Thomas Aquinas Commentary Romans 2

After showing that the Gentiles did not become justified from the knowledge of the truth they had, the Apostle now shows that neither were the Jews made justified by the things in which they boasted. Consequently, both of them need the power of the Gospel’s grace for salvation.

• First, therefore, he says that the Jews were not made justified by the law.

• Second, that they were not made justified by their heritage, in which they boasted: what advantage then has the Jew? (Romans 3:1).

• Third, that they were not made justified by circumcision: what shall we say then? (Romans 4:1).

Regarding the first point, it should be noted that Jews and Gentiles converted to the faith judged each other on their previous life. For the Jews held it against the Gentiles that when they lived without God’s law, they sacrificed to idols. The Gentiles, for their part, held it against the Jews that even though they received God’s law, they did not keep it.

• First, therefore, he rebukes both sides and their excessive judgment.

• Second, he shows that the Jews were not worthy of a reward, because the things they boast in were not sufficient for salvation, as in for not the hearers of the law are righteous before God (Romans 2:13).

Regarding the first point, he does two things.

• First, he refutes human judgment.

• Second, he reveals and praises the divine judgment, beginning with for we know.

Regarding the first of these, he does two things:

• First, he proposes that although they judge one another, neither has an excuse.

• Second, he gives the reason, beginning with for in which you judge.

First, therefore, he concludes from what he stated in the first chapter that even though the Gentiles by their wickedness suppressed the truth they knew about God, you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judges another man, just as he said before: so that they are without excuse (Romans 1:20).

He says whoever you are as if to say: whether Jew or Gentile, because even the Gentiles, who might seem to have an excuse, cannot be excused by pleading ignorance, as he stated before (Romans 1:20 and following); do not pronounce judgment before the time (1 Corinthians 4:5).

Then when he says for in which you judge, he gives the reason by rejecting the causes for excuse:

• First, ignorance.

• Second, innocence, at for you do the same.

Ignorance is excluded by the very act of judging. For whoever judges another as an evildoer shows that he knows the conduct is evil and, therefore, that he himself is worthy of condemnation. And this is what he says: you have no excuse, for in which you judge another as an evildoer, you condemn yourself, that is, you show that you are worthy of being condemned: judge not, that you be not judged (Matthew 7:1).

This does not mean that every judgment is a cause of condemnation.

For there are three kinds of judgment: one is just, that is, made according to the rule of justice: love justice, you rulers of the earth ; another is not just, that is, made contrary to the rule of justice: although servants of his kingdom, you did not rule rightly ; the third is rash judgment, against which it is said: be not rash with your mouth (Ecclesiastes 5:2).

A rash judgment is made in two ways: one way is when a person passes judgment on a matter committed to him without proper knowledge of the truth, contrary to what is stated: I searched out the cause of him whom I did not know (Job 29:16). Another way is when a person presumes to judge hidden matters, which God alone has the power to judge, contrary to what is stated: do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness (1 Corinthians 4:5).

But some things are hidden not only in relation to us but by their very nature, and so belong solely to God’s knowledge. First, the thoughts of the heart: man’s heart is deceitful and unsearchable. Who can understand it? I, the Lord, search the mind and try the heart (Jeremiah 17:9). Second, the contingent future: tell us what is to come hereafter, that we may know you are gods (Isaiah 41:23). Hence, as Augustine says: there are two cases in which we must beware of rash judgment: when it is not certain in what spirit something was done, or when it is not certain how a person will turn out, who now appears to be good or to be wicked.

The first kind of judgment is not a cause for condemnation, but the second and third are.

Then when he says for you do the same, he rejects the other excuse, namely, innocence. It is as if to say: the reason why you, the judge of others, condemn yourself is that you do the same things which you judge, that is, for which you condemn them. Consequently, it seems that you are acting against your conscience: why do you see the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? (Matthew 7:3).

However, it should be noted that it is not always true that when someone judges another for a sin which he himself commits, he automatically draws condemnation upon himself, because he does not always sin mortally by so judging; yet he always reveals his own damnation.

For if he is publicly guilty of the sin for which he judges another, he seems to be causing scandal by judging, unless perhaps he humbly reproves himself along with the other and laments his sin.

But if he is secretly guilty of the same sin, he does not sin by judging another for that sin, especially when he does so with humility and with an effort to rise again. As Augustine says in The Lord’s Sermon on the Mount: when necessity compels us to correct someone, let us first examine whether it is a vice that we have never had. Then let us consider that we could have had it, or that we once had it and no longer do. Then our common weakness will stir the memory, so that mercy and not hatred will guide that correction. But if we discover that we are presently guilty of the same vice, we should not scold but mourn together and invite the other to join in grieving.

Then when he says for we know, he reveals and praises God’s judgment. Concerning this, he does three things.

• First, he declares the truth of God’s judgment.

• Second, he rejects a contrary opinion, at do you think this.

• Third, he makes the truth clear, at who will render (Romans 2:6).

First, therefore, he says: the reason I say that you condemn yourself when you do the same things that you judge is that we know—that is, we hold it as certain—that the judgment of God is against those who do such things. That is, God’s judgment threatens them: the avenger of sin is the sword, that you may know there is a judgment (Job 19:29); God will bring every deed into judgment (Ecclesiastes 12:14).

We also know that this judgment will be according to truth: he will judge the earth with justice (Psalms 96:13).

But human judgment, even though it may be formed justly, is not always based on the truth of the matter, but on the words of witnesses, which sometimes conflict with the truth. But this cannot happen in the divine judgment, because, as it is said: I am the judge and witness (Jeremiah 21:23). Nor is he deceived by false allegations: I will not spare him, nor his mighty words, crafted for supplication (Job 41:12).

