Which was made; or, was born. But the word in itself, γενομένου, need only mean that he became a Man of the seed of David; implying, it would seem, a pre-existence of him who so became. This, however, is more evident from other passages, in which ὢν, or ὑπάρχων, is opposed to γενόμενος (cf.
John 1:1, John 1:14; Philippians 2:6, Philippians 2:7; cf. also Galatians 4:4, ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τοῦ υἱὸν αὐτοῦ γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικὸς). Of the seed of David according to the flesh. κατὰ σάρκα is here, as elsewhere, contrasted with κατὰ πνεῦμα.
Here κατὰ σάρκα denotes the merely human descent of Jesus in distinction from his Divine Being (of. Acts 2:40; Romans 9:3, Romans 9:5; 2 Corinthians 5:16). His having come humanly "of the seed of David" is suitably noted here, where "the Son" is being set forth as fulfilling the Old Testament promises; for they uniformly represent the Messiah as thus descended, and it was essential to the Jewish conception of him that he should be so (cf.
Matthew 22:42; John 7:42; and for the stress laid by the writers of the New Testament on the fact that Jesus was so—of which fact no doubt was entertained—cf. Hebrews 7:14, πρόδηλον γὰρ, etc. See, among many other passages, Matthew 1:1; Luke 2:4, Luke 2:5; Acts 2:30; Acts 13:23; 2 Timothy 2:8).
Meyer, commenting on the verse before us, goes somewhat out of his way to set forth that only Joseph's, not Mary's, descent from David was in St. Paul's mind, saying that "the Davidic descent of the mother of Jesus can by no means be established from the New Testament," and also that "Paul nowhere indicates the view of a supernatural generation of the bodily nature of Jesus."
As to the first of these assertions, it may be observed that, in the opening chapters of our Gospel of St. Luke (representing certainly the early belief of the Church) our Lord seems to be regarded as actually descended from David—not legally so accounted only—though, at the same time, his supernatural generation is distinctly asserted (comp.
Luke 1:32 with Luke 1:35). Hence we are led to infer Mary's, as well as Joseph's, descent from David, whether or not either of the genealogies given in St. Matthew's and St. Luke's Gospels represents hers.
Further, with respect to those two genealogies (evidently independent ones, and both probably got from genealogical records preserved at Jerusalem), a probable way of accounting for the two distinct lines of descent through which Joseph seems to be traced to David, is to suppose one of them to be really Mary's, the legal representative of whose family Joseph had become by marriage, so as to be entered in legal documents as the son of her father (see art.
on "Genealogy of Jesus Christ," in 'Dictionary of the Bible,' W. Smith, LL.D.). As to Meyer's second assertion above alluded to, it is true that St. Paul nowhere refers to our Lord's supernatural conception spoken of in the Gospels of St.
Matthew and St. Luke. But it does not follow that it was not already included in the Church's creed, or that St. Paul himself was unaware of it or disbelieved it. This is not the place for enlarging on the evidence, at the present day increasing in force, of the early origin of our existing Gospels, and of their being a true embodiment of the Church's original belief.
St. Paul's silence as to the manner how the Son of God became incarnate may be accounted for by his not having had occasion, in his extant Epistles, to speak of it. He is occupied, in accordance with his peculiar mission, in setting forth the meaning and purpose of the Incarnation rather than its mode, and in preaching rather than catechetical instruction; and on the essential idea involved he is sufficiently explicit, viz.
the peculiar Divine paternity of Christ, notwithstanding the human birth.