Thomas Aquinas Commentary Romans 3

1. After showing that Judaism—which involved receiving the law and circumcision—is not sufficient for salvation without observing the law, he now raises an objection to his own doctrine. Through observing the law, the Gentile, without external Judaism and circumcision, obtains the fruit of both. The Apostle now objects to his own teaching:

1. First, he presents the objection.

2. Second, he answers it, at much every way.

2. First, he objects: If what I am saying is true—that is, that the true Jew and true circumcision are not something outward but inward in the heart—what advantage then has the Jew? In other words, what has been given to the Jew more than to others? It seems to be nothing. But this is not fitting, since the Lord had said: the Lord, your God, has chosen you to be a people for his own possession (Deuteronomy 7:6). Or what is the profit of circumcision, that is, outward circumcision? From his previous teaching, it seems there is no value. But this is not fitting, since it was instituted by God, who says: I am the Lord, your God, who teaches you unto profit (Isaiah 48:17).

3. Then when he says much every way, he answers the objection. He does this:

1. First, in regard to Judaism’s prerogative.

2. Second, in regard to the value of circumcision, at what shall we say then? (Romans 4:1).

Regarding the first point, he does two things:

1. First, he shows Judaism’s prerogative.

2. Second, he rejects their boasting over the Gentiles, at what then? Do we excel them? (Romans 3:9).

Regarding this first point, he does three things:

1. First, he states his position.

2. Second, he explains it, at first indeed.

3. Third, he excludes an objection, at for what if some.

4. First, therefore, he says: The question is raised, what advantage does the Jew have? The advantage is both quantitative, which is indicated when he says much, and comprehensive, which is indicated when he says in every way.

For they have an advantage both in contemplating divine matters—in Judah God is known (Psalms 76:1)—and in the provision of temporal things: he has not dealt thus with any other nation (Psalms 147:20). They have further advantages relating to their ancestors, to the promises, and to their offspring: to whom belongs the adoption as of children and the glory and the testament (Romans 9:4).

In each of these there is no small advantage, but great and important ones, which are summed up when he says much. For a person’s greatest good lies in knowing God, clinging to God, and being instructed by God: blessed is the man whom you teach out of your law (Psalms 94:12).

5. Then when he says first indeed, he explains his statement, saying: first indeed, that is, the chief advantage is that the words of God were committed to them, as to his friends: I have called you friends (John 15:15). This is important, because the words of God are trustworthy—the ordinances of the Lord are true and just altogether (Psalms 19:9)—and pleasant: how sweet are your words to my taste (Psalms 119:103)—and useful for avoiding sin: I have laid up your word in my heart, that I may not sin against you (Psalms 119:11).

6. Then when he says for what if some of them, he excludes an objection:

1. First, he presents it.

2. Second, he rejects it by showing its consequences, at shall their unbelief.

3. Third, by showing that the consequence is unfitting, at but God is true.

7. Someone could belittle the Jews’ prerogative by citing their ingratitude, by which they would seem to have nullified the value of God’s message. Hence he says, what if some of them have not believed? Does this show that the Jew has no advantage, especially in light of 2 Peter: it would have been better for them never to have known the way of justice than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandments delivered to them (2 Peter 2:21)?

For they did not believe the Lawgiver—they had no faith in his promises (Psalms 106:24)—or the prophets: for you are among unbelievers and destroyers (Ezekiel 2:6)—or the Son of God: if I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? (John 8:46).

8. Then when he says shall their unbelief, he excludes this objection by showing the unsuitable conclusion it produces. For if the Jews’ prerogative were taken away on account of the unbelief of some, it would follow that human unbelief would nullify God’s faithfulness—which is an unacceptable conclusion. This is what he says: shall their unbelief, namely, of those who have not believed, make the faith of God without effect?

This can be understood in two ways. First, as referring to the faith by which one believes in God. For the faith of believers is not nullified by those who have not believed, because the evil in some members of society does not nullify the good in other members: some of them he blessed and exalted and some of them he made holy and brought near to himself; some he cursed and brought low, and he turned them out of their place . This is against those of whom Augustine says in The Letter to the People of Hippo: "What other motive inspires them and what else do they discuss save that when a bishop or cleric or monk or nun falls, they believe that all are such, but not all can be exposed?"

Second, it can be understood as referring to the faith with which God is faithful in keeping his promises: he who promised is faithful (Hebrews 10:23). This faithfulness would be nullified if the Jews had no advantage simply because some did not believe. For God promised to multiply that people and make it great: I will multiply your descendants (Genesis 22:16).

9. Then when he says, God forbid! But God is true, he shows that it is unfitting for God’s faithfulness to be nullified on account of human unbelief.

1. First, he gives a reason for this.

2. Second, he cites a text, at as it is written.

3. Third, he excludes a false understanding of this text, at but if our injustice.

10. The reason is based on the fact that God in himself is true—the Lord is the true God (Jeremiah 10:10); this is the true God and life eternal (1 John 5:20)—and every man a liar: I said in my consternation: men are all a vain hope (Psalms 116:11). Hence, it is plain that human mendacity or unbelief in not adhering to the truth does not nullify God’s truth or faithfulness.