Then when he says do you think this, he rejects a contrary opinion.

• First, he states it.

• Second, the cause of it, at or do you despise.

• Third, he refutes it, at do you not know.

First, therefore, he says: I have said that God’s judgment is in accordance with the truth, against those who do such things. But do you not, O man, whoever you are, who judges those who do such things and yet do the same things, do you not fear a higher judgment? Do you think that you will escape the judgment of God? It is as if to say: if you think this, you are wrong: where shall I go from your Spirit? Or where shall I flee from your presence? (Psalms 139:7); all way of escape will be lost to them (Job 11:20).

Then when he says or do you despise, he shows the cause of this false assumption. For since a person is not punished immediately by God for sin, he assumes that he will not be punished, which is contrary to Sirach: do not say, ‘I sinned, and what happened to me?’ For the Lord is slow to anger ; because sentence against an evil deed is not executed speedily, the heart of the sons of men is fully set to do evil (Ecclesiastes 8:11).

Yet the fact that the sinner does evil a hundred times and is patiently endured should not lead him to be presumptuous toward God, but to conclude that it is good to fear him. Therefore, he says here or do you despise: when wickedness comes, contempt comes also (Proverbs 18:3); the riches, that is, the abundance: God who is rich in mercy (Ephesians 2:4); of his goodness, through which he pours out his blessings on us: you open your hand and satisfy the desire of every living thing (Psalms 145:16). For according to Dionysius, the nature of "the good" involves diffusing itself: the Lord is good to those who wait on him (Lamentations 3:25); and patience, through which he endures those who sin grievously and maliciously: God is a just and patient judge. Is he indignant every day? (Psalms 7:11); and longsuffering, through which he endures for a long time those who sin from weakness and persist in their sin: and count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation (2 Peter 3:15).

Then when he says do you not know, he refutes the previously mentioned cause, namely the cause of contempt for the divine patience.

• First, he reveals the purpose of God’s patience.

• Second, the danger of contempt, at but according to your hardness.

First, therefore, he says it is hard to understand your scorn: do you not know that the goodness of God in postponing punishment leads you to repentance? The Lord is not slow about his promise as some count slowness, but is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance (2 Peter 3:9); the Lord waits to be gracious to you (Isaiah 30:18).

As is said in the Gloss, the Apostle seems to touch upon three groups of sinners: those who promise themselves impunity; those who scorn God’s goodness; and the ignorant. Hence, the Gloss says: you sin, O man, as long as you promise yourself that you will escape punishment; you sin more seriously, because you scorn; you sin most seriously, because you are ignorant.

But this seems to be false, for ignorance makes a sin less serious, rather than more serious.

The answer, as some hold, is that it is more serious, that is, more dangerous for some, because those who are ignorant of sin do not seek a remedy. Or it is most serious if it is the ignorance that is a form of unbelief, which is the gravest sin: if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized (1 Corinthians 14:38). Or it is most serious in ingratitude, as Augustine says: one who does not recognize a blessing is more ungrateful than one who belittles it, that is, scorns it.

Then when he says but according to your hardness, he shows the danger of contempt, because it is not softened by the blessings of God’s goodness: a hard heart will be afflicted at the end ; and unrepentant heart, which is not moved to repent by God’s forbearance and patience: no man repents of his wickedness (Jeremiah 8:6), you are storing up wrath for yourself, that is, you are multiplying the debt of punishment: you have laid up a treasure of wrath for the last days (James 5:3).

Hence there follows for the day of wrath, that is, on the day of judgment: a day of wrath is that day (Zephaniah 1:15), because God does not now inflict the punishment He will inflict then, as it is stated: at the set time I will judge with equity (Psalms 75:2); and revelation of the just judgment of God, because the justice of God’s judgment will be revealed then, whereas now it is not believed or does not seem just: for my salvation is near to come, and my justice to be revealed (Isaiah 56:1).

Because the Gloss says that by hardness and unrepentant heart is meant a sin against the Holy Spirit, which is unforgivable, it is important to see what a sin against the Holy Spirit is and why it is unforgivable.

Accordingly, it should be noted that in the opinion of the early Church Fathers who preceded Augustine—namely, Athanasius, Hilary, Ambrose, Jerome, and Chrysostom—the sin against the Holy Spirit was the blasphemy by which the works of the Holy Spirit are attributed to an unclean spirit (Matthew 12:31). It is considered unforgivable both in this life and in the future, because the Jews were punished for this sin even in this life by the Romans and in the life to come by devils. Or, it is because it has no basis for being excused, unlike the blasphemy they spoke against Christ, since he was a son of man: behold, a glutton and a drunkard (Matthew 11:19). They could have been led to say this because of the weakness of the flesh, as also happened in the Old Testament, when the children of Israel complained about the lack of bread and water, as we read in Exodus (16:2 and following). This could be considered a human failing and easy to forgive. But later on, when they declared before an idol, these are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt (Exodus 32:4), they sinned against the Holy Spirit, for they attributed God’s work to demons. Hence their sin is called unforgivable, when the Lord answers: nevertheless, in the day when I visit, I will visit their sin upon them (Exodus 32:34).

Augustine, on the other hand, calls a sin against the Holy Spirit any word or blasphemy a person speaks against the Holy Spirit, through whom sins are forgiven, as is stated: receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven (John 20:22). Indeed, this sin is committed in the heart, in word, and in deed, as long as one continues in sin to the end. Consequently, final unrepentance is a sin against the Spirit and by its very nature unforgivable.

