Homily 6 — Romans 2, verse 17, to 3, verse 8

“Look, you are called a Jew, and you rest on the Law, and you boast of God, and you know his will, and approve the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the Law.”

He has just said that the Gentile lacks nothing that belongs to salvation if he does what the Law requires, and he has drawn that wonderful comparison. Now he goes on to set out the glories of the Jews, the things that made them look down on the Gentiles. First comes the name itself, which carried great dignity, as the name “Christian” does now; for even then the distinction the name conferred was great. So he begins from this — and see how he takes it down! He does not say, “Look, you are a Jew,” but “you are called” one, “and you boast in God” — that is, as one loved by him and honored above all other people. And here, it seems to me, he is gently mocking their unreasonableness and their great craze for glory, because they misused this gift, not for their own salvation, but to set themselves up against the rest of humankind and to despise them.

“And you know his will, and approve the things that are more excellent.” In fact this is a disadvantage, if it goes without doing. Still, it seemed to be an advantage, and so he states it precisely. He does not say “you do” but “you know,” and “you approve,” not “you follow and do.”

Verse 19: “And you are confident that you yourself…” [a]

Here again he does not say that you are “a guide of the blind,” but “you are confident” — that is, you boast of it, he says. So great was the unreasonableness of the Jews. That is why he repeats almost the very words they used in their boasting. See, for instance, what they say in the Gospels: “You were altogether born in sin, and are you teaching us?” (John 9, verse 34). They utterly looked down on everyone else. To convict them of this, Paul keeps extolling them and lowering the others, so that he may get a firmer hold on them and make his accusation all the heavier. That is why he goes on adding more of the same, and makes more of it by saying it in different ways. “You are confident,” he says, “that you yourself are a leader of the blind,”

Verse 20: “an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, who have the form of knowledge and truth that is in the Law.”

Here again he does not say “in the conscience,” or “in actions,” or “in good deeds,” but “in the Law.” And after saying this, he does here what he did in the case of the Gentiles. For as he says there, “In judging another you condemn yourself,” so he says here as well:

Verse 21: “You then who teach another, do you not teach yourself?” [b]

But there he shaped his words with more sharpness; here, with more gentleness. He does not say, “On this score you deserve a greater punishment, because though you were entrusted with such great things you made good use of none of them.” Instead he carries his argument forward by way of a question, turning them back on themselves and saying, “You who teach another, do you not teach yourself?”

And here I would have you look at Paul’s good judgment in another respect. The advantages of the Jews that he sets down are ones that came, not from their own effort, but as a gift from above. And he shows not only that these are worthless to them if they are careless, but that they even bring an increase of punishment. For being called a Jew was no good deed of theirs, and neither was receiving the Law, nor the other things he has just listed; all of it came from the grace above. Near the beginning he had said that hearing the Law is worth nothing unless doing is added to it — “for it is not the hearers of the Law,” he says, “who are righteous before God.” But now he shows something further: that not only hearing, but what is more than hearing, the teaching of the Law itself, will not be able to shield the teacher unless he does what he says. And not only will it not shield him; it will punish him the more.

He has chosen his expressions well, too. He does not say, “You have received the Law,” but “You rest on the Law.” For the Jew did not wear himself out going around looking for what he should do; he had the Law ready to hand, pointing out the road that leads to virtue. Even if the Gentiles have natural reason — and this is why they are better than the Jews, because they do what the Law says without having heard it — still, the Jews had it easier. But if you say, “I am not only a hearer, but even a teacher,” that very thing adds to your punishment. Because they prided themselves on this, it is from this above all that he shows them to be ridiculous.

When he says, “a guide of the blind, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes,” he is using their own pompous language. For they treated converts extremely badly, and these were the names they called them. That is why he dwells at length on what were supposed to be their praises, knowing well that what he said gave grounds for a heavier accusation. “Who have the form of knowledge and of the truth in the Law.” It is as if someone who had a portrait of the king drew nothing from it, while people who had never been entrusted with it copied it exactly, even without the original.