This is easier to understand if we consider that truth implies agreement between a thing and the understanding. Our intellect derives its knowledge from things; consequently, the existence of the thing is the cause and measure of our truth. An opinion is called true or false depending on whether or not the thing is as stated. Hence, our understanding can be true or it can be false, since it can be in agreement or disagreement with reality. But whatever can either exist or not exist needs an actor to bring it into being; otherwise, it remains non-existent. Just as air remains dark without a light source, so our intellect by itself remains in falsehood unless it is enlightened by the first truth. Therefore, by himself, every person is false in his intellect and is true only by participating in the divine truth: send out your light and your truth (Psalms 43:3).

The divine intellect, on the other hand, is the cause and measure of all things. For this reason, it is unfailingly true in itself, and everything else is true to the extent that it conforms to that intellect. Similarly, considering truth from the perspective of the thing itself, a human being does not possess truth in himself, because his nature can be turned into nothing. Only the divine nature, which is not produced from nothing and cannot be turned into nothing, possesses truth in itself.

11. Then when he says as it is written, he proves his statement on the authority of a text in a psalm: that you may be justified in your words and may overcome when you are judged (Psalms 51:4). How this is relevant can be understood by considering what the Psalmist said just before it.

For he says just before this, against you, you only, have I sinned, and then: that you may be justified in your words and may overcome when you are judged. God, through the prophet Nathan, had promised David that he would establish his kingdom forever in his offspring (2 Samuel 7:16). But later, when David fell into serious sin, namely, adultery and murder (2 Samuel 11:2 and following), some said that on account of these sins God would not keep the promises made to him.

12. Hence, the Psalmist’s intention relates to two things. First, that God’s justice, which involves keeping his promises, is not changed on account of sin. Regarding this, he says, that you may be justified in your words, that is, that you may be shown to be just in your words, since you do not disregard them because of my sins: all the words of my mouth are righteous (Proverbs 8:8); the Lord is faithful in all his words (Psalms 145:13).

Second, that God’s promise overcomes human judgment. And this is what he says, and may overcome, namely, by keeping your promise, when you are judged, namely, by men who claim that on account of my sins you did not keep your promises. Be not overcome by evil, but overcome evil by good (Romans 12:21) is said to humans; accordingly, it is even truer of God.

13. It should be noted that God’s promise to David was to be fulfilled in Christ’s Incarnation. Hence it was a predestinative prophecy, in which something is promised as destined to be fulfilled in every way. In contrast, something promised or foretold by a prophecy of warning is not predicted as destined to be fulfilled in every way, but according to human merit, which can change.

Therefore, if the promise made to David had not been fulfilled, it would have been detrimental to God’s justice. However, the non-fulfillment of a promise made through a prophecy of warning is not detrimental to God’s justice, but indicates a change in human merit. Hence it is written: if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, and if that nation turns from its evil, I will repent of the evil that I intended to do to it (Jeremiah 18:7). Therefore, it is plain, according to this sense, that human sin does not negate God’s faithfulness.

14. The Gloss presents other interpretations of this text, but they are not closely related to the Apostle’s intention. The first is that these words are linked with the words, wash me more thoroughly from my iniquity (Psalms 51:2), so that you may be justified, that is, appear just, in your words, in which you promised pardon to sinners. This was not only in Ezekiel, because these words were written before that, but also in Leviticus: if they make amends for their iniquity, then I will remember my covenant (Leviticus 26:41), and Deuteronomy: if, led by repentance of heart, you turn to God, the Lord your God will bring you back, and have compassion on you (Deuteronomy 30:1–3). Thus, you may overcome when you are judged by men who say that you ought not to pardon me.

15. Second, these words are connected with the verse against you only have I sinned, that is, in comparison with you who alone are just. And this is what he means when he says that you may be justified, that is, may you appear just in comparison to me and other sinners—the Lord is just, and loves justice (Psalms 11:7)—and this not only in deeds but also in your words, which is the greatest of all according to James, if anyone does not offend in word (James 3:2). And may overcome when you are judged, that is, when you are compared to anyone else in judgment: judge between me and my vineyard (Isaiah 5:3).

16. Third, these words are referred to Christ, who alone is without sin—he committed no sin; no guile was found on his lips (1 Peter 2:22)—and is, therefore, justified in his words as compared to all people. And overcome sin, death, and the devil—the Lion of the tribe of Judah has conquered (Revelation 5:5)—when you are judged unjustly by Pilate: your cause has been judged as that of the wicked (Job 36:17).

17. Then when he says, but if our wickedness, he excludes a false understanding of the text he cited. For someone might understand these words in a causal sense, not a consecutive one, so that that implies cause. Then it would follow that human sin would be directly ordained to commend God’s justice.

But the Apostle shows that this is false. Hence he says that that is used consecutively, on the grounds that David sinned and then the manifestation of divine justice followed, but not causally, as if a person’s sin commended God’s justice. He proves this by showing that it leads to an unacceptable conclusion in two ways:

1. First, on the part of divine judgment.

2. Second, on the part of human judgment.

In regard to the first he does three things:

1. First, he presents the false sense.

2. Second, he shows that something unfitting follows from this, at what shall we say? Is God unjust.

3. Third, he shows that it is unfitting, at God forbid!

18. It should be noted that the Apostle had previously made two comparisons: in the first, he compared divine truth to human falsity when he said: but God is true and every man a liar; in the second, he compared God’s justice to human sin, in the words of a psalm, where it is said: against you, you only, have I sinned (Psalms 51:4), that you may be justified.