Later teachers call a sin against the Holy Spirit one that is committed with deliberate malice, which is opposed to the goodness attributed to the Holy Spirit, just as a sin against the Son of God is one committed from ignorance, which is opposed to the wisdom attributed to the Son. Similarly, a sin against the Father is one committed through weakness, which is opposed to the power attributed to the Father.

Consequently, a sin against the Father and against the Son is considered forgivable, because the very fact that it is committed from ignorance or from weakness seems to be a basis for excuse. But one committed from deliberate malice has no basis for excuse; hence, it is considered unforgivable, because it has nothing in it to plead for forgiveness, although God does forgive it sometimes, because he is good, just as he sometimes used his power to cure a naturally incurable disease.

In light of what has been said, six kinds of sin against the Holy Spirit are listed, each of which excludes something by which sin is forgiven. The first two are on God's part:

1. Despair, which is opposed by hope in His mercy.

2. Presumption, which is opposed by fear of God’s justice.

Two others are on man's part:

3. Obstinacy (which is here called hardness), by which a person hardens his soul to sin; this is opposed by turning from contempt for the changeable good.

4. An unrepentant heart, which has no intention of repenting and returning to God; this is opposed by the abandonment of the state of being turned away from God.

The last two are regarding God’s gifts:

5. Resisting the known truth, which is opposed by faith: by faith sins are cleansed (Proverbs 15:27).

6. Envy of another's grace, which is opposed by charity: charity covers all offenses (Proverbs 10:12).

After suggesting that God’s judgment is true and refuting the contrary opinion, the Apostle here explains the truth of God’s judgment.

1. First, he presents his intention.

2. Second, he explains it, beginning with the phrase to those indeed who, according to patience.

First, he states facts about God’s judgment regarding two things: persons and their works.

Regarding works, God does not repay according to one’s works in the present life, for sometimes He gives grace to evildoers, as He did to the apostle Paul, who obtained mercy after being a blasphemer and persecutor. But this will not be so on the day of judgment, when the time comes to judge according to justice: at the set time which I appoint, I will judge with equity (Psalms 75:2). Hence, another passage says: requite them according to their works (Psalms 28:4).

Regarding persons, equality of retribution will be observed toward all: we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:10).

However, it seems that retribution will not be made according to one’s works, because an eternal punishment will be paid for a temporal sin.

The answer, as Augustine says in The City of God, Book 21, is that when justice repays, the equality in duration between the sin and the punishment is not the main consideration. Even in human judgment, the death penalty is inflicted for a sin of adultery committed in a short time. Here, the legislator is not concerned with the duration of the crime, but rather that the adulterer’s death will forever separate him from the society of the living. In this way, man also punishes a temporal sin with an eternal punishment.

Consequently, it is not strange if sins committed against charity, through which a society between God and men is formed, are punished eternally by divine judgment.

The justice of this is clear on three counts. First, on account of the infinite dignity of God who is sinned against. For a sin is more serious the greater the dignity of the person sinned against, just as it is a greater crime to strike a prince than to strike a private citizen. Consequently, since the guilt of mortal sin is in a sense infinite, an infinite punishment should balance it. Therefore, since it cannot be infinite in intensity, it must be infinite in duration.

Second, on account of the will of the sinner.

For whoever sins mortally turns from the unchangeable good and fixes his end in a changeable good, such as a fornicator in the pleasure of the flesh or a covetous person in money. Because the end is sought for itself, whoever seeks an end is drawn toward it and wills to possess it always, unless something external hinders him. Hence, one who sins mortally has the will to remain in sin forever, unless he is changed by an outside factor, as when he fears punishment. Consequently, it is fitting that if a man through his will seeks sin to be enjoyed forever, he should be punished for it eternally. For God, who sees the heart, directs His special attention to the will of the sinner.

Third, on account of the effect of sin, namely, the withdrawal of grace, from which it follows that a man left to himself would remain forever in sin, from which he cannot be freed except by the help of grace. But it is not fitting that the penalty should cease while the sin remains; consequently, the penalty lasts forever.

The statement to render to every man according to his works does not mean according to an equality of works, because the reward exceeds the merit, but according to proportion, because He will render good to the good and better to the better. The same applies to evil.

Then when he says to those indeed who, according to patience, he clarifies his statement:

1. First, in regard to works.

2. Second, in regard to persons, at upon every soul.

In regard to works he shows the truth of God’s judgment:

1. First, to the good.

2. Second, to the wicked, at but to those who are contentious.

In regard to the first, there are two things to consider: merit and reward.

Three things combine in merit. First is patience, which can mean God’s patience as referred to above: do you despise the riches of his goodness and patience? Then those who have patience in good work would be those who make good use of God’s patience by doing good.

Or it can mean man’s patience, and this in two ways. In one way, patience implies tolerating adversity with composure. For it is necessary that one not give up good works on account of the evils he suffers, and this is what he says: according to patience in good work. Patience has a perfect work (James 1:4); by your patience you will gain your lives (Luke 21:19). In another way, patience can be taken for long-suffering or for perseverance, which keeps a person from abandoning a good work on account of weariness: you also be patient. Establish your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is at hand (James 5:8); you have need of patience (Hebrews 10:36).

The second feature of merit is the goodness of a work, which is good if it is directed to its proper end and if it conforms to its proper rule, which is God’s law and human reason: let us not grow weary in well-doing (Galatians 6:9).

The third feature is a right intention, that is, to seek eternal life, so that in the evils a man suffers or in the good he does he is not seeking something temporal, but eternal: seek first the kingdom of God (Matthew 6:33).

