Homilies on Romans, Homily 6

“Look, you are called a Jew, rest in the Law, boast in God, know His will, and approve the things that are more excellent, because you are instructed in the Law.” After saying that the Gentile lacks nothing needed for salvation if he does the Law, and after making that remarkable comparison, he goes on to list the honors of the Jews that made them look down on the Gentiles. First comes the name itself, which carried great dignity, just as the name Christian does now. Even then, the distinction that the name conveyed was great. So he begins with this, and see how he brings it down. He does not say, Look, you are a Jew, but you “are called” one, “and boast in God”—that is, as someone loved by Him and honored above everyone else. Here he seems to me to be gently mocking their irrationality and their mad craving for glory, because they misused this gift, using it to exalt themselves above the rest of humanity and despise them instead of securing their own salvation. “And know His will, and approve the things that are more excellent.” This is actually a disadvantage if it is not accompanied by action. Still, it seemed to be an advantage, so he describes it precisely. He does not say, You do, but, You know; and, You approve, rather than, You follow and do. Ver. 19. “And are confident that you yourself.” Here again he does not say that you are “a guide to the blind,” but that you “are confident”: this is your boast, he says. So great was the Jews’ irrationality. That is why he also repeats almost the very words they used in their boasts. Look, for instance, at what they say in the Gospels: “You were born entirely (ὅλος 4 mss. ὅλως) in sin, and do you teach us?” (John ix. 34.) They utterly despised everyone else. To convict them of this, Paul keeps praising them and lowering the others, so that he can gain a stronger hold on them and make his accusation carry more weight. That is why he keeps adding similar descriptions, making more of them by expressing them in different ways. “You are confident,” he says, “that you yourself are a leader of the blind,” Ver. 20. “An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, you who have the form of knowledge and truth that is in the Law.” Here again he does not say, In your conscience, your actions, and your good deeds, but, “in the Law.” After saying this, he does here what he did with the Gentiles. Just as he says there, “For in judging another, you condemn yourself,” so he says here too: Ver. 21. “You, then, who teach another, do you not teach yourself?” There he speaks more sharply; here he speaks more gently. He does not say, But for this reason you deserve greater punishment, because you were entrusted with such great things and have not made good use of any of them. Instead, he continues by asking questions, turning them back on themselves (ἐντρέπων), and saying, “You who teach another, do you not teach yourself?” Here I want you to notice another example of Paul’s good judgment. He lists advantages the Jews received through a gift from above, rather than through their own diligence, and shows that these are not only worthless to them if they are negligent, but even increase their punishment. Being called a Jew is no good deed of theirs, nor is receiving the Law, nor are the other things he has just listed: they come from grace from above. Near the beginning he said that hearing the Law is worthless unless doing it is added (“for it is not the hearers of the Law,” he says, “who are righteous before God”). But now he goes further and shows that not only hearing, but even teaching the Law itself, which is more than hearing, cannot protect the teacher unless he does what he says. It will not only fail to protect him; it will even bring him greater punishment. His wording is well chosen too, since he does not say, You have received the Law, but, “You rest in the Law.” The Jew did not have to wear himself out searching for what he should do, but readily had the Law to point out the way that leads to virtue. Even though the Gentiles have natural reason (and this is why these Gentiles are better than the Jews, because they do the Law without hearing it), the Jews still had an easier way. But if you say, I am not only a hearer but even a teacher, this very thing increases your punishment. Because they took pride in this, he uses it above all to show how ridiculous they are. When he says, “a guide to the blind, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants,” he is using their own pompous language. They treated converts extremely badly, and these were the names they called them. That is why he dwells at length on what were supposed to be their praises, knowing well that what he said gave grounds for a greater accusation: “You who have the form of knowledge and of the truth in the Law.” It is as if someone had a picture of the king but drew nothing from it, while those who had not been entrusted with it copied it exactly, even without the original. Then, after mentioning the advantages they had received from God, he tells them their failings, bringing forward the accusations the prophets made against them. “You, then, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that