Regarding the first comparison, he says: if these words are taken to mean that our iniquity directly commends God’s justice, what shall we say? In other words, we could not accept the unacceptable conclusion that follows. For sin is not necessary for God to have his justice commended: he does not desire a multitude of faithless and useless children .

19. He explains the unacceptable conclusion that follows, when he says: is God unjust, who executes wrath, that is, vengeance for sin? For this follows from the premise. If sin were directly ordained to commending justice, it would not be deserving of punishment but of reward. Consequently, God would be unjust in punishing people for sin, contrary to what is stated in Deuteronomy: God is faithful and without iniquity (Deuteronomy 32:4).

20. He rejects this unacceptable conclusion when he says God forbid, that God is unjust. I speak according to man, that is, I say these words not from my own understanding but from the perspective of a person in error, as is said: for while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh? (1 Corinthians 3:3).

21. He shows why this must not be admitted, adding: otherwise, namely, if God is unjust, how shall God judge this world? In other words, how could he be the universal and supreme judge of the world? For it is necessary that the first and highest item in every class be unerring, just as the first mover is unchangeable. Hence it is written: I will judge the world with justice (Psalms 96:13). A similar argument is presented in Job: of a truth God will not do wickedly, and the Almighty will not pervert justice. Who gave him charge over the earth and who laid on him the whole world? (Job 34:12–13). In other words: if he were not to judge justly, it would be necessary to suppose that someone else is judge of the world.

22. Then when he says for if the truth, he shows the same on the part of human judgment. He does three things:

1. First, he presents the false understanding of the above words.

2. Second, he shows the unfitting conclusion that follows, at why am I also yet judged.

3. Third, he shows that it is unfitting, at whose damnation.

23. He expresses the false understanding based on the comparison of divine truth to human falsity, when he says: but if through my lie, that is, on account of my lie, the truth of God, being manifested, has more abounded unto his glory, then human falsehood directly brings about an increase of glory. This is contrary to what is stated in Job: does God need you to speak deceitfully for him? (Job 13:7).

24. Then he adds two unacceptable conclusions that follow. One is that a person should not be regarded as a sinner for lying, on the grounds that it is directly ordered toward God’s glory. And this is what he says: why am I, that is, even now, yet judged by men as a sinner for being false? Whereas wickedness is fearful, it bears witness of its condemnation , because sinners are condemned by the judgment of all.

The other unacceptable conclusion is that it supports the false accusation made against the apostles. For they preached that through the abounding grace of Christ the debt for an abundance of sins was paid, as is stated below: where sin abounded, grace did more abound (Romans 5:20). For this the apostles were slandered, as if they preached that people should do evil so that good may come. This would follow if human falsehood directly commended God’s grace and truth. Therefore, he says: and why not do evil by sinning and teaching falsehood, that there may come good, that is, that God’s truth and justice be commended, as we are slandered—when slandered, we try to conciliate (1 Corinthians 4:13)—and as some affirm that we say, by twisting our words: which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16).

25. He rejects these unacceptable conclusions when he says whose damnation is just, that is, the damnation of those who do evil so that good may come. For just as it is not correct to deduce truth from falsity, so it is wrong to reach a good end through evil means: why does the way of the wicked prosper? Why do all who are treacherous thrive? (Jeremiah 12:1).

Or, whose, namely, of those who accuse us of this falsely, damnation is just. For those who pervert sacred doctrine are justly condemned: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book (Revelation 22:18).

1. After showing the Jews’ advantage over the Gentiles regarding God’s blessings, the Apostle now rejects their vainglory, by which they set themselves above Gentiles who had converted to the faith.

   First, he states his point; second, he proves it, beginning with the phrase for we have already charged.

2. First, therefore, he says: I have asked what advantage the Jew has. The first is that God’s words were delivered to them. What then shall we Jews say to those who have converted to the faith? Do we excel them, namely, those Gentiles converted to the faith? For this was a matter discussed among them: a dispute also arose among them, which of them was to be regarded as the greatest (Luke 22:24). He answers this when he says, by no means.

3. But this seems to contradict an earlier statement, which said that their advantage was much in every way (Romans 3:2).

   The Gloss explains that in the first statement, the Apostle was thinking of the Jews in the time of the law, but now he is speaking of the time of grace. As is written in Colossians, Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised (Colossians 3:11), since these make no difference regarding the state of grace.

   However, this explanation does not seem to be entirely consistent with the Apostle’s intention. Later, he will show that even while they were under the law, they were under the power of sin, just as the Gentiles were, and even more so: This is Jerusalem; I have set her in the center of the nations, with countries all around her. And she has wickedly rebelled against my rules more than the nations (Ezekiel 5:5–6).

   Therefore, it seems that above he was showing the excellence of God’s blessings; consequently, he did not say that the Jew was more excellent, but that something greater had been conferred on the Jew. Here he is rejecting the notion that they are excellent as persons, because despite receiving God’s blessings, they did not use them properly.

4. Then, when he says for we have already charged, he proves his point: first, that the Jews do not excel the Gentiles regarding the state of sin; second, regarding the state of righteousness, at but now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law.

   He establishes the first point in two ways: first, from what has been stated above; second, from an authority, at as it is written.

5. First, therefore, he says: we have already charged, that is, we have supported with reasons, that Jews and Greeks, that is, Gentiles, are all under sin. From the sole of the foot even to the head, there is no soundness in it (Isaiah 1:6).