In regard to the reward, he touches on three things. The first is glory, which signifies the splendor of the saints: either intrinsic glory, with which the mind will be filled: the Lord will fill your soul with brightness (Isaiah 58:11), or external glory, with which their body will shine: the just will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their father (Matthew 13:43); let the faithful exult in glory (Psalms 149:5).

The second is honor, through which is signified the dignity of the saints and the reverence paid to them by every creature. For they will be kings and priests: you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God (Revelation 5:10) and will be numbered among the sons of God: why has he been numbered among the sons of God? ; your friends are made exceedingly honorable, O God (Psalms 139:17).

The third is incorruption, because that glory and honor will not pass away, as they do in this world: they do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable (1 Corinthians 9:25).

Then when he says but to those who are contentious, he shows the truth of God’s judgment on the wicked and touches on sin and punishment.

In regard to sin, three things are mentioned. The first is the obstinacy of the factious, which can be understood of man toward God calling him to Himself by His blessings, against which a man seems to struggle by resisting them: behold, while I am yet alive with you, you have always been rebellious against the Lord (Deuteronomy 31:27). Second, it is understood of man’s struggle against faith: avoid disputing with words (2 Timothy 2:14). Third, it can be understood of men struggling with one another, which is contrary to charity, the mother of the virtues: where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice (James 3:16).

The second is the hardness of those who obey not the truth. This can be understood in one way of the truth of faith: if I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? (John 8:46); in another way, of the truth of God’s justice, to which they do not submit, not believing the truth of His justice: you say: the way of the Lord is not just (Ezekiel 18:29). In a third way, it can be understood of the truth of life, in which they do not acquiesce who live perversely: he who does what is true comes to the light (John 3:21).

The third is malice; hence, he says: but give credit to iniquity, either because they consent to those who urge wickedness: an evil-doer listens to wicked lips (Proverbs 17:4); or because they believe that sins will not be punished, which would make God wicked: do not say: I have sinned and what happened to me? ; or they give credit to iniquity, that is, unbelief, namely, teachings against the faith: so that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unjustice (2 Thessalonians 2:12).

In regard to punishment, four things are mentioned, which can be distinguished in two ways.

In one way, so that wrath, that is, punishment and corporal vengeance, is understood to come after the judgment: a day of wrath is that day (Zephaniah 1:15); indignation during the judgment, when the wicked will be angry at themselves for the sins they committed: it was we who strayed from the way of truth . Tribulation and anguish pertain to the soul separated from the body before the resurrection: when distress and anguish come upon you (Proverbs 1:27).

Or they can be distinguished in another way, so that the first two are taken on the part of God, whose wrath is His disposition to punish, which is horrible for the wicked: they will call to the mountains and rocks: fall on us (Revelation 6:16). His indignation refers to the fact that He will consider sinners unworthy of eternal life: I swore in my anger that they should not enter into my rest (Psalms 95:11).

But the other two are taken on the part of man. The word tribulation comes from tribulus, a prickly plant; hence, anything that causes pain can pertain to tribulation: the sound of the day of the Lord is bitter; the mighty man meets tribulation there (Zephaniah 1:14). But anguish is so called from the fact that a man’s spirit is in anguish, being unable to find a remedy against the evils he fears or already suffers: I am hemmed in on every side and know not what to choose (Daniel 13:22); will God hear his cry when trouble comes upon him? (Job 27:9).

Then when he says upon every soul, he shows the truth of God’s judgment in regard to persons.

1. First, he proposes its equity.

2. Second, he assigns the reason for this, at for there is no respect of persons.

3. Third, he explains the reason, at for whosoever has sinned.

The truth of the divine judgment in regard to persons is shown, first, as it affects the wicked, when he says, upon every soul of man who works evil, that is, against every soul, because just as the glory of the saints passes from the soul to the body, so the punishment of the wicked is first and chiefly in the soul and second in the body which, on account of defect or sin, will rise capable of suffering: the soul that sins shall die (Ezekiel 18:4).

But he says of the Jew first, and also of the Greek, because a greater punishment was due the Jews for knowing God’s will through the law: that servant who knew his master’s will but did not do it . . . shall receive a severe beating (Luke 12:47). Similarly, Christians are punished more severely than unbelievers for the same sin, for example, adultery or theft: how much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God and profaned the blood of the covenant in which he was sanctified? (Hebrews 10:29).

But as to total punishment, that of unbelievers is more severe on account of the sin of unbelief, which is the gravest. Hence, it is said that God’s wrath rests upon unbelievers (John 3:36).

Second, he shows this in regard to the good. First, he repeats the two things mentioned above, namely, glory and honor, but the third, namely, peace, he mentions instead of immortality, which includes peace among many other things.

For a man’s peace cannot be complete as long as he fears he might lose the good things he has. Rather, one has true peace of heart when he has everything he desires and no fear of losing them: my people will abide in a peaceful habitation (Isaiah 32:18).

In these things, too, he gives primacy to the Jews, because they were first promised to them, and the Gentiles entered into their promises: others have labored and you have entered into their labors (John 4:38).

Then when he says for there is no respect of persons, he assigns the reason for his statement, namely, because there is no partiality with God: truly I perceive that God shows no partiality (Acts 10:34).

Showing partiality is opposed to distributive justice, through which one distributes to each according to the person’s worth. Therefore, there is partiality when more or less is given without regard to worth. This happens when the person, rather than his qualifications, is accepted as the reason for an action. In this case, there is a reason, that is, a rule of action, but the person is taken as the reason for doing something.

