Thomas Aquinas Commentary Romans 4:11-15

"and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while he was in uncircumcision; that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be in uncircumcision, that righteousness might be reckoned unto them; and the father of circumcision to them who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham which he had in uncircumcision. For not through the law was the promise to Abraham or to his seed that he should be heir of the world, but through the righteousness of faith. For if they that are of the law are heirs, faith is made void, and the promise is made of none effect: for the law worketh wrath; but where there is no law, neither is there transgression." — Romans 4:11-15 (ASV)

1. Having shown that the blessing of the forgiveness of sins is obtained not only in circumcision but also in uncircumcision—because Abraham was justified while he was still uncircumcised—the Apostle now responds to an objection.

   For someone could say that if Abraham was justified before circumcision, then he was circumcised without reason and for no purpose.

   To address this objection, he does three things:

   1. First, he states that circumcision was not the cause but the sign of righteousness.

   2. Second, he shows what Abraham obtains from this sign, in the phrase that he might be the father.

   3. Third, he shows how he obtains it, in the phrase not to those only.

2. Regarding the first point, he does two things. First, he states that circumcision is a sign: you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin and it shall be a sign of the covenant between you and me (Genesis 17:10).

   Second, he shows what it is a sign of, saying it is a seal of the righteousness of the faith—that is, the righteousness that comes through faith. This is the faith which is in uncircumcision, meaning the faith Abraham had while he was still uncircumcised.

3. The word Seal is used in two ways. In one way, a seal is a visible sign that has a likeness to the thing it signifies, as in Ezekiel: you were the seal of likeness, full of wisdom (Ezekiel 28:12). Circumcision had this visible likeness to Abraham’s faith. First, concerning what he believed: Abraham believed that his offspring would be multiplied, so it was fitting to receive the sign in the organ of reproduction. Second, concerning the effect of his faith, namely, the removal of fault, which is signified by the removal of the foreskin.

   In another way, seal means a sign that hides something to be revealed to friends, as is clear in the case of a sigillo (seal): worthy are you, who were slain, to take the scroll and to open its seals (Revelation 6:9). In this sense, the secret of the Incarnation of Christ from the seed of Abraham was enclosed under the seal of circumcision.

4. Next, he shows what follows from what has been said. Because Abraham was justified by faith while still uncircumcised and later received circumcision, he obtains the honor of being the father not only of the circumcised but also of uncircumcised believers. This is what he says: that he might be the father. From this, it comes about that Abraham might be the father of all those who believe, being uncircumcised—that is, of those who are in a state of uncircumcision. Abraham is their father through uncircumcision, by virtue of what he had while uncircumcised, that unto them also it may be reputed to righteousness. This means their faith is counted as righteousness, just as it was for Abraham. The power of this fatherhood is indicated in Matthew: God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham (Matthew 3:9). He is also the father of circumcision, for those who derive their origin from him, as they said, Abraham is our father (John 8:39).

5. Then he shows the way he is the father of the uncircumcised: by imitation. This is what he says: that he might be the father… not to those only who are of the circumcision, but to those also who follow the steps of the faith that is in the uncircumcision of our father Abraham. This refers to the faith Abraham had while he was still uncircumcised, as Jesus said: if you were Abraham’s children, you would do what Abraham did (John 8:39).

6. Since we are speaking of circumcision, it is appropriate to consider three things about it: why it was instituted, what power it had, and why it was changed.

7. Regarding the first question, it should be noted that circumcision, like the other ceremonies of the Law, was instituted for two purposes.

   The first purpose was for divine worship, for which people were prepared through these ceremonies.

   In keeping with this, circumcision had three reasons for its institution:

   1. To signify the faith and obedience by which Abraham submitted to God, so that those who accepted Abraham’s circumcision would also observe his faith and obedience. For it is stated in Hebrews: by faith Abraham was circumcised (Hebrews 4:11). Thus, circumcision was instituted to signify his faith in future descendants, as has been stated.