a person should not steal, do you steal? You who say that a person should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you commit sacrilege?” They were strictly forbidden to touch any of the treasures on the idols (so Field from the mss.: Vulg. “in the idol temples”) because of the defilement. But the tyranny of greed, he says, has persuaded you (4 mss. and mar. “us”) to trample this Law underfoot too. Then he brings the much more serious charge, saying: Ver. 23. “You who boast in the Law, do you dishonor God by breaking the Law?” He makes two accusations, or rather three: that they dishonor; that they dishonor the very thing through which they were honored; and that they dishonor Him Who honored them, which showed the utmost lack of feeling. Then, to avoid seeming to accuse them on his own authority, he brings in the Prophet as their accuser—here briefly and concisely, as if in a summary, but later in more detail. Here he brings in Isaiah, and afterward David, once he has shown that there is more than one ground for rebuke. To show, he means, that I am not the one saying these things to reproach you, listen to what Isaiah says. Ver. 24. “For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.” (Is. lii. 5; Ez. xxxvi. 20, 23.) See another double accusation. They not only act outrageously themselves, but even induce others to do so. What use, then, is your teaching when you do not teach yourselves? Above he merely said this, but here he has even turned it into its opposite. You fail to teach what should be done, not only to yourselves but even to others. And what is much worse, you not only fail to teach the things of the Law, but even teach their opposite: to blaspheme God, which is contrary to the Law. But circumcision, someone will say, is a great thing. Yes, I acknowledge that too, but when? When (So all mss. S. “then, when”) it has inward circumcision with it. Notice his judgment in bringing up circumcision at just the right moment. He did not begin with it immediately, since people thought so highly of it. But after showing that they had offended in something greater and were responsible for blasphemy against God, he now has the reader’s judgment against them. Having stripped them of their superiority, he introduces the discussion of circumcision, confident that no one will defend it any longer, and says: Ver. 25. “For circumcision does benefit you, if you keep the Law.” And yet, even if this were not so, someone might have rejected it and said, What is circumcision? Is it a good deed on the part of the person who has it? Does it show a right choice? It takes place at an immature age, and those in the wilderness also remained uncircumcised for a long time. From many other points of view, too, someone might regard it as unnecessary. Yet he does not reject it on this basis, but on the most appropriate ground, from Abraham’s case. This is the greatest victory: to take the very reason for showing that it matters little from the source of their reverence for it. Now he could have said that even the prophets call the Jews uncircumcised. But this disparages those who adhere to circumcision badly, rather than circumcision itself. His aim is to show that even with the very best life, it has no power at all. This is what he proves next. Here he does not bring forward the Patriarch. Having first overturned circumcision on other grounds, he saves him for later, when he introduces his discussion of faith with the words, “How, then, was it credited” to Abraham? “While he was circumcised, or while he was uncircumcised?” As long as circumcision is contending with the Gentile and the uncircumcised, he is unwilling to say anything about this, for fear of irritating them too much. But when it comes into conflict with faith, he frees himself more completely to fight it. Up to this point, then, the contest is against uncircumcision. That is why he proceeds in His discussion in a restrained tone, and says: “For circumcision does benefit you if you keep the Law; but if you are a lawbreaker, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision.” Here he speaks of two kinds of uncircumcision and two kinds of circumcision, as well as two laws. There is a natural law and a written law. But there is also one between these: the law expressed in works. See how he points out these three and brings them before you. “For when the Gentiles,” he says, “who do not have the Law.” Which Law, tell me? The written one. “Do by nature the things of the Law.” Of which Law? The one expressed in works. “These, though they do not have the Law.” Which Law? The written one. “Are a law to themselves.” How? By using the natural law. “Who show the work of the Law.” Of which law? The one expressed in actions. The written law lies outside us; the natural law is within us; and the other is in actions. Writing proclaims one, nature another, and actions another. This third is necessary, and it is for its sake that the other two, both the natural and the written, exist. If it is absent, they do no good, but even do very great harm. To show this in the case of the natural law, he said, “For in judging another, you condemn