Therefore, the incomparable nativity, beyond the measure of all human nativities, manifested the divinity of the newborn child and demonstrated to Joseph the dignity of Mary who had given birth. The Evangelist thus said, “And he did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn child.” That is, he knew who she was after she had given birth.
Incomplete Work on Matthew, Homily 1.