Then, after mentioning the advantages they had from God, he tells them their failings, bringing forward what the prophets accused them of: “You then who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that a man should not steal, do you steal? You who say that a man should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you commit sacrilege?” They were strictly forbidden to touch any of the treasures on the idols, because of the defilement. But the tyranny of greed, he says, has persuaded you to trample this law underfoot too. Then, after this, he brings the far more serious charge, saying, in verse 23, “You who boast in the Law, do you dishonor God by breaking the Law?”

He makes two accusations here, or rather three: that they dishonor; that they dishonor the very thing by which they were honored; and that they dishonor him who honored them, which was the utmost extreme of callousness. Then, so as not to seem to be accusing them on his own account, he brings in the prophet as their accuser — here briefly and concisely, in a sort of summary, but later in more detail; here Isaiah, and after that David, once he has shown that the grounds for reproof are more than one. To show, he means, that it is not I who say these things to shame you, hear what Isaiah says: [g]

Verse 24: “For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you” (Isaiah 52, verse 5; Ezekiel 36, verses 20 and 23).

See, again, another double accusation. They not only hurl insults themselves; they even lead others to do it. What use, then, is your teaching, when you do not teach yourselves? Above, he merely said this; but here he has even turned it around into its opposite. Not only yourselves, but others too, you fail to teach what should be done. And what is far worse: you not only fail to teach the things of the Law, you even teach the opposite — namely, to blaspheme God, which is the opposite of the Law.

But someone will say, “Circumcision is a great thing.” Yes, I admit that too. But when? When it has the inward circumcision. And notice his judgment in bringing in what he says about it at just the right moment. He did not begin with it straightaway, since people thought so highly of it. But once he had shown that they had offended in what was greater and were responsible for the blasphemy against God, he now had the reader’s verdict against them and had stripped them of their preeminence. Only then does he introduce the discussion of circumcision, confident that no one will stand up for it any longer, and he says, in verse 25, “For circumcision is indeed of value, if you keep the Law.”

And yet, even apart from this, a person could have rejected it and said, “What is circumcision? Is it any good deed on the part of the one who has it? Does it show any right choice? It is done at an age too young for that, and those in the wilderness also remained uncircumcised for a long time.” One could look at it from many other angles as well and find it unnecessary. Yet it is not on these grounds that he rejects it, but on the most fitting ground of all, from the case of Abraham. For this is the most complete victory: to take the proof that it counts for little from the very thing that made them revere it. He might also have said that even the prophets call the Jews uncircumcised. But that is no disparagement of circumcision, only of those who keep it badly; whereas what he aims to show is that even where the life is the very best, circumcision has not the slightest power. This is what he proves next.

Here he does not bring forward the patriarch. Having first overturned circumcision on other grounds, he keeps Abraham for later, when he brings in what he has to say about faith, at the words, “How then was it reckoned” to Abraham — “when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision?” As long as circumcision is contending against the Gentile and the uncircumcised, he is unwilling to say anything of this kind, for fear of being too irritating to them. But when it is set up against faith, then he strips down more completely for the fight with it. Up to this point, then, the contest is against uncircumcision, and that is why he moves forward in his argument in a restrained tone and says, “For circumcision is indeed of value if you keep the Law; but if you are a breaker of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.”

Here he speaks of two uncircumcisions and two circumcisions, just as there are also two laws. There is a natural law, and there is a written law. But there is also one between these, the law in deeds. See how he points out these three and sets them before you.

“For when the Gentiles,” he says, “who do not have the Law” — what law, tell me? The written one — “do by nature the things of the Law” — of what law? The law in deeds. “These, not having the Law” — what law? The written one — “are a law to themselves.” How so? By using the natural law. “Who show the work of the Law” — of what law? The law in actions. The written law lies outside us; this one, the natural one, is within; and the other is in actions. One is proclaimed by writing, another by nature, and another by actions. It is this third that is needed; for its sake the other two exist, both the natural and the written. If it is not present, they do no good, but even very great harm. To show this in the case of the natural law, he said, “For in judging another you condemn yourself.” And of the written Law he said, “You who preach that a man should not steal, do you steal?”

So there are also two uncircumcisions, one from nature and the second from conduct; and one circumcision in the flesh, and the other from the will. I mean, for instance: a man has been circumcised on the eighth day — this is circumcision of the flesh. A man has done everything the Law commands — this is circumcision of the mind, which Paul requires above all; yes, and the Law does too (Deuteronomy 10, verse 16; 30, verse 6).