   For he showed, first, that the Gentiles suppressed the truth they knew by their wickedness and injustice; second, that the Jews, after receiving the law, dishonored God by transgressing it.

6. Then when he says as it is written, he establishes his point by the authority of the Psalmist. First, he quotes him; second, he explains, at now we know.

   Regarding the first, he does two things: first, he mentions sins of omission; second, sins of commission, at Their throat.

   He touches on the sins of omission in two ways: first, by removing the sources of good works; second, by removing the good works themselves, at all have turned aside.

7. Now there are three sources or principles that make a work good. One of these pertains to the justice of the work, namely, righteousness, which he says is lacking: There is no one righteous (Psalms 14:3). The godly has perished from the earth, and there is no one upright among mankind (Micah 7:2).

   No one is righteous can be interpreted in three ways. One way is to mean that no one is righteous in and of himself; by his own power, everyone is a sinner, and it is from God that he is righteous: The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious... forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty (Exodus 34:6–7).

   Another way it means that no one is completely righteous but has some sin, according to Proverbs: Who can say, “I have made my heart clean”? (Proverbs 20:9), and Ecclesiastes: Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins (Ecclesiastes 7:20).

   In a third way, it can be understood as referring to the wicked members of a people, among whom no one is just. For it is the custom of Scripture sometimes to speak of an entire people in terms of its evil members and sometimes of its good members. For example, in Jeremiah, it is stated that when Jeremiah finished saying everything the Lord had commanded him to say to the entire people, the priests and prophets and all the people seized him, saying he must be put to death (Jeremiah 26:8 and following). Then it is added: Then the officials and all the people said to the priests and the prophets, “This man does not deserve the sentence of death” (Jeremiah 26:16).

   However, the first two meanings seem to be more in keeping with the Apostle’s intent, and the same must be said for what follows.

8. The second element that makes a work good is intellectual discernment, whose absence is declared when he says, there is no one who understands. They have neither knowledge nor understanding (Psalms 82:5); he refuses to understand (Psalms 36:3).

9. The third element is a right intention, whose absence is described when he says, there is no one who seeks God, namely, by directing his intention toward Him: It is time to seek the LORD, that he may come and rain righteousness upon you (Hosea 10:12).

10. Then he removes the good works themselves.

    First, he cites offenses against the divine law when he says, All have turned aside, namely, from regulation by divine law: they have all turned to their own way (Isaiah 56:11).

    Second, he cites the failure to pursue the proper end; therefore he adds, together they have become worthless. For we call something worthless that does not attain its end. Therefore, when men turn from God, for whom they were made, they are rendered worthless: the offspring of the ungodly will be of no use .

    Third, he excludes the good works themselves when he adds, there is no one who does good. They are skilled in doing evil, but how to do good they know not (Jeremiah 4:22).

11. He adds, not even one. This can be taken exclusively, to mean: except the One who alone did good by redeeming the human race. One man among a thousand I found, but a woman among all these I have not found (Ecclesiastes 7:28).

    Or it can be taken inclusively, to mean: there is not even one pure man doing good, that is, what is perfect. Search her squares to see if you can find a man, one who does justice and seeks truth (Jeremiah 5:1).

12. Then when he says Their throat, he mentions the sins of commission: first, sins of speech; second, sinful deeds, at Their feet are swift. The sins of the heart can be gathered from these.

13. Regarding sins of speech, he mentions four things. First is their readiness and foulness, when he says: Their throat is an open sepulcher.

    An open grave has two features. It is ready to receive the dead. According to this, a man’s throat is said to be an open grave when it is prepared to utter deadly remarks, in the manner described by Jeremiah: their quiver is an open tomb (Jeremiah 5:16). Second, it exudes a foul odor: You are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people's bones and all uncleanness (Matthew 23:27). Therefore, a person from whose mouth proceeds the foul odor of filthy remarks has a throat that is an open grave: fire and smoke and sulfur came out of their mouths (Revelation 9:17).

14. Second, regarding sins of speech, he touches on deception when he says, with their tongues they use deceit, having one thing in their heart and another in their words: their tongue is a deadly arrow; it speaks deceitfully (Jeremiah 9:8).

15. Third, he mentions the havoc wrought by their words when he says: The venom of asps is under their lips, because they utter words that kill their neighbor either spiritually or bodily: Their wine is the poison of serpents and the cruel venom of asps (Deuteronomy 32:33).

16. Fourth, he designates the abundance of these sins when he says: Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness. They have an abundance of curses, for they curse by slandering others, contrary to what he says below: bless and do not curse (Romans 12:14).

    And bitterness, since they do not hesitate to say insulting words to their neighbor’s face, being provoked by bitterness, contrary to what is written in Ephesians: Let all bitterness... be put away from you (Ephesians 4:31).

17. Then when he says Their feet are swift, he touches on sinful deeds, regarding which he mentions three things.

    First is their readiness to do evil. Therefore he says, Their feet are swift, that is, their inclinations, to shed blood, that is, to commit any serious sin, because among the sins committed against our neighbor, murder is the most grievous: their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed innocent blood (Proverbs 1:16).

18. Second, he touches on the number of injuries they inflict on others when he adds: in their paths, that is, in their deeds, are ruin, because they crush others by oppressing them: it is in his heart to destroy (Isaiah 10:7); and misery, since they deprive men of their goods and reduce them to wretchedness: they take away the clothing of the naked (Job 24:10).

