We find that the word flesh is used in holy Scripture with many different meanings: for sometimes it stands for the whole person, that is, for that which consists of body and soul, as here: And the Word was made flesh,?^[1] and All flesh shall see the salvation of our God.^[2] Sometimes it stands for sinful and carnal people, as here: My spirit shall not remain in those men, because they are flesh.^[3] Sometimes it is used for sins themselves, as here: But you are not in the flesh but in the spirit,^[4] and again, Flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Lastly there follows, Neither shall corruption inherit incorruption.^[5] Sometimes [as with David] it stands for unity and relationship, as here: Behold we are your bone and your flesh, and the apostle says, If by any means I may provoke to emulation them who are my flesh, and save some of them.^[6] We must therefore inquire in which of these four meanings we ought to take the word flesh in this place.

For (here is one of Marcion’s^[1] antitheses): whereas David long ago, in the capture of Zion, was offended by the blind who opposed his admission (into the stronghold). In this respect (I should rather say) that they were a type of people equally blind,^[2] who in later times would not admit Christ to be the son of David. So, on the contrary, Christ helped the blind man to show, by this act, that he was not David’s son and how different in disposition he was, by being kind to the blind while David ordered them to be slain. If all this were so, why did Marcion allege that the blind man’s faith was of such a worthless type? The fact is, the Son of David acted so that the antithesis must lose its point by its own absurdity. Those persons who offended David were blind, and the man who now presents himself as a beggar to David’s son is afflicted with the same infirmity. Therefore the Son of David was appeased with some sort of satisfaction by the blind man when he restored him to sight, and added his approval of the faith which had led him to believe the very truth that he must gain the Son of David’s help by earnest entreaty. But, after all, I suspect that it was the audacity (of the old Jebusites) which offended David, and not their malady.

After that [the killing of Goliath] he never entered on a war without seeking counsel of the Lord. Thus he was victorious in all wars, and even to his last years [he] was ready to fight. And when war arose with the Philistines, he joined battle with their fierce troops, being desirous of winning renown, while careless of his own safety.^[1] But this is not the only kind of fortitude which is worthy of note. We consider their fortitude glorious, who, with greatness of mind, through faith stopped the mouth of lions, quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong,^[2] They did not gain a victory in common with many, surrounded by comrades and aided by the legions, but [they] won their triumph alone over their treacherous foes by the mere courage of their own souls.