See now how, while granting it in words, he does away with it in fact. He does not say, “Circumcision is superfluous; circumcision is of no profit, of no use.” What does he say? “Circumcision is indeed of value if you keep the Law.” That far he approves of it, as if to say, “I admit, and do not deny, that circumcision is honorable. But when? When the keeping of the Law goes with it.”

“But if you are a breaker of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.” He does not say, “It is no longer of value,” lest he should seem to insult it. Instead, having stripped the Jew of it, he goes on to strike him. And this is no longer an insult to circumcision, but to the man who through carelessness has lost the good of it. When people in high positions are afterward convicted of the gravest crimes, the judges first strip them of the honors of their rank and then punish them; and Paul has done the same. After saying, “If you are a breaker of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision,” and having shown him to be uncircumcised, he then condemns him without hesitation. [i]

Verse 26: “So if the uncircumcision keeps the righteousness of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be turned into circumcision?”

See how he goes about it. He does not say that uncircumcision overcomes circumcision — that would have grated badly on those who heard him then — but that uncircumcision has become circumcision. Next he asks what circumcision is, and what uncircumcision is, and he says that circumcision is doing good, and uncircumcision is doing evil. First he moves the uncircumcised man who does good deeds over into circumcision, and thrusts the circumcised man who has lived a corrupt life out into uncircumcision; and in this way he gives the preference to the uncircumcised. He does not say “to the uncircumcised man,” but goes on to the thing itself, speaking like this: “Will not his uncircumcision be turned into circumcision?” And he does not say “counted,” but “turned into,” which was more forceful — just as above he did not say, “Your circumcision is counted as uncircumcision,” but that it has become so.

Verse 27: “And will not the uncircumcision that is by nature judge…?” You see, he recognizes two uncircumcisions, one from nature and the other from the will. Here he is speaking of the one from nature. But he does not stop there; he goes on: “…if it fulfills the Law, judge you, who with the letter and circumcision break the Law?” Notice his fine judgment. He does not say that the uncircumcision that comes by nature will judge circumcision. Where there has been a victory, he brings in uncircumcision; but where there is a defeat, he does not expose circumcision as the loser, but the Jew himself who had it. So by his wording he avoids offending his hearer. Nor does he say, “you who have the Law and circumcision,” but, more mildly still, “you who with the letter and circumcision break the Law.” [j]

That is, this kind of uncircumcision even stands up for circumcision, which has been wronged, and comes to the aid of the Law, which has been insulted, and wins a notable triumph. For the victory is decisive when a Jew is judged, not by a Jew, but by the uncircumcised — as in the saying, “The men of Nineveh will rise up in the judgment against this generation and will condemn it” (Matthew 12, verse 41). So it is not the Law that he dishonors — he reveres it greatly — but the man who disgraces the Law.

Next, having settled these points clearly, he goes on with confidence to define what the Jew really is. He shows that it is not the Jew or circumcision he is rejecting, but the man who is no Jew and is uncircumcised. He seems, indeed, to be standing up for circumcision, yet he does away with the high opinion people held of it, winning their agreement by the conclusion he reaches. For he shows not only that there is no difference between the Jew and the uncircumcised, but that the uncircumcised man even has the advantage, if he takes care of himself, and that he is the real Jew. And so he says:

Verse 28: “For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly.” [k]

Here he attacks them for doing everything for show.

Verse 29: “But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter.”

By saying this he sets aside everything bodily. For circumcision is outward, and so are the Sabbaths, the sacrifices and the purifications. He hints at all of these in a single phrase when he says, “For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly.” But since so much was made of circumcision — even the Sabbath gave way to it (John 7, verse 22) — he has good reason to aim at it in particular. And when he has said “in the spirit,” he then paves the way for the Church’s way of life and introduces faith. For faith, too, is in the heart and the spirit, and has its praise from God.