yourself.” Of the written Law he says, “You who preach that a person should not steal, do you steal?” Likewise, there are two kinds of uncircumcision: one by nature, the other from conduct; and one circumcision in the flesh, the other from the will. For example, a person has been circumcised on the eighth day: this is circumcision of the flesh. A person has done everything the Law commands: this is circumcision of the mind, which St. Paul requires above all—or rather, which the Law also requires. See now how, after granting it in words, he does away with it in practice. He does not say, Circumcision is unnecessary; circumcision has no benefit or use. What does he say instead? “Circumcision does benefit you if you keep the Law.” (Deut. x. 16; xxx. 6.) He approves it to this extent, saying, I acknowledge and do not deny that circumcision is honorable. But when? When keeping the Law accompanies it. “But if you are a lawbreaker, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision.” He does not say, It no longer benefits you, for fear of seeming to insult it. Instead, after stripping the Jew of it, he goes on to strike him. This no longer insults circumcision, but the person who has lost its benefit through negligence. When people who hold high positions are later convicted of the most serious offenses, judges strip them of the honors of their positions and then punish them. Paul has done the same. After saying, If you are a lawbreaker, your “circumcision becomes uncircumcision,” and showing him to be uncircumcised, he then condemns him without hesitation. Ver. 26. “Therefore, if the uncircumcised person keeps the righteous requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be turned into circumcision?” See how he proceeds. He does not say that uncircumcision overcomes circumcision (for this would have been very offensive to his hearers), but that uncircumcision has become circumcision. Next he asks what circumcision and uncircumcision are, and says that circumcision is doing good and uncircumcision is doing evil. First he transfers the uncircumcised person who has good deeds into circumcision, and thrusts the circumcised person who lives a corrupt life out into uncircumcision. In this way he gives the uncircumcised person the advantage. He does not say, To the uncircumcised person, but goes on to speak of the thing itself: “Will not his uncircumcision be turned into circumcision?” He does not say “credited,” but “turned into,” which is more expressive. Above, too, he does not say that your circumcision is credited as uncircumcision, but that it has become uncircumcision. Ver. 27. “And will not the uncircumcision that is natural judge?” You see, he recognizes two kinds of uncircumcision: one by nature, the other from the will. Here, however, he speaks of the natural kind. But he does not stop here; he goes on, “if it fulfills the Law, judge you, who through the letter and circumcision transgress the Law?” See his excellent judgment. He does not say that natural uncircumcision will judge circumcision. Where there is victory he brings in uncircumcision, but where there is defeat he does not present circumcision as defeated. Instead, he presents the Jew himself who had it, and so his wording avoids offending his hearer. He does not say, “You who have the Law and circumcision,” but, more gently still, “You who through the letter and circumcision transgress the Law.” That is, this uncircumcision even defends circumcision because circumcision has been wronged, and comes to the Law’s assistance because the Law has been insulted, and wins a remarkable triumph. The victory is decisive when a Jew is judged by an uncircumcised person rather than by another Jew, as when he says, “The men of Nineveh will rise in judgment against this generation and condemn it.” (Matt. xii. 41.) He is therefore dishonoring the person who disgraces the Law, rather than the Law itself, which he greatly reveres. Next, after clearly establishing these points, he confidently goes on to define what a Jew really is. He shows that the person he rejects is no Jew and is uncircumcised: he is not rejecting the Jew or circumcision. He seems indeed to defend circumcision, yet does away with the opinion people hold about it, gaining their agreement through the conclusion he reaches. He shows not only that there is no difference between the Jew and the uncircumcised person, but that the uncircumcised person even has the advantage if he takes care of himself, and that he is the one who is really the Jew. So he says: Ver. 12. “For someone who is a Jew outwardly is not a Jew.” Here he attacks them for doing everything for show. Ver. 29. “But someone who is a Jew inwardly is a Jew; and circumcision is of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter.” By saying this he sets aside everything bodily. Circumcision is outward, as are the sabbaths, sacrifices, and purifications. He alludes to all of them in a single expression when he says, “For someone who is a Jew outwardly is not a Jew.” But since so much was made of circumcision, to the point that even the sabbath gave way to it (John vii. 22), he has good reason to direct his argument especially against