who is God and the Son of God.
They further assert that the humanity—namely Mary—gave birth to the divinity just as she bore the humanity, and that this is no defect from which the Lord must be exalted. Hence, if they allow Him a mother of that child whom she conceived, with whom the divinity united—he being from her—and if she thus “gave birth to the divinity,” it is even more fitting, indeed more logical, to regard her as a companion and wife of the Father. Otherwise, how could she bear His son—who, in their claim, is the very divinity—yet not be His consort and spouse?
They go on to say: “We have called His knowledge a child begotten of Him, because it issued from Him as a word issues from the intellect; this ‘child’ then united with the humanity, so we named the composite reality a son.”
By this reasoning they distinguish between the Messiah’s being a “son” and other prophets who are also called “sons.” They maintain: “Those are sons by conferment, whereas the Messiah is a son by nature—that is, the former were styled sons by the Lord’s will and power, because He chose them; but the Word that they claim is united with the Messiah is, in their view, begotten of God with an ancient, eternal begetting that is in no way contingent on His will or power.
“For that reason,” they declare, “He is begotten, not made,” for anything pre-eternal, self-subsisting without beginning, cannot—according to any rational person, even those who hold the world to be eternal—be considered a manufactured thing.
So if the Word united with the Messiah who was created from Mary and fused with him, then to say, in addition, that the Eternal touched, adhered to, or directly contacted the temporal is easier to accept than all of this.
And since, in their doctrine, the Messiah was born a contingent birth—distinct from the primordial, eternal begetting of the Word—it necessarily follows that Mary must have become a spouse and a wife, indeed must have entered into an actual matrimonial union