Why, then, does he not show that the Gentile who does right is not inferior to the Jew who does right, but instead that the Gentile who does right is better than the Jew who breaks the Law? So that he might make the victory beyond dispute. For once this is agreed, the circumcision of the flesh is necessarily set aside, and the need for a good life is proved on every side. When the Greek is saved without these things, while the Jew who has them is still punished, Judaism is left standing idle, accomplishing nothing. And by “Greek” he again means, not the Greek who worships idols, but the one who is devout and virtuous and free of all the observances of the Law.

Romans 3, verse 1: “What advantage, then, has the Jew?” [m]

He has set everything aside — the hearing, the teaching, the name of Jew, circumcision and all the other particulars — by saying that “he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, but he who is one inwardly.” Next he sees an objection springing up, and takes his stand against it. What is this objection? If these things are of no use, he means, why was that nation called at all, and why was circumcision given? What does he do, then, and how does he resolve it? By the same method as before. There he spoke, not of their praises, but of God’s benefits; not of their good deeds — for being called a Jew, and knowing his will, and approving the things that are more excellent, was no good deed of their own, but came from the grace of God. The prophet says this too, reproaching them: “He has not done so to any nation, nor has he shown his judgments to them” (Psalm 147, verse 20). And Moses again: “Ask now,” he says, “whether there has been any such thing as this. Did any people ever hear the voice of God speaking out of the midst of the fire, and live?” (Deuteronomy 4, verses 32 and 33). That, then, is what he does here too.

When he spoke of circumcision, he did not say, “Circumcision is worthless without a good life,” but, “Circumcision is of value with a good life,” pointing to the same thing but in a more restrained tone. Again, he does not say, “If you are a breaker of the Law, you who are circumcised gain nothing at all,” but, “Your circumcision has become uncircumcision.” And after this, again, he says that “the uncircumcision” will “judge” — not circumcision, but “you who break the Law” — so sparing the things of the Law and striking at the persons. He does the same here. After putting this objection to himself and saying, “What advantage, then, has the Jew?” he does not answer, “None.” He agrees with the statement, then refutes it by what follows, and shows that they were even punished because of this preeminence. How he does so, I will tell you once I have stated the objection: “What advantage, then,” he says, “has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision?”

Verse 2: “Much in every way. Chiefly, because they were entrusted with the oracles of God.” [n]

Do you see that, as I said above, it is not their good deeds but God’s benefits that he everywhere lists? And what does the word “they were entrusted” mean? It means that they had the Law put into their hands, because God thought them worth so much that he entrusted to them oracles that came down from above. I know that some take “entrusted” to refer, not to the Jews, but to the oracles, as though it meant, “The Law was believed.” But the context does not allow this to stand. In the first place, he says this in order to accuse them, and to show that although they enjoyed many blessings from above, they were still very ungrateful. Then the context makes it clear as well, for he goes on to say, “For what if some did not believe?” If they did not believe, how can some say that the oracles were believed? What does he mean, then? That God entrusted the oracles to them, not that they trusted in the oracles. How else will the context make sense? For he goes on further to say, in verse 3, “For what if some did not believe?”

And what follows makes the same point clear, for he goes straight on to add: “Will their unbelief make the faithfulness of God of no effect?” [o]

Verse 4: “Far from it!”

So the word “they were entrusted” proclaims God’s gift.

And here too I would have you notice his good judgment. Once again he does not bring his accusation against them in his own person, but in the form of an objection, as if he said, “But perhaps you will say,” “What use, then, is this circumcision, since they did not use it as they should have? They were entrusted with the Law, and they were unfaithful to the trust.” Up to this point he is not a harsh accuser. Instead, as though clearing God of the complaints made against him, he uses this means to turn the whole accusation back on them. For he would say: Why do you complain that they did not believe? How does that touch God? Does the ingratitude of those who received his benefit overturn the benefit? Does it make the honor no honor? That is what the words “Will their unfaithfulness make the faithfulness of God of no effect? Far from it!” amount to. It is as if someone were to say, “I have honored such and such a person. If he did not accept the honor, that gives no grounds for accusing me, and it does not lessen my kindness; it shows how unfeeling he is.”