   2. To express in a bodily sign something that was to occur spiritually. Just as the foreskin was removed from the organ of reproduction, which is the chief servant of concupiscence, so every superfluous desire should be removed from a person’s heart. As Jeremiah says: circumcise yourself to the Lord, remove the foreskin of your hearts (Jeremiah 4:4).

   3. To distinguish the people worshipping God from all other peoples. This is why God commanded circumcision for the children of Israel, who were to live among other nations after first living alone and uncircumcised in the desert.

8. The other purpose of circumcision and all the ceremonies is based on their relationship to Christ, to whom they are compared as a figure to the reality and as members to the body: these are only a shadow of what is to come, but the body belongs to Christ (Colossians 2:17).

   Accordingly, bodily circumcision signifies the spiritual circumcision to be accomplished by Christ. This happens in two ways:

   1. First, in the soul, as it is through Him that concupiscence and the effects of sin are removed: in him, namely Christ, also you were circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ (Colossians 2:11).

   2. Second, in the body, when in the resurrection all possibility of suffering and death is removed from the bodies of the elect. For this reason, circumcision took place on the eighth day, because it signified the eighth era (the age of resurrection). The seventh era is for those who are at rest in Christ, while the other six are the eras during which the world runs its course. Furthermore, circumcision was done with knives of stone (Joshua 5:2) to signify that spiritual circumcision was to be accomplished by the rock, who is Christ, as is said (1 Corinthians 10:4). However, it was not the general practice to use a knife made of stone.

9. Regarding the second question—what power circumcision had—it should be noted that, as the Gloss says here (quoting from Bede), during the law, circumcision offered the same curative help against the wound of original sin as baptism is accustomed to give in the era of revealed grace. This shows that the power of circumcision extended to the removal of original sin.

   However, some say that grace was not conferred in circumcision, for God’s grace cannot be present without righteousness. But the Apostle says in Galatians: if justification were through the law, then Christ died to no purpose (Galatians 2:21).

   We can argue in the same way: if justifying grace came through circumcision, Christ died for no reason. But this cannot be, for sin is never forgiven without grace: justified by his grace we have peace with God (Titus 3:7).

   Therefore, others say that grace was conferred in circumcision to produce privative effects (that is, to remove guilt) but not positive effects (that is, the work of righteousness).

   But this does not seem fitting either, because the positive effects of any form naturally precede the privative effects. For example, light does not expel darkness except by illuminating. Similarly, grace expels guilt by producing righteousness. If the prior is removed, the subsequent is also removed.

   Therefore, it is better to say that ex opere operato (by the work performed), circumcision did not have the power to remove guilt or produce righteousness. It was merely a sign of righteousness, as the Apostle says here. But through faith in Christ, of which circumcision was a sign, it did remove original sin and confer the grace needed to act righteously.

10. Regarding the third question, it is clear from what has been said why circumcision had to be changed. It was a sign of something to come, but the same sign is not suitable for the present, past, and future. Therefore, baptism, as the sign of present grace, produces a more abundant and beneficial effect, because the closer an agent is in time and place, the more effectively it works.

11. Then, with the phrase for not through the law, he explains his statement that neither circumcision nor any work of the Law could justify a person by virtue of a divine promise.

    In this regard, he does two things:

    1. First, he states his proposition.

    2. Second, he proves it, beginning with the phrase for if they who are of the law.

12. First, the Apostle takes from the authority of Genesis the promise made to Abraham and his seed that he should be heir of the world. This means that all the nations of the world would be blessed in him: by you all the families of the earth shall be blessed (Genesis 12:3).

    He says, and to his seed, because even though this promise was not to be fulfilled in Abraham himself, it was to be fulfilled in his descendants: by your seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed (Genesis 22:18).

    This seed is principally understood to be Christ: now the promises were made to Abraham and to his seed. It does not say, ‘and to seeds,’ referring to many, but referring to one (Galatians 3:16). In the one in whom it is to be fulfilled, it is shown that he would be heir of the world: ask of me and I will make the nations your heritage (Psalms 2:8). Secondarily, it is fulfilled in those who, through Christ’s grace, are spiritually the seed of Abraham: the children of the promise are accounted for the seed (Romans 9:8). Through Christ, they inherit the world, since all things are for the glory of the elect: all are yours and you are Christ’s (1 Corinthians 3:22).