Thus, if one gives a larger inheritance to another on account of a blood relationship, it is not partiality, because this relationship is a fitting reason why he should receive such benefits. But if a prelate gives more ecclesiastical goods to someone on account of a blood relationship, it would be partiality, if some other qualification were not present. For blood relationship is not a suitable reason for receiving spiritual goods.

Therefore, because God does everything for the best of reasons, partiality does not enter into His actions: wisdom orders all things well .

Yet He seems to show partiality, because He abandons some sinners and calls others to Himself.

The answer is that showing partiality is opposed to justice; hence, it finds its sphere in the payment of debts, with which justice is concerned. But God calls sinners to repentance not from debt but as a favor: and if by grace, it is not now by works (Romans 11:6); not because of deeds done by us in justice, but in virtue of his own mercy he saved us (Titus 3:5).

In such gifts not only God, but man too, is free to give to whom he will: am I not allowed to give what I choose with what belongs to me? (Matthew 20:15).

Then when he says, for whosoever, he explains the reason.

For if all who sinned are punished, it is clear that there is no partiality with God. Hence, he speaks first of those who have not received the law, saying that for whosoever has sinned without the law received from God by Moses, will perish without the law, that is, will be condemned, but not for transgression of the law: because no one understands, they will perish forever (Job 4:20).

Second, he speaks of those who received the written law, and he says that whosoever has sinned in the law, that is, after the written law, will be judged by the law, that is, precisely for having transgressed a precept of the law: the word which I have spoken will be his judge on the last day (John 12:48).

The Apostle’s manner of speaking here has been taken as an occasion of error by some. Because the Apostle does not say that all who sinned under the law will perish by the law, as he had said of those who are without the law that they will perish without the law, some believed that those who sin after receiving the law will be judged by some means, that is, in the present, but will not perish.

But as the Gloss says: what Christian would say that the Jew will not perish for not believing in Christ, when the Lord says that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for them? (Matthew 10:15). Hence it says: I have no pleasure in the death of the sinner (Ezekiel 18:32).

But the Apostle uses these different expressions because, as Gregory says on Job 36:6: he gives judgment to the poor, some will perish in the future judgment without being judged, that is, the wicked who are without faith and the law: the wicked will not stand in the judgment (Psalms 1:5), namely, because there is no basis for discussion with one entirely estranged from God: he who does not believe is condemned (John 3:18).

But others who sin in spite of having received the law and faith will perish in such a way as also to be judged through a discussion held with them. Hence, it is said: I judge between sheep and sheep, rams and he-goats (Ezekiel 34:17), just as a king condemns enemies without a hearing, but citizens with a careful examination, as Gregory says.

After refuting the human judgment with which the Gentiles and Jews judged one another and commending God’s judgment, the Apostle now undertakes to show that the things in which the Jews boasted are not sufficient for their salvation.

He proceeds in two steps:

1. He states his position.
2. He answers arguments against his position, beginning with, What advantage then has the Jew? (Romans 3:1).

The Jews boasted in two things: the law and circumcision, which originated not from the law but from the patriarchs (John 7:22).

Therefore, the Apostle first shows that merely hearing or accepting the Jewish law was not enough for salvation. Second, he shows the same is true of circumcision, beginning at Circumcision indeed is of value (Romans 2:25).

Regarding the first point, he does two things:

1. He sets forth his position.
2. He clarifies it, beginning with for when the Gentiles.

Regarding the first point, he presents two things: one by rejecting an idea, the other by asserting one.

He rejects the Jewish opinion that they were made just simply by hearing the law. Therefore, he says: I have said that all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law, for the hearers of the law are not just before God—that is, not just by virtue of having heard the law, even if they are considered just before men. As it is written, everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them is like a foolish man (Matthew 7:26); and, if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who observes his natural face in a mirror (James 1:23).

Second, he declares that the doers of the law are righteous when he says, but the doers of the law will be justified. As Scripture says, everyone who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man (Matthew 7:24); be doers of the word and not hearers only (James 1:22); and, a good understanding have all those who practice it (Psalms 111:10).

But this point seems to conflict with his own statement later that by the works of the law no flesh will be justified before him (Romans 3:20). Consequently, no one is justified simply for doing the works of the law.

The answer is that "justification" can be understood in three ways. First, it can be understood in regard to reputation, where one is said to be justified when he is regarded as just: you have made your sisters appear justified (Ezekiel 16:51), that is, by reputation. In this sense, the doers of the law will be justified, meaning they are considered just before God and men.

Second, it can be understood as doing what is just. For example, this man went down to his home justified (Luke 18:14), because the tax collector performed a work of justice by confessing his sin. In this way, the statement that the doers of the law will be justified is verified, meaning they are justified by performing the justice of the law.

Third, justification can be considered in regard to the cause of justice, so that a person is said to be justified when he newly receives justice: being justified therefore by faith, let us have peace with God (Romans 5:1). It must not be supposed, however, that the doers of the law are justified as though acquiring justice through the works of the law. This cannot be accomplished either by the ceremonial works, which confer no justifying grace, or by the moral works, from which the habit of justice is not acquired. Rather, we do such works by virtue of an infused habit of justice.

Then when he says for when the Gentiles, he clarifies his position.

1. He shows that doers of the law are justified even without being hearers.
2. He shows that hearers of the law are not justified without observing the law, starting at But if you call yourself a Jew (Romans 2:17).

In regard to the first point, he does three things:

1. He mentions the worthiness of those who observe the law without having heard it.
2. He clarifies what he had said, beginning with who show the work of the law.
3. He proves it, beginning with their conscience bearing witness.

Regarding the first point, he touches on three things relating to the Gentiles.