But Paul does not say only this; he says something much more. Not only does their unbelief leave no stain of blame on God, it even shows his honor and his love for humankind to be all the greater, since he is seen to have honored people who were going to dishonor him. See how he has shown them guilty of offenses by means of the very things they gloried in! So great was the honor with which God treated them that even when he saw what would come of it, he did not hold back his goodwill toward them. Yet they turned the honors given them into a means of insulting the one who honored them!

Next, he had said, “What if some did not believe?” — when it was plainly all of them who did not believe. So that he would not seem to be a harsh accuser, like an enemy, by speaking here too as the facts would have allowed him, he puts what really happened in the form of a piece of reasoning, a logical argument, and says: “Yes, let God be true, but every man a liar.” What he is saying is something like this: I do not say that some did not believe. Suppose, if you like, that all of them were unbelievers. So he sets aside what actually happened in order to meet the objector on his own ground, so that he would not seem overbearing or be suspected. And then he says: Well then, in this way God is all the more shown to be in the right. What does “shown to be in the right” mean? That if there could be a trial and an inquiry into what God had done for the Jews and what they had done toward him, the victory would be God’s, and all the right would be on his side. And after showing this clearly from what was said before, he next brings in the prophet as well, approving these things and saying, “so that you may be proved right in your words, and be cleared when you are judged” (Psalm 51, verse 4). God, then, for his part did everything, but they were none the better even for this.

Then after this he brings forward another objection that arises, and says: Verse 5: “But if our unrighteousness brings out the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who takes vengeance? I am speaking as a man speaks.”

Verse 6: “Far from it!” [r]

Once more he answers one difficulty with another. But since this is not clear, we must explain it more clearly. What, then, does he mean? God honored the Jews; they treated him with contempt. This gives God the victory, and shows how great his love for humankind is, since he honored them even though they were such people. Since, then, he means, we treated him with contempt and wronged him, and by this very thing God became the victor and his righteousness was plainly shown — why then am I to be punished, when by the contempt I showed him I have been the cause of his victory? How does he answer this? As I was saying, with another absurdity. If it was you, he says, who caused the victory, and you are punished after that, the thing is unjust. But if God is not unjust, and yet you are punished, then you are not the cause of the victory after all.

And notice his reverence as an apostle. After saying, “Is God unrighteous who takes vengeance?” he adds, “I am speaking as a man speaks.” That is, he means, as anyone might argue who reasons the way people do. For the just judgment of God goes far beyond whatever seems to us to be justice, and it has other grounds of its own that are beyond words. Next, since this was not distinct enough, he says the same thing over again:

Verse 7: “For if through my lie the truth of God has abounded all the more to his glory, why am I still judged as a sinner?” [s]

If God, he means, is shown by your acts of disobedience to be one who loves humankind, and righteous, and good, you ought not only to escape punishment but even to be treated well. But if that is so, we arrive at the absurd saying that so many people pass around: that good comes from evil, and that evil is the cause of good. And one of two things must follow: either God is plainly unjust in punishing, or, if he does not punish, he owes his victory to our vices. Both of these are utterly absurd.

And because he meant to show this too, he brings in the Greeks as the fathers of these opinions. He thinks it enough, as an answer to what he has mentioned, to point to the character of the people who say such things. For in those days they used to mock us by saying, “Let us do evil so that good may come.” And that is why he has put it plainly in the words that follow:

Verse 8: “And why not, as some claim that we say, ‘Let us do evil so that good may come’? Their condemnation is just.”

Paul had said, “Where sin abounded, grace abounded much more” (Romans 5, verse 20). Mocking him and twisting his words to another meaning, they said, “We must cling to vice so that we may get what is good.” But Paul did not say that. It is to correct this notion that he says, “What then? Shall we continue in sin so that grace may abound? Far from it!” (Romans 6, verses 1 and 2). What he means is this: I said that about the times that are past, not so that we should make it our practice. So, to lead them away from this suspicion, he said that from now on this was not even possible. For “how shall we,” he says, “who are dead to sin, live in it any longer?”

Against the Greeks, then, he has no difficulty in pressing the attack, for their life was utterly dissolute. But with the Jews it was different. Even if their life seemed careless, they still had strong means of covering these things over: the Law and circumcision, the fact that God had spoken with them, and their being the teachers of everyone. That is why he strips them even of these, and shows that because of these they were punished all the more. This is the conclusion to which he has brought his argument here.