it. When he says “in the spirit,” he then prepares the way for the Church’s way of life and introduces faith. For faith too is in the heart and spirit, and receives its praise from God. Why does he show that the Gentile who does right is better than the Jew who breaks the Law, rather than showing that the Gentile who does right is not inferior to the Jew who does right? It was to make the victory beyond dispute. Once this is agreed, circumcision of the flesh is necessarily set aside, and the need for a good life is demonstrated everywhere. When the Greek is saved without these things, while the Jew who has them is still punished, Judaism stands by accomplishing nothing. By Greek, again, he means someone religious and virtuous, free from all the Law’s observances, rather than an idolatrous Greek. Chap. iii. ver. 1. “What advantage, then, does the Jew have?” Since he has set everything aside—hearing, teaching, the name of Jew, circumcision, and all the other particulars—by saying that “someone who is a Jew outwardly is not a Jew, but someone who is a Jew inwardly is,” he next sees an objection arise and takes his stand against it. What is this objection? If these things are useless, he means, why was that nation called, and why was circumcision given? What does he do, then, and how does he resolve it? By the same means as before. There he spoke of God’s benefits rather than their praiseworthy qualities or good deeds (for being called a Jew, knowing His Will, and approving the things that are more excellent were no good deeds of their own, but came from God’s grace. The Prophet also says this in rebuking them: “He has not done this for any nation, nor has He shown His judgments to them;” (Ps. cxlvii. 20.) and Moses again: “Ask now whether there has ever been anything like this,” he says. “Has any people ever heard the voice of God speaking from the middle of the fire and lived?”) (Deut. iv. 32, 33). He does the same here. When speaking of circumcision, he did not say, Circumcision is worthless without a good life, but, Circumcision has value with a good life, making the same point in a more restrained tone. Again, he does not say, If you are a lawbreaker, you gain nothing at all from being circumcised, but, “Your circumcision becomes uncircumcision.” After this, again, he says that “uncircumcision” will “judge,” not circumcision, but “you who transgress the Law.” In this way he spares the things of the Law and strikes at the people. He does the same here. After presenting this objection to himself and saying, “What advantage, then, does the Jew have?” he does not say, None. Instead, he agrees with the statement, then refutes it by what follows, and shows that this superiority even brought punishment on them. I will tell you how he does this after stating the objection. “What advantage, then,” he says, “does the Jew have,” or, “what benefit is there in circumcision?” Ver. 2. “Much in every way: chiefly because they were entrusted with the oracles of God.” Do you see that, as I said above, he always lists God’s benefits rather than their good deeds? And what does the word ἐπιστεύθησαν mean? (they were trusted.) It means that the Law was put into their hands because He valued them so highly that He entrusted them with oracles that came down from above. I know that some understand “entrusted” as referring to the oracles rather than the Jews, as if to say, The Law was believed. But the context does not allow this interpretation. First, he says this to accuse them and show that, despite enjoying so many blessings from above, they still showed great ingratitude. Then the context also makes this clear, for he goes on to say, “For what if some did not believe?” If they did not believe, how can some say that the oracles were believed? What, then, does he mean? That God entrusted the oracles to them, rather than that they trusted the oracles. How else will the context make sense? He goes on to say: Ver. 3. “For what if some did not believe?” What comes next makes the same point clear. He continues by adding, “Will their unbelief make God’s faithfulness ineffective?” Ver. 4. “Absolutely not.” The word ἐπιστεύθησαν, then, proclaims God’s gift. Here too I want you to notice his judgment. Again he does not bring the accusation against them on his own behalf, but as if raising an objection, as though he said, But perhaps you will say, ‘What use, then, is this circumcision, since they did not use it properly, since they were entrusted with the Law and were unfaithful to that trust?’ Up to this point he is not a harsh accuser. Instead, as if clearing God of the complaints against Him, he turns the whole accusation back on them in this way. Why, he would say, do you complain that they did not believe? How does this affect God? As for His benefit, does the ingratitude of those who received it overturn it? Or does it make the honor cease to be an honor? This is what the words mean: “Will their unfaithfulness make God’s faithfulness ineffective?” “Absolutely not.” It is as if someone said, I have honored a certain person. If he did not accept the honor, that gives no ground for accusing me and does not diminish my kindness, but shows his lack of feeling. But Paul says much more than this: their unbelief not only leaves no stain on God that could justify a complaint, but even shows His honor and love for humanity to be greater, since He is seen to have honored someone who would dishonor Him. See how he has proved them guilty of wrongdoing through the very things they gloried in. The honor God showed them was so great that, even when He saw what would come of it, He did not withhold His goodwill from them! Yet they turned the honors bestowed on them into a means of insulting Him Who honored them! Next, since he said, “For what if some did not believe?” (while clearly it was all of them who did not believe), he avoids speaking here too as the historical facts would have allowed, for fear of seeming like an enemy accusing them harshly. Instead, he presents what actually happened as an argument and a syllogism, saying, “Yes, let God be true, but every person a liar.” What he says is something like this: I do not mean, he says, that some did not believe; if you like, suppose that all were unbelieving. In this way he sets aside what actually happened to accommodate the objector, so that he might seem overbearing or arouse suspicion. Well, he says, in this way God is all the more justified. What does “justified” mean? That if there could be a trial and an examination of what He had done for the Jews and what they had done toward Him, God would have the victory, and He would be entirely in the right. After showing this clearly from what he said before, he next introduces the Prophet as also approving these things and saying, “That You might be justified in Your words, and acquitted when You are judged.” (Ps. li. 4.) He, for His part, did everything, but even this did them no good. Then he brings forward another objection that arises, and says: Ver. 5. “But if our unrighteousness demonstrates God’s righteousness, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous Who inflicts punishment? I speak as a man.” Ver. 6. “Absolutely not.” Again he resolves one difficulty by another. But since this is not clear, we must explain it more clearly. What, then, does he mean? God honored the Jews; they insulted Him. This gives Him the victory and shows the greatness of His love for humanity, because He honored them even as they were. Since, then, he means, we insulted Him and wronged Him, God became victorious through this very thing, and His righteousness was clearly shown. Why, then, someone may say, should I be punished, when the insult I offered Him caused His victory? How does he answer this? As I was saying, by introducing another absurdity. If you were the cause of the victory, he says, and are then punished, that is an act of injustice. But if He is not unjust, and yet you are punished, then you are not the cause of the victory after all. Notice his apostolic reverence; (or caution: εὐλάβεια); after saying, “Is God unrighteous Who inflicts punishment?” he adds, “I speak as a man.” That is, he means, as if someone were arguing in the way people reason. God’s righteous judgment far exceeds what seems just to us, and has other grounds that cannot be expressed. Next, since the point was unclear, he says the same thing again: Ver. 7. “For if God’s truth has abounded more through my lie, to His glory, why am I still judged as a sinner?” If God, he means, is shown by your acts of disobedience to be a Lover of humanity, righteous, and good, you should not only be exempt from punishment but even receive benefits. But if so, the result will be the absurdity so widely circulated: that good comes from evil and evil is the cause of good. One of two things must follow: either He is plainly unjust in punishing, or, if He does not punish, He gains His victory from our vices. Both are utterly absurd. Intending to show this too, he introduces the Greeks (i.e. heathens) as the originators of these opinions, thinking that pointing to the character of the people who say such things is enough to refute the claim he has mentioned. At that time they used to ridicule us by saying, “Let us do evil so that good may come.” That is why he states it clearly in the following words. Ver. 8. “If not (as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil so that good may come? Their condemnation is just.” Paul said, “Where sin abounded, grace abounded much more” (Rom. v. 20). Ridiculing him and twisting his words to mean something else, they said, We must cling to vice so that we can obtain what is good. But Paul did not say this. It is to correct this notion that he says, “What then? Shall we continue in sin so that grace may abound? Absolutely not!” (ib. vi. 1, 2.) I said this, he means, about the past, not so that we should make a practice of it. To lead them away from this suspicion, he said that from now on this was even impossible. “For how,” he says, “can we who are dead to sin live in it any longer?” He attacks (κατέδραμεν) the Greeks without difficulty, since their lives were extremely depraved. But even if the Jews’ lives seemed to have been careless, they still had powerful ways of concealing these things behind the Law and circumcision, the fact that God had spoken with them, and