First is their lack of the law. He says, for when the Gentiles, who have not the law—that is, the divine law, which they have not received. For the law was not delivered to the Gentiles but to the Jews: He has not dealt thus with any other nation (Psalms 147:20); when Moses commanded us a law, as a possession for the assembly of Jacob (Deuteronomy 33:4). .

From this it is clear that the Gentiles did not sin by not observing the ceremonies of the law.

Second, he commends their observance of the law when he says they do by nature those things that are of the law. This refers to the moral precepts, which flow from the dictates of natural reason. Thus Job was blameless and upright, fearing God and turning away from evil. For this reason, Job himself says: my foot has held fast to his steps; I have kept his ways (Job 23:11).

But the expression by nature causes some difficulty, for it seems to favor the Pelagians, who taught that man could observe all the precepts of the law by his own natural powers.

Therefore, by nature should be understood as nature reformed by grace. For he is speaking of Gentiles converted to the faith, who began to obey the moral precepts of the law by the help of Christ’s grace. Alternatively, by nature can mean by the natural law showing them what should be done, as in a psalm: There are many who say, ‘Who will show us some good?’ The light of your countenance, O Lord, is signed upon us (Psalms 4:6). This "light" is the light of natural reason, in which God’s image is found. All this does not rule out the need for grace to move the affections, any more than the knowledge of sin through the law (Romans 3:20) exempts one from the need for grace to move the affections.

Third, he shows their worth in that they, having not the law, are a law to themselves, insofar as they function as a law to themselves by instructing and leading themselves to the good. As the Philosopher says, law is a statement that lays down an obligation and proceeds from prudence and understanding. Therefore, it is said that the law is not laid down for the just (1 Timothy 1:9), who is not compelled by an external law, but for the lawless, who need to be compelled from without.

It is, of course, the highest level of greatness among men when they are led toward the good not by others but by themselves. The second level belongs to those who are led by others but without force. The third belongs to those who need to be forced to do good. The fourth belongs to those who cannot be directed to the good even by force: In vain have I struck your children; they took no correction (Jeremiah 2:30).

Then when he says who show, he explains how they are a law to themselves. This can be compared to an external law, which is typically delivered in writing because of memory's weakness. In contrast, those who observe the law without hearing it externally show the work of the law written not with ink, but first and foremost with the Spirit of the living God (2 Corinthians 3:3), and second, through study. As it is said, write them on the tablet of your heart (Proverbs 3:3), referring to the precepts of wisdom. For this reason, he continues here, in their hearts, not on parchment or on stone or copper tablets: I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts (Jeremiah 31:33).

Then when he says their conscience bearing witness, he proves that the work of the law is written in their hearts by citing actions that reveal its presence.

First, he mentions these actions, one of which is the witness of conscience. He touches on this when he says their conscience bearing witness, conscience being the application of one’s knowledge in judging whether an action was good or bad to do.

This conscience sometimes gives testimony of good, as in Our boast is this, the testimony of our conscience (2 Corinthians 1:12), and sometimes of evil, as in your conscience knows that you have often cursed others (Ecclesiastes 7:22).

However, no one can testify that an action is good or bad unless he has knowledge of the law. Therefore, if a conscience bears witness about good or evil, this is a clear sign that the work of the law has been written in the person's heart.

Another function of conscience is to accuse and defend, which also requires knowledge of the law.

In regard to this, he says and their conflicting thoughts accusing or also defending, following the Greek practice where the genitive case is used for "accusing" and "defending." And these thoughts are conflicting.

An accusing thought regarding an action arises in a person when he has reason to suppose that he has acted evilly: now I rebuke you and lay the charge before you (Psalms 50:21); the look on their faces bears witness against them (Isaiah 3:9).

But sometimes a defending thought arises, when he has reason to suppose that he has acted well: my heart does not reproach me for any of my days (Job 27:6). Between this accusation and defense, the testimony of conscience has the final say.

This passage, their conscience bearing witness to them, can be interpreted in another way, so that there is consciousness not only of one’s deeds but also of one’s thoughts. But the first interpretation is better.

Because testimony, accusation, and defense occur during a trial, he mentions the time when he says in the day. He says this not to designate the quality of the time but the disclosure of things that are hidden: I will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness (1 Corinthians 4:5).

Yet it is sometimes called "night" on account of the uncertainty of that hour: at midnight there was a cry (Matthew 25:6).

The accusing or defending thoughts are not those which will arise on the day of judgment, because on that day each one’s salvation or damnation will be clear to him. Rather, such thoughts as exist now, and the testimony of conscience that exists now, will be represented to a person on that day by divine power, as Augustine says in The City of God.

Indeed, as a Gloss says, the recognition of those thoughts that remain in the soul seems to be nothing less than the debt of punishment or the reward which follows them.

Then he shows the author of the judgment when he says, when God shall judge: he will judge the world with justice (Psalms 96:13).

He also describes what the judgment will concern when he says, the secrets of men—matters about which men cannot now judge. He will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness (1 Corinthians 4:5).

He also shows the teaching from which faith in this judgment is derived when he says, according to my Gospel, that is, the gospel preached by me: on the day of judgment men will render account for every careless word (Matthew 12:36).

He says according to my Gospel, although he could not say "my baptism," despite being a minister of both. This is because in baptism a person's diligence effects nothing, but in preaching the Gospel the preacher’s diligence achieves something: when you read this you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ (Ephesians 3:4).

Then he mentions the judge when he says, by Christ Jesus, who has been appointed by God to be judge of the living and the dead (Acts 10:42). The Father has given all judgment to the Son (John 5:22), who will appear to the good and the wicked during the judgment. He will appear to the good in the glory of the Godhead: your eyes will see the king in his beauty (Isaiah 33:17). But he will appear to the wicked in his human form: every eye will see him (Revelation 1:7).