    Yet these two, ruin and misery, can be taken as designating the punishment rather than the sin. Then the sense is: in their paths are ruin and misery, that is, their deeds, which are signified as paths, lead them to misery. In this case, ruin would refer to the oppressive punishment they suffer for their sins: so that he is shattered like an earthen vessel (Isaiah 30:14), and misery to the punishment of damnation, because they will be refused eternal happiness: miserable are they, and their hopes are on dead things .

19. Third, he shows their persistence in evil, from which men are turned back in two ways.

    One way is by a desire to be at peace with others. Against this he says, the way of peace they have not known, that is, have not accepted: I am for peace, but when I speak, they are for war (Psalms 120:7). Another way is by the fear of God; but they neither fear God nor respect man (Luke 18:2). Therefore he adds, There is no fear of God before their eyes, that is, in their plans: The fear of the Lord drives out sins, for a man without fear cannot be justified .

    This could also refer in a particular way to the Jews who did not believe in Christ: that they have not known the way of peace, namely, Christ, of whom it is written: he himself is our peace (Ephesians 2:14).

20. Then when he says Now we know that whatever the law says, he explains the text he quoted in three ways: first, by expounding its sense; second, its intention, at so that every mouth may be stopped; third, he gives the reason for his words, at For by works of the law.

21. It should be noted that the Jews, against whom the Apostle was speaking, could, to excuse themselves, distort the meaning of the text he cited and claim that it referred to the Gentiles, not to the Jews.

    But the Apostle rejects this, saying: Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, that is, to whom the law is given and who profess the law: Moses commanded us a law (Deuteronomy 33:4). But the Gentiles were not under the law; accordingly, the above words pertain to the Jews.

22. Two objections are raised here. The first is that the above words were not taken from the law but from a psalm.

    The answer is that the word law is sometimes taken to mean the entire Old Testament, not just the five books of Moses, as in John: It is to fulfill the word that is written in their Law: ‘They hated me without a cause’ (John 15:25), which was written in the Old Testament, not in the five books of Moses. This is the way law is used here.

    Again, the Old Testament is sometimes divided into three parts, namely, the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets, as in Luke: that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled (Luke 24:44).

    Finally, the entire Old Testament is sometimes divided into two, namely, the Law and the Prophets, as in Matthew: On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets (Matthew 22:40). In this sense, the Psalter is included under the Prophets.

23. The second objection is that in the law, that is, in the Old Testament, many things are said that pertain to other nations, as is clear in many passages of Isaiah and Jeremiah, where many statements are directed against Babylon and other nations. Therefore, not everything that the law says speaks to and about those who are under the law.

    The answer is that whatever it says in general terms seems to be directed to those to whom the law has been given. But when the Scripture speaks of others, it mentions them by name, as when it is written: the oracle concerning Babylon, the oracle concerning Tyre, and so on. Furthermore, whatever was said against other nations in the Old Testament was somehow directed to the Jews, since misfortune was foretold for their consolation or fear. In the same way, any preacher should say what pertains to his audience, not what pertains to others: Declare to my people their transgression (Isaiah 58:1), as if to say: not others’ transgressions.

24. Then when he says so that every mouth may be stopped, he states the intent of the cited text, for Sacred Scripture accuses all of injustice for two reasons.

    First, to suppress their boasting, by which they considered themselves righteous, as in Luke: I fast twice a week (Luke 18:12). In regard to this he says, so that every mouth may be stopped, which presumptuously attributes righteousness to itself: the mouths of liars will be stopped (Psalms 63:11); Talk no more so very proudly (1 Samuel 2:3).

    Second, so that recognizing their guilt, they might subject themselves to God as the sick to a physician. Therefore he continues: and the whole world may be held accountable to God, that is, not only the Gentiles but the Jews also, after recognizing their guilt: For God alone my soul waits in silence (Psalms 62:1).

25. Then when he says For by works of the law, he assigns the reason for these words. First, he assigns the reason; second, he explains it, at for through the law.

26. First, therefore, he says: the reason there is no one righteous is that no human being will be justified in his sight by works of the law, that is, according to His judgment. As is stated in Galatians: if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose (Galatians 2:21), and in Titus: he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy (Titus 3:5).

27. However, a work of the law is of two kinds. One is peculiar to the Mosaic law, such as the observance of ceremonial precepts. The other is a work of the law of nature, because it pertains to the natural law, such as You shall not murder, you shall not steal, and so on.

    Now some take the Apostle’s words as referring to the first kind of works, namely, that the ceremonials did not confer the grace through which people are made righteous.

    But this does not seem to be the Apostle’s intent, for he immediately adds: for through the law comes knowledge of sin. It is clear that sins are made known through prohibitions contained in the moral precepts. Consequently, the Apostle intends to say that by no works of the law, not even those commanded by the moral precepts, is a person justified in the sense that righteousness is caused by works, because, as he states below: And if by grace, then it is no longer on the basis of works (Romans 11:6).

28. Then when he says, for through the law, he proves his statement that the works of the law do not justify.

    For the law is given so that a person might know what to do and what to avoid: He has not dealt thus with any other nation; they do not know his rules (Psalms 147:20); For the commandment is a lamp and the teaching a light (Proverbs 6:23). But from the fact that a person knows a sin he should avoid because it is forbidden, it does not immediately follow that he avoids it, for this pertains to the nature of righteousness. This is because sinful desire subverts the judgment of reason, especially when considering a specific action to be performed. Therefore, the law is not enough to make a person righteous; another remedy is needed to suppress sinful desire.