their position as everyone’s teachers. That is why he strips them even of these things and shows that they brought them greater punishment. This is the conclusion to which he has brought his discussion here. If they are not punished for acting this way, he would say, that blasphemous saying—Let us do evil so that good may come—must necessarily gain acceptance. But if this is impious, and those who say it will be punished (for he declared this by saying, “Their condemnation is just”), it is clear that they are punished. If those who say it deserve punishment, much more do those who act on it. And if they deserve it, it is because they have sinned. For the one punishing them is God, Who does everything righteously, rather than a human being whose sentence someone might suspect. But if they are punished righteously, those who ridicule us said what they did unrighteously. For God did and does everything so that our way of life might shine and be upright in every respect. Let us, then, avoid negligence, for in this way we will also be able to bring the Greeks back from their error. But when we love wisdom in words while behaving disgracefully in our actions, how can we face them? How can our lips speak about doctrines? The Greek will say to each of us, How can you, who have failed in lesser things, claim to teach me about greater things? You have not yet learned that greed is a vice; how can you be wise about the things of heaven? But do you know that it is a vice? Then the accusation is greater, because you transgress knowingly. And why do I speak of the Greek? Even our own laws do not allow us to speak so boldly when our lives have become depraved. For it says, “To the sinner God says, What right do you have to declare my statutes?” (Ps. l. 16.) There was a time when the Jews were taken captive, and when the Persians pressed them and called on them to sing those divine songs, they said, “How can we sing the Lord’s song in a foreign land?” (Ps. cxxxvii. 4.) Now if it was unlawful to sing God’s oracles in a foreign land, much less may an estranged soul do so. For the merciless soul is estranged. If the Law made those who were captives and had become slaves to people in a foreign land sit in silence, much more should those who are slaves to sin and live in an alien community (πολιτείᾳ) have a curb on their mouths. Yet they had their instruments then. For it says, “On the willows in its midst we hung our instruments,” but still they were not allowed to sing. So we too, though we have a mouth and tongue, the instruments of speech, have no right to speak boldly as long as we are slaves to sin, which is more tyrannical than any barbarian. Tell me, what can you say to the Greek if you plunder and are greedy? Will you say, Abandon idolatry, acknowledge God, and keep away from gold and silver? Will he not laugh at you and say, Speak this way to yourself first? For it is not the same thing for a Gentile to practice idolatry and for a Christian to commit this same (4 mss. om. “same”) sin. How can we draw others away from that idolatry if we do not draw ourselves away from this one? We are more closely related to ourselves than our neighbor is, so when we do not persuade ourselves, how can we persuade others? If someone who does not manage his own household well will not take care of the Church either (1 Tim. iii. 5), how can someone who does not even govern his own soul put others right? Now do not tell me that you do not worship a gold image. Show me clearly that you do not do what gold commands you. There are different kinds of idolatry: one person takes mammon as his lord, another his belly as his god, and a third some other utterly destructive lust. But “you do not sacrifice oxen to them as the Gentiles do.” Yet you do something much worse: you butcher your own soul. But “you do not kneel and worship.” Yet with greater obedience you do everything they command, whether it is your belly, money, or the tyranny of lust. This is precisely what makes Gentiles disgusting: they made gods of our passions, calling lust Venus, anger Mars, and drunkenness Bacchus. So even if you do not carve images as they did, you still eagerly bow beneath the very same passions when you make the members of Christ members of a prostitute and plunge into other acts of wickedness. (1 Cor. vi. 15.) I therefore urge you to take to heart how utterly disgraceful this is and flee from idolatry—for that is what Paul calls greed—and to flee not only greed for money, but also greed in evil desire, in clothing, in food, and in everything else, since the punishment we will suffer if we disobey God’s laws is much more severe. For He says, “The servant who knew his Lord’s will” and did not do it “will be beaten with many lashes.” (Luke xii. 47.) To escape this punishment, then, and be useful both to others and to ourselves, let us drive all wickedness out of our souls and choose virtue. In this way we will attain the blessings to come. May we all be granted these through the grace and love for humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ, with Whom to the Father, together with the Holy Spirit, be glory, honor, and power, now and always, forever and ever. Amen.