13. Regarding this promise, he denies one thing and asserts another.

    He denies that such a promise came through the Law. This is not said about the promise itself, because the Law had not been given at the time of the promise. Rather, it refers to the fulfillment of the promise. The meaning is that the promise was not made to Abraham as something to be fulfilled through the Law, because, as it is said, the law made nothing perfect (Hebrews 7:19).

    What he asserts is that such a promise was to be fulfilled through the righteousness of faith, because the saints through faith conquered kingdoms (Hebrews 11:33).

14. Then, with the phrase for if they, he proves his statement. He addresses two points:

    1. First, the denial that the promise is fulfilled through the Law.

    2. Second, the assertion that it is fulfilled through the righteousness of faith, which he addresses at therefore it is of faith (Romans 4:16).

    Regarding the first point, he presents this argument: If the promise made to Abraham were to be fulfilled through the Law, then Abraham’s faith in that promise would be nullified, because the promise itself would be abolished. But this is not acceptable. Therefore, the premise (that the promise is fulfilled through the Law) is false.

    In making this argument, he does two things:

    1. First, he presents a conditional statement.

    2. Second, he proves it, beginning with for the law.

    The falsehood of the consequent (the result of the "if" clause) is obvious.

15. First, therefore, he says that the promise was not made through the Law.

    For if they who are of the law are to be the heirs—that is, if sharing in the promised inheritance requires one to obtain it by observing the Law—then faith is made void. This means the faith by which Abraham believed God’s promise in Genesis 15 would be futile. But this is inconsistent with what is stated in 1 Corinthians: if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins (1 Corinthians 15:17).

    Why faith would be futile is shown when he adds, the promise is made of no effect. It is emptied, because it does not produce its effect. But this is contrary to what is stated in Hebrews, she considered him faithful who had promised (Hebrews 11:11), and to what is stated in this chapter: whatsoever he has promised, he is able also to perform (Romans 4:21).

16. Then, with the phrase for the law, he proves the conditional statement by showing the effect of the Law.

    1. First, he states the effect of the Law.

    2. Second, he proves it, beginning with for where there is no law.

17. He proves the conditional statement this way: If a promise is to be fulfilled through something that prevents its fulfillment, then that promise is void and the faith of believers is futile. But the Law prevents one from obtaining the inheritance, for the law works wrath. Therefore, if the promise is to be fulfilled through the Law, faith is made void: the promise is made of no effect.

    The Law is said to bring wrath, or vengeance, because through the Law people were made deserving of God’s vengeance: great is the wrath of the Lord that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not obeyed the words of this book, that is, of the Law (2 Kings 22:13).

    Someone might suppose that the Law brings wrath only concerning the legal ceremonies when they are observed in the era of grace, in line with Galatians: if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you (Galatians 5:2). However, what is stated here refers even to the moral precepts. This is not because they command something that makes their observers deserving of God’s wrath, but because the Law commands what is right without conferring the grace to fulfill it. According to 2 Corinthians, the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life (2 Corinthians 3:6), because the Spirit also helps our infirmity (Romans 8:26).

18. Then, with the phrase for where there is no law, he shows how the Law brings wrath, saying: for where there is no law, neither is there transgression. This is because even though a person without a given law could sin by acting against natural justice, he is not called a transgressor unless he violates a specific law: I looked at the transgressors with disgust, because they did not keep your commands (Psalms 118:158). Yet every sinner can be called a transgressor, inasmuch as he transgresses the natural law: I have accounted all the sinners of the earth transgressors (Psalms 118:119).

    However, it is more grievous to transgress both the law of nature and the written law at the same time than to transgress the law of nature alone. Therefore, when the Law was given without the help of grace, transgression increased and deserved greater wrath.