1. After showing that Jews and Gentiles are equal regarding their prior state of guilt, the Apostle now shows that they are also equal regarding their subsequent state of grace.

   In this regard, he does three things:

   1. He states his teaching.

   2. He explains something he had presupposed, at or is he the God of the Jews only? (Romans 3:29).

   3. He answers an objection, at do we then destroy the law? (Romans 3:31).

   Concerning the first point, he does three things:

   1. He states his teaching.

   2. He reveals it, at for there is no distinction.

   3. He draws the intended conclusion, at where is then your boasting? (Romans 3:27).

   Concerning the first of these, he does three things:

   1. He states the relationship between justice and the law.

   2. He gives the cause of justice, at even the justice of God.

   3. He shows that such justice is available to all, at unto all.

2. First, he presents a twofold comparison or relationship of justice to the law.

   The first is that justice is not caused by the law. This is what he says: It has been stated that previously God’s justice could not exist by the works of the law, either because the Just One himself fulfills the promises about human justification—for I say that Christ was minister of the circumcision for the truth of God (Romans 15:8)—or, rather, it refers to God’s justice, by which a person is justified by God, of which it says below: not knowing the justice of God (Romans 10:3).

   This justice of God, I say, is now—that is, in the time of grace—made manifest by the teachings of Christ, by his miracles, and by the evidence of the fact, since it is clear that many have been divinely made just. And this is without the law, meaning, without the law causing justice: you are severed from Christ, you who had been justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace (Galatians 5:4); soon my salvation will come, and my justice will be revealed (Isaiah 56:1).

3. But so that no one would suppose that this justice is contrary to the law, second, he presents another relationship of justice to the law when he says, being witnessed by the law and the prophets.

   The law bears witness to Christ’s justice by foretelling and prefiguring it: if you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote of me (John 5:46). It also bore witness by its effect, for since it could not justify, it testified that justice was to be sought elsewhere.

   The prophets bore witness by foretelling it: to him all the prophets bear witness (Acts 10:43).

4. Then he identifies the cause of this justice, saying, the justice of God is through the faith of Christ Jesus. This can mean the faith which he delivered—looking to Jesus the perfecter of our faith (Hebrews 12:2)—or the faith which is held concerning him: for if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you shall be saved (Romans 10:9).

   God’s justice is said to exist through faith in Christ Jesus, not as if we merit justification by faith, as though faith originates from ourselves and through it we earn God’s justice, as the Pelagians assert. Rather, it is because in the very act of justification, by which we are made just by God, the first movement of the mind toward God is through faith: whoever would draw near to God must believe (Hebrews 11:6). Therefore, faith, as the first part of justice, is given to us by God: by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing; for it is the gift of God (Ephesians 2:8).

   But this faith, from which justice comes, is not the unformed faith about which James says, faith without works is dead (James 2:26). Instead, it is faith formed by charity: for in Christ Jesus neither circumcision is of any value without faith (Galatians 5:6), through which Christ dwells in us. That Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith (Ephesians 3:17), which does not happen without charity: he who abides in love abides in God and God in him (1 John 4:16). This is the faith about which it is said, he cleansed their hearts by faith (Acts 15:9), a cleansing that does not occur without charity: love covers all offenses (Proverbs 10:12).

5. And so that no one would suppose that only the Jews are made just through this faith, third, he shows that this justice is common to all when he adds, unto all. In other words, this justice is in the heart, not in physical observances. Concerning these, Hebrews says that carnal observances were directed to the justification of the flesh, being regulations for the body and imposed until the time of reformation (Hebrews 9:10). He adds, And upon all, because it transcends human power and merit: not that we are sufficient of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us (2 Corinthians 3:5).

   He adds, who believe in him, which refers to the living faith by which a person is justified, as has been stated.

6. Then when he says, for there is no distinction, he makes plain what he had said concerning three things:

   1. The common availability of justice.

   2. Its cause, at being justified freely.

   3. Its manifestation, at to the showing of his justice.

7. First, therefore, he says that the justice of God is in all and over all who believe in Christ. For in this matter there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile, as it says, in Christ Jesus there is not gentile and Jew (Colossians 3:11). This means there is no distinction, as if the Jew does not need to be made just by God in the same way the Gentile does. For all have sinned, as has been shown above—all we like sheep have gone astray (Isaiah 53:6)—and for this reason need the glory of God.

   This “glory of God” refers to the justification that results in God’s glory. Furthermore, a person should not ascribe this glory to himself: not to us, O Lord, not to us, but to your name give glory (Psalms 115:1); give glory to God (Psalms 66:2).

8. Consequently, because all have sinned and cannot be justified by themselves, they need some other cause to make them just. The Apostle indicates this cause when he continues, being justified.

   First, he shows that such justification exists without the law—that is, it does not come from the works of the law—when he says, being justified freely. This means it is without the merit of previous works: you were sold for nothing and you shall be redeemed without money (Isaiah 52:3). And this is by his grace, namely, God’s grace, to whom glory is due for this reason: by the grace of God I am what I am (1 Corinthians 15:10).