After showing that the doers of the law are justified even without being hearers, which pertained to the Gentiles, the Apostle now shows that hearers are not justified unless they are doers, which pertains to the Jews.

First, therefore, he shows the Jews’ privileged state in receiving the law. Second, he shows their shortcomings in transgressing the law, beginning with the phrase, you, therefore, who teaches another.

He shows their privileged state on three counts: first, in being the race to whom the law was given; second, regarding the law itself, with the phrase, and rest in the law; and third, regarding the effect or work of the law, with the phrase, and knows his will.

Regarding race, he says, but if you are called a Jew, which is an honorable name: Judah became his sanctuary (Psalms 114:2); salvation is from the Jews (John 14:22).

They are called Jews not after Judas Maccabeus, as some say—probably on the basis that he united and protected the people when they were scattered (he gladly fought for Israel, 1 Maccabees 3:2). For the name “Jews” was in use before his time, as in Esther: the Jews had light and gladness (Esther 8:16).

Rather, it seems that the Jews were named after the patriarch Judah: Judah, your brothers shall praise you (Genesis 49:8). During the time of Rehoboam, when ten tribes seceded from his kingdom and worshipped a golden calf, they were led away captive by the Assyrians (2 Kings 17). Scripture makes no mention of their return; instead, the land remained occupied by foreigners later called Samaritans.

However, two tribes, Judah and Benjamin, remained in Rehoboam’s kingdom and persevered in the worship of God. Although they were led away captive to Babylon, they were permitted to return to their native land by Cyrus, the Persian king (Ezra 1). Then, because the tribe of Judah was the more prominent, the entire group was named after him—not only those from the tribe of Benjamin but also those from the other tribes who joined them.

When he says, and rests in the law, he mentions their privilege regarding the law.

First, regarding the law itself, he says, and rests in the law, as it certifies what they believed and did. An intellect in doubt is not at rest but is pulled in two directions; once it has the certainty of wisdom, however, it is at rest: when I enter my house, I shall find rest with her .

Second, regarding the Lawgiver, he adds, and make your boast of God, that is, in their worship and knowledge of the one God: let him who glories glory in this, that he understands and knows me (Jeremiah 9:24); let him who boasts, boast in the Lord (1 Corinthians 1:31).

Then, when he adds, and know his will, he mentions their privilege regarding the fruit of the law: first, with respect to the person himself, and second, with respect to others, with the word confident.

Regarding the first point, he mentions two fruits. The first corresponds to boasting of their relation to God, when he says, and knows his will, that is, what God wants us to do: that you may prove what is the will of God (Romans 12:2).

The second corresponds to their resting in the law, when he says, and approves the more profitable things. This means you know how to select not only good things from bad, but also better things from the less good. This is why someone asked, which is the great commandment? (Matthew 22:36). And this comes from being instructed by the law: blessed is the man whom you will instruct, O Lord, and will teach him out of your law (Psalms 94:12).

Next, he mentions the law’s fruit with respect to others, who find themselves in three different situations as far as knowledge of the law is concerned.

Some are completely ignorant of the law because they lack natural ability, just as a person is physically blind because they lack the power of sight: we grope for the wall like the blind (Isaiah 59:10). To such people, the light of knowledge cannot be given to enable them to see for themselves what to do. Instead, they must be led, as the blind are led, by commanding them to do this or that, even though they do not understand the reason for the command: I became an eye to the blind (Job 29:15); they are blind and leaders of the blind (Matthew 15:14).

Others are ignorant due to a lack of training, being, as it were, in outer darkness and not enlightened by teaching. To such people, a wise person can offer the light of training so that they will understand what is commanded. This is why he says, a light for those who are in darkness: to give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death (Luke 1:79).

Second, he addresses those who are on the way to a knowledge they have not yet attained. This can be due to a lack of full instruction; hence he says, an instructor of the foolish, that is, of those who have not yet received wisdom. They are said to be instructed when they are freed from the ignorance present in everyone from the beginning: Do you have children? Discipline them .

This can also be due to their young age, as with children. Hence he says, a teacher of infants: where is the teacher of little ones? (Isaiah 33:18).

A third group is already advanced in knowledge, but they need instruction from the wise in order to possess the authoritative sayings of wisdom as their rule or pattern. Regarding this, he says, having the form of knowledge: follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me (2 Timothy 1:13); mark those who so live as you have an example in us (Philippians 3:17).

However, people patterned in this way must be instructed by the authority of their ancestors so that they may know what has been handed down in the law. Therefore, he says, of knowledge: wisdom gave him knowledge of holy things .

This is also necessary so that they may know the true understanding of what has been handed down. That is why he says, and of truth: send out your light and your truth (Psalms 43:3).

Then, when he says, you who teaches another, he indicates some of their failings. First are their failings toward themselves, when he says, you who teaches another, teaches not yourself.

This can be taken as a question asked with a tone of indignation or with a tone of mildness that nevertheless suggests wickedness on their part, as it does in Job: Behold, you have instructed many... but now it has come to you, and you are impatient (Job 4:3–5).

Second are their failings toward their neighbor. First, regarding things taken secretly, when he says, you who preaches against stealing, steals. Your princes are rebels and companions of thieves (Isaiah 1:23).

Second, regarding defiling another person through adultery, when he says, you who say men should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? They are all adulterers, like a heated oven (Hosea 7:4); each neighing for his neighbor’s wife (Jeremiah 5:8).