For if they are not punished for acting so, he would say, then that blasphemous saying, “Let us do evil so that good may come,” is bound to gain currency. But if this is impious, and those who talk this way will be punished — and he declared as much by saying, “Their condemnation is just” — then it is plain that they are punished. For if those who say it deserve vengeance, much more do those who do it; and if they deserve it, it is because they have sinned. And it is not a human being who punishes them, so that anyone might suspect the sentence, but God, who does all things righteously. But if they are punished righteously, then those who mock us said what they said unrighteously. For God did, and does, everything so that our way of life might shine out and be upright in every respect.

So let us not be careless, for in this way we will be able to bring the Greeks back from their error too. But when we are lovers of wisdom in our words and behave shamefully in our deeds, how will we look them in the face? With what lips will we talk to them about doctrines? For each of us will hear the Greek say: How can you, who have failed in the lesser thing, claim to teach me about the greater? You have not yet learned that greed is a vice; how can you be wise about the things in heaven? Or do you know that it is a vice? Then the charge against you is all the greater, because you break the law knowingly. [t]

But why do I speak of the Greek? Even our own laws do not allow us to speak this freely when our life has become dissolute. For “to the sinner,” it says, “God says, ‘What right have you to recite my statutes?’” (Psalm 50, verse 16). There was a time when the Jews had been carried away captive. When the Persians pressed them and called on them to sing those divine songs for them, they said, “How shall we sing the Lord’s song in a strange land?” (Psalm 137, verse 4).

Now if it was not lawful to sing the oracles of God in a strange land, much less may the estranged soul do it. And the merciless soul is estranged. If the law made those who were captives, and had become slaves to men in a strange land, sit in silence, much more is it right for those who are slaves to sin, and live in a foreign commonwealth, to keep a bridle on their mouths. And yet they had their instruments with them then. For it says, “On the willows in the midst of it we hung our instruments” — but still they might not sing. So we too, though we have a mouth and a tongue, which are the instruments of speech, have no right to speak freely so long as we are slaves to sin, a master more tyrannical than any barbarian.

For tell me: what will you have to say to the Greek, if you rob and are greedy? Will you say, “Leave idolatry, acknowledge God, and do not go near gold and silver”? Will he not laugh at you and say, “Talk to yourself like that first!” For it is not the same thing for a pagan to practice idolatry and for a Christian to commit this same sin. How are we to draw others away from that idolatry if we do not draw ourselves away from this one? We are more closely related to ourselves than our neighbor is; so when we do not persuade ourselves, how are we to persuade others? For if the man who does not manage his own household well will not take care of the church either (First Timothy 3, verse 5), how will the man who does not even rule over his own soul be able to set others right?

So do not tell me that you do not worship an image of gold. Show me instead that you do not do the things gold commands. For there are different kinds of idolatry: one man holds mammon as his lord, another makes his belly his god, a third some other most ruinous craving. But you do not sacrifice oxen to them, as the pagans do? No — you do something far worse: you slaughter your own soul. But you do not bend the knee and worship? No — with greater obedience you do everything they command you, whether it is your belly, or money, or the tyranny of craving.

For this is exactly what makes the pagans loathsome: they made gods of our passions, calling lust Venus, anger Mars, and drunkenness Bacchus. So even if you do not carve images as they did, you still bow down with great eagerness under the very same passions, when you make the members of Christ the members of a prostitute (First Corinthians 6, verse 15) and plunge yourself into the other deeds of wrongdoing.

So I urge you to take to heart how utterly shameful this is, and to flee from idolatry — for that is what Paul calls greed — and to flee not only greed for money, but greed in sinful desire, in clothing, in food, and in everything else. For the punishment we will have to suffer if we do not obey God’s laws is much more severe. He says, “The servant who knew his master’s will” and did not do it “will be beaten with many blows” (Luke 12, verse 47). So, in order to escape this punishment and to be useful both to others and to ourselves, let us drive all wrongdoing out of our soul and choose virtue. For in this way we will attain the blessings to come. May it be granted to all of us to attain them, by the grace and love for humankind of our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom and with whom be glory to the Father, together with the Holy Spirit, forever and ever. Amen.