9. Second, he shows the cause of justification. First, he reveals the cause itself when he says, through the redemption.

   For as it is said, everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin (John 8:34). A person is redeemed from this slavery if he makes satisfaction for sin. For example, if a man owed a king a fine for some guilty action, the one who paid the fine would be said to have redeemed him from the debt. This debt involved the whole human race, which was infected by the sin of the first parent. Therefore, no one else could satisfy for the sin of the entire human race except Christ alone, who was immune from all sin.

   Hence, he adds, that is in Christ Jesus. This is as if to say that redemption could be in no other: not with perishable things, such as silver and gold (1 Peter 1:18).

10. Second, he shows why this redemption is effective when he says, whom God has proposed to be a propitiation.

    Christ’s satisfaction was effective for justifying and redeeming because God had assigned him to this in his plan. He indicates this when he says, whom God has proposed to be a propitiation: according to the purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will (Ephesians 1:11).

    Alternatively, proposed means that God put him forward for all, because the human race had no way of making satisfaction unless God himself gave them a redeemer and one who makes satisfaction: he sent redemption to his people (Psalms 111:9).

    And so, by making satisfaction, he redeems us from the debt of sin and obtains pardon for our sins, which the Psalmist pleaded for: be propitious to our sins (Psalms 79:9). This is why he calls him a propitiation (1 John 2:2). As a figure of this, it was commanded in Exodus that a propitiatory (that is, Christ) be placed on the ark (that is, the Church) (Exodus 25:17).

11. Third, he indicates how the effect of redemption reaches us when he says, through faith in his blood—that is, faith concerning his blood poured out for us.

    To satisfy for us, it was appropriate for him to undergo the penalty of death for us, a penalty humanity had incurred by sin, as indicated in Genesis: in the day that you eat of it you shall die (Genesis 2:17). Thus, 1 Peter states, for Christ also died for sins once for all (1 Peter 3:18). This death of Christ is applied to us through faith, by which we believe that the world has been redeemed by his death: I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me (Galatians 2:20). For even among people, a payment made by one person does not benefit another unless the other accepts it as valid.

    And so it is clear how justification comes through faith in Jesus Christ, as was stated above.

12. Because he had stated above that God’s justice is now revealed, he now considers this revelation. First, he addresses the manner of this revelation, saying, to the showing. It is as if to say: I say that we are justified by the redemption of Christ and by faith in his blood to the showing of his justice, that is, so that God might show his justice, and this for the remission of former sins.

    For in remitting former sins—which the law could not remit, nor could people by their own power sufficiently prevent—God showed that the justice by which they are made just by God is necessary for humanity. But only through the blood of Christ could both present and past sins be remitted, because the power of Christ’s blood works through a person’s faith. This is the same faith that people who lived before his passion had, just as we have: since we have the same spirit of faith . . . we too believe (2 Corinthians 4:13).

    Hence, another way of reading it is: for the remission of the sins of those people who preceded the passion of Christ: he will tread our iniquities under foot and he will cast all our sins into the depth of the sea (Micah 7:19).

13. Second, he shows the time of its revelation when he adds, through the forbearance of God, for the showing of his justice in this time. This is as if to say that former sins before the passion of Christ were passed over through the forbearance of God, held, so to speak, under a certain divine support. This is because he neither damned believers and penitents for them nor completely absolved them, in the sense that they could enter into glory despite their sins.

    Alternatively, according to another reading, it can mean that the holy fathers themselves were in God’s forbearance, because they were held in limbo, not suffering physical pain but waiting to enter into glory through the passion of Christ: wait for the forbearance of God . For this purpose, I say, previous sins and the ancient fathers were passed over through the forbearance of God, namely, for the showing of his justice in this time. This means that in this time of grace he might reveal his justice perfectly by granting full remission of sins: now is the acceptable time; now is the day of salvation (2 Corinthians 6:2). And this is what he had said above: that God’s justice is now revealed.

    Until this present time, former sins had been passed over in the forbearance of God in order to convince humanity of its lack of knowledge—since in the time of the law of nature people fell into errors and degrading sins—and of its lack of power, since even after the written law gave knowledge of sin, people still sinned through weakness.

14. Third, he shows that by remitting sins, God’s justice is shown, whether this is understood as the justice by which God himself is just or as the justice by which he justifies others.

    Hence he continues, that he himself may be just. This means that by remitting sins, God may appear to be just in himself, both because he remitted sins as he had promised and because it belongs to God’s justice to destroy sins by leading people back to his own justice: the Lord is righteous, he loves just deeds (Psalms 11:7).

    And he is also the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus Christ, that is, the one who approaches God through faith in Jesus Christ: whoever would draw near to God must believe (Hebrews 11:6).

1. After showing that Jews have no advantage over the Gentiles either regarding sin or righteousness, he now presents his intended conclusion by rejecting the boasts through which they considered themselves superior to the Gentiles.

He does three things:

1. He proposes that this boasting be excluded.

2. He gives the reason for this exclusion, in the phrase by what law.

3. He explains the way it is excluded, in the phrase for we account.

2. Regarding the first point, he does two things:

1. He raises a question: since you, a Jew, are under sin just as the Gentile is, and the Gentile is made righteous by faith just as you are, where is then your boasting, by which you glory in the Law, as stated above, and on this ground wish to consider yourself superior to the Gentile? Your boasting is not good (1 Corinthians 5:6); let us have no self-conceit, envying one another (Galatians 5:26).

