Thomas Aquinas Commentary Romans 3:1-8

"What advantage then hath the Jew? or what is the profit of circumcision? Much every way: first of all, that they were intrusted with the oracles of God. For what if some were without faith? shall their want of faith make of none effect the faithfulness of God? God forbid: yea, let God be found true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy words, And mightest prevail when thou comest into judgment. But if our righteousness commendeth the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who visiteth with wrath? (I speak after the manner of men.) God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world? But if the truth of God through my lie abounded unto his glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner? and why not (as we are slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say), Let us do evil, that good may come? whose condemnation is just." — Romans 3:1-8 (ASV)

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).