Third, he indicates their failings with respect to God. First, they sin against His worship, when he says, you, who abhors idols, commits sacrilege by abusing the things of divine worship.

This they did during the time of the Old Law: you profane it when you say that the Lord’s table is polluted (Malachi 1:12), and later, when they blasphemed Christ: it is only by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons (Matthew 12:24).

Second, they sin against His glory, when he says, you, who makes your boast of the law, by transgression of the law dishonors God.

For just as observing the law through good works gives others an occasion to honor God, so transgressing it through evil works gives others an occasion to blaspheme: that they may see your good deeds and glorify God (1 Peter 2:12).

Hence, he says, Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be defamed (1 Timothy 6:1), and in a psalm it is said, I look at the faithless with disgust, because they do not keep your commands (Psalms 119:158).

In support of this, he quotes an authority, when he says, the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you, that is, because the Gentiles, observing the evil practices of the Jews, attributed it to the evil training dictated by the law.

He says, as it is written, namely, in Isaiah: their rulers wail, and continually all the day my name is despised (Isaiah 52:5) and in Ezekiel: it is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations (Ezekiel 36:22).

When he says, circumcision, he shows that circumcision is not sufficient for salvation any more than the law is, and for the same reason: without circumcision there is value in observing the law, but without observing the law, circumcision has no benefit, as was said above.

Regarding this, he does three things. First, he compares circumcision to the circumcised Jews. Second, he compares it to the uncircumcised Gentiles, with the phrase, if then, the uncircumcised. Third, he explains what he had said, with the phrase, for he is not a Jew who is so outwardly.

Regarding the first point, he does two things: first, he shows how circumcision is valuable; and second, how it is not, with the phrase, but if you are a transgressor.

First, therefore, he says, circumcision indeed is of value, insofar as it remitted original sin; hence, it is written, any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people (Genesis 17:14). But it will benefit you as an adult if you keep the law, just as a profession of faith benefits a religious person if he keeps the rule. For circumcision is a form of profession that obligates people to observe the law: I testify again to every man who receives circumcision that he is bound to keep the whole law (Galatians 5:3).

However, the Apostle’s statement that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you (Galatians 5:2) refers to the era after grace. Here, he is referring to the time before the passion of Christ, when circumcision still had its place.

Second, with the phrase but if you are a transgressor, he shows how circumcision has no value. He says: if you, a Jewish adult, are a transgressor of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. That is, it has no more value than if you were uncircumcised, because you do not observe what you profess by circumcision: all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in heart (Jeremiah 9:26). In fact, they are more guilty for not observing what they promised: a foolish and faithless promise displeases him (Ecclesiastes 5:4).

Then, when he says, if then, the uncircumcised, he considers circumcision in relation to the Gentiles in two ways.

First, from the perspective that the Gentiles obtain the benefits of circumcision by observing the law. Hence he says: since circumcision is profitable if the law is observed, but not if it is not, then if the uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law—that is, the moral precepts of the law (all your commandments are true, Psalms 119:86)—will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision? This is as if to say that he will enjoy the fruit of true circumcision.

For a man is circumcised outwardly in the flesh in order to be circumcised in the heart: circumcise yourselves to the Lord, remove the foreskin of your hearts (Jeremiah 4:4).

Second, with the phrase and will not that which by nature, he shows that on account of observing the law, the Gentile is preferred to the Jew. Hence he says, will not he who is physically uncircumcised—that is, an uncircumcised Gentile—if he fulfills the law through natural reason, judge you, the circumcised Jew, who with the written code and circumcision are a transgressor of the law? Hence on the basis of this comparison it is written: The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation (Matthew 12:41).

Then, when he says, for he is not a Jew who is so outwardly, he gives the reason for his statements.

He does two things: first, he gives the reason why circumcision or Judaism without observance of the law is fruitless; and second, why observance of the law without Judaism and circumcision has value, with the phrase, but he is a Jew who is one inwardly.

He says, therefore, that the circumcision of one who breaks the law is uncircumcision and will be judged by the uncircumcised who obey the law, for he is not a real Jew who is one outwardly, according to physical birth: for not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel... but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as children (Romans 9:6, 8). Similarly, true circumcision is not that which appears in the flesh, for it is a sign: it shall be a sign of the covenant between you and me (Genesis 17:11). But it is not a true sign unless the reality it signifies corresponds to it. Hence, if a Jew transgressed the covenant, his circumcision would not be true; consequently, it would be regarded as uncircumcision.

Then, when he says, but he is a Jew who is one inwardly, he gives the reason why the uncircumcision of one who keeps the law is regarded as circumcision and will judge physical circumcision. The reason is that he is truly a Jew who is one inwardly, that is, whose heart is possessed by the precepts of the law, which the Jews professed: your Father who sees in secret will repay you (Matthew 6:6).

Again, true circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit—that is, made by one’s own spirit, which expels superfluous thoughts from the heart. Or it is in the spirit, meaning brought about by a spiritual understanding of the law, and not in the letter: for we are the true circumcision, who worship God in spirit (Philippians 3:3).

Then, when he says, whose praise, he proves this reasoning.

For it is obvious that in all matters, divine judgment must prevail over human judgment. Now, things that appear outwardly, such as Judaism or circumcision, are praised by men, but things that exist within are judged according to God’s judgment, because man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart (1 Samuel 16:7).

Hence, inward Judaism and circumcision prevail over the outward ones. And this is what he says: whose praise—that is, of inward circumcision—is not from men but from God: for it is not the one who commends himself who is approved, but the one whom the Lord commends (2 Corinthians 10:18).