2. He answers this, saying, it is excluded, that is, it is taken away: the glory has been taken away from Israel (1 Samuel 4:21); I will change their glory into shame (Hosea 4:7).

Alternatively, excluded means “clearly revealed.”

For the Jews gloried in the glory and worship of the one God, and he says that their glory was excluded—that is, pressed out by Christ, just as artists who press out an image in silver are called “excluders,” in keeping with the Psalm, that they might exclude those who were tried by silver (Psalms 67:31).

But the first meaning is more literal.

3. Then, with the phrase by what law, he states the cause of this exclusion.

Since the Jews’ boasting was about the Law, as was stated above, it seemed that their boasting had to be excluded by something of the same kind—that is, by some law. Therefore, he asks by what law their boasting is to be excluded?

For someone might suppose that the Apostle means their boasting was excluded by certain legal precepts which commanded greater works. That is why he asks, of works? It is as if he is asking, “Am I saying that their boasting has been excluded by some law of works?” But he answers: no, but by the law of faith.

So it is clear that the Apostle alludes here to two laws: that of works and that of faith. At first glance, it would seem that by the law of works he means the Old Law and by the law of faith the New Law, through which the Gentile is made equal to the Jew.

4. But there is some doubt about this distinction.

For even in the Old Law faith was necessary, just as it is in the New: you who fear the Lord believe him ; I believed; therefore I have spoken (Psalms 116:10). And indeed, works are required in the New Law—namely, the works of certain sacraments, as commanded in Luke, do this in memory of me (Luke 22:19), and of moral precepts: be doers of the word and not hearers only (James 1:22).

Therefore, it should be said that what he calls the law of works is the Law outwardly presented and written, which directs people's external works by prescribing what they ought to do and forbidding what ought to be avoided. But what he calls the law of faith is the law inwardly written, which directs not only external works but even the very movements of the heart, among which the act of faith is first: with the heart, we believe unto justice (Romans 10:10). He speaks of this second law below: the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:2).

5. Then when he says, for we account, he shows how the Jews’ boasting is excluded by the law of faith, saying: for we apostles, being taught the truth by Christ, account a man, whoever he may be, whether Jew or Gentile, to be justified by faith: he cleansed their hearts by faith (Acts 15:9). And this is without the works of the law.

This is not only without the ceremonial works, which did not confer grace but only signified it, but also without the works of the moral precepts, as stated in Titus, not because of deeds done by us in justice (Titus 3:5). This, of course, means without works that come before being made righteous, but not without the works that follow it. For, as is stated in James, faith without works (James 2:26)—that is, works that follow—is dead, and, consequently, cannot justify.

6. Then when he says or is he the God of the Jews only, he explains something he had presupposed: namely, that the righteousness of faith applies equally to all.

He had previously explained this with a reason based on the material cause, when he stated above that all have sinned and need the glory of God (Romans 3:23)—that is, they are sinners who need to be made righteous by the grace of God. But a proof based solely on the material cause is not enough, because matter is not moved to a form by itself but requires an agent cause. Accordingly, he now presents a proof based on the agent cause—that is, the justifier, who is God: God is he who justifies (Romans 8:33).

Now it is clear that our God, by justifying, saves those whose God He is, according to a psalm: our God is a God of salvation (Psalms 68:20). But He is the God not of the Jews only but of the Gentiles also; therefore, He justifies both.

7. On this point he does three things:

1. He raises a question concerning the Jews, when he says, is he the God of Jews only? It might seem that He is, because it says in Exodus, the God of the Hebrews called us (Exodus 5:3).

   Therefore, it must be said that He was the God of the Jews alone by the special worship they paid to Him; hence it is stated in a psalm: in Judah God is known (Psalms 76:1). Yet He was the God of all by His common reign over all things, as is stated in a psalm: God is king of all the earth (Psalms 47:8).

2. He raises the question from the side of the Gentiles, saying, is he not also of the gentiles? and he answers: yes, of gentiles also, whom He governs and rules: who would not fear you, O king of the nations? (Jeremiah 10:7).

3. With the phrase for it is one God, he demonstrates what he had said with a proof. It is as if to say: it is clear that He is the God not only of the Jews but also of the Gentiles, for it is one God who justifies circumcision—that is, the Jews—from faith, as is said in Galatians, in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail (Galatians 5:6).

8. According to the Gloss, from faith and through faith are exactly the same. However, a slight difference can be noted.

For the preposition “from” sometimes designates a remote cause, while the preposition “through” designates a nearer cause. Therefore, the Jews are said to be justified from faith because faith was the first cause from which circumcision and the other sacraments of the Law proceeded; thus, faith justified the Jews as a primary cause acting through intermediate causes. But the Gentiles are justified by faith itself, directly.

9. Then when he says do we then destroy, he refutes an objection.

For someone might claim that he is overthrowing the Law mentioned before; therefore, he asks: do we then destroy the law through faith, since we say that people are justified without the works of the Law?

He answers: God forbid! in keeping with Matthew, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law (Matthew 5:18). Rather, he adds: but we establish the law—that is, by faith we complete and fulfill the Law, as Matthew says, I have come not to abolish the law but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17).

This is true regarding the ceremonial precepts because, since they were figures, they were upheld and fulfilled when the truth they signified was revealed in the faith of Christ. This is also true regarding the moral precepts, because the faith of Christ provides the help of grace to fulfill the moral precepts of the Law. It even adds special counsels, through which the moral precepts are kept more safely and securely.