Romans 2:14–29

Therefore, in this, we seem to hear the voice of the Lord, which prohibits some things and commands others. And so, if anyone does not obey those things which we believe have once been commanded by God, he is considered subject to punishment. However, the commandment of God is not written with ink on stone tablets, but is impressed in our hearts by the spirit of the living God. Therefore, our own opinion becomes its own law. For if the Gentiles, who do not have the law, naturally do what the law requires, they themselves are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written on their hearts. Therefore, human opinion is to itself as the law of God.

And indeed, according to the tenor of your question, it is certain that the Law, which was given by Moses, was not necessary. For had men been able to keep the natural Law, which our God and Maker implanted in the breast of each, there would have been no need of the Law, which, written on tables of stone, tended rather to entangle and fetter the infirmity of human nature, than to set at large and liberate it. Now that there is a natural Law written in our hearts the Apostle also teaches us, when he writes, that for the most part the Gentiles, which have not the Law, do by nature the things contained in the Law, and, though they have not read the Law, have yet the works of the Law written in their hearts.

Paul calls the Gentiles Christians because he is the teacher of the Gentiles, as he says elsewhere: "For I speak to you Gentiles." These people are uncircumcised and do not keep new moons or the sabbath or the law of foods, yet under the guidance of nature they believe in God and in Christ, i.e., in the Father and the Son. To keep the law is to acknowledge the God who gives the law. This is the first part of wisdom: to stand in awe of God the Father, from whom all things come, and the Lord Jesus his Son, through whom all things come. Therefore nature itself acknowledges its Creator by its own judgment, not by the law but by reason, for the creature recognizes its Maker in itself.

The same argument applies to our values, which are affected by social factors, but if they are caused by them we cannot know that they are right. One can reject morality as an illusion, but the man who does so often tacitly excepts his own ethical motive: for instance the duty of freeing morality from superstition and of spreading enlightenment.

Classical political theory, with its Stoical, Christian, and juristic key-conceptions (natural law, the value of the individual, the rights of man), has died. The modern State exists not to protect our rights but to do us good or make us good — anyway, to do something to us or to make us something. Hence the new name 'leaders' for those who were once 'rulers'. We are less their subjects than their wards, pupils, or domestic animals. There is nothing left of which we can say to them, 'Mind your own business.' Our whole lives are their business.

But of course that was not what Clare meant. She meant that he had not only a legal but a moral right to act as he did. In other words, Clare is — or would be if she thought it out — a classical moralist after the style of Thomas Aquinas, Grotius, Hooker and Locke. She believes that behind the laws of the state there is a Natural Law.

I agree with her. I hold this conception to be basic to all civilization. Without it, the actual laws of the state become an absolute, as in Hegel. They cannot be criticized because there is no norm against which they should be judged.

All the human beings that history has heard of acknowledge some kind of morality; that is, they feel towards certain proposed actions the experiences expressed by the words 'I ought' or 'I ought not'. These experiences resemble awe in one respect, namely that they cannot be logically deduced from the environment and physical experiences of the man who undergoes them. You can shuffle 'I want' and 'I am forced' and 'I shall be well advised' and 'I dare not' as long as you please without getting out of them the slightest hint of 'ought' and 'ought not'. ... Morality, like numinous awe, is a jump; in it, man goes beyond anything that can be 'given' in the facts of experience. ... This consciousness is neither a logical, nor an illogical, inference from the facts of experience; if we did not bring it to our experience we could not find it there. It is either inexplicable illusion, or else revelation.

This law was called the Law of Nature because people thought that every one knew it by nature and did not need to be taught it. They did not mean, of course, that you might not find an odd individual here and there who did not know it, just as you find a few people who are colour-blind or have no ear for a tune. But taking the race as a whole, they thought that the human idea of decent behaviour was obvious to every one. And I believe they were right. If they were not, then all the things we said about the war were nonsense. What was the sense in saying the enemy were in the wrong unless Right is a real thing which the Nazis at bottom knew as well as we did and ought to have practised? If they had had no notion of what we mean by right, then, though we might still have had to fight them, we could no more have blamed them for that than for the colour of their hair.

I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature or decent behaviour known to all men is unsound, because different civilisations and different ages have had quite different moralities. But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own.

The law of gravity tells you what stones do if you drop them; but the Law of Human Nature tells you what human beings ought to do and do not. In other words, when you are dealing with humans, something else comes in above and beyond the actual facts. You have the facts (how men do behave) and you also have something else (how they ought to behave). In the rest of the universe there need not be anything but the facts. Electrons and molecules behave in a certain way, and certain results follow, and that may be the whole story. But men behave in a certain way and that is not the whole story, for all the time you know that they ought to behave differently.

Consequently, this Rule of Right and Wrong, or Law of Human Nature, or whatever you call it, must somehow or other be a real thing—a thing that is really there, not made up by ourselves. And yet it is not a fact in the ordinary sense, in the same way as our actual behaviour is a fact. It begins to look as if we shall have to admit that there is more than one kind of reality; that, in this particular case, there is something above and beyond the ordinary facts of men's behaviour, and yet quite definitely real—a real law, which none of us made, but which we find pressing on us.

I do not succeed in keeping the Law of Nature very well, and the moment anyone tells me I am not keeping it, there starts up in my mind a string of excuses as long as your arm. The question at the moment is not whether they are good excuses. The point is that they are one more proof of how deeply, whether we like it or not, we believe in the Law of Nature. If we do not believe in decent behaviour, why should we be so anxious to make excuses for not having behaved decently? The truth is, we believe in decency so much—we feel the Rule of Law pressing on us so—that we cannot bear to face the fact that we are breaking it, and consequently we try to shift the responsibility. For you notice that it is only for our bad behaviour that we find all these explanations. It is only our bad temper that we put down to being tired or worried or hungry; we put our good temper down to ourselves.

[Arguing that the Moral Law is not reducible to herd instinct, but is a higher principle that judges between instincts]

Now I do not deny that we may have a herd instinct: but that is not what I mean by the Moral Law. We all know what it feels like to be prompted by instinct—by mother love, or sexual instinct, or the instinct for food. It means that you feel a strong want or desire to act in a certain way. And, of course, we sometimes do feel just that sort of desire to help another person: and no doubt that desire is due to the herd instinct. But feeling a desire to help is quite different from feeling that you ought to help whether you want to or not. Supposing you hear a cry for help from a man in danger. You will probably feel two desires—one a desire to give help (due to your herd instinct), the other a desire to keep out of danger (due to the instinct for self-preservation). But you will find inside you, in addition to these two impulses, a third thing which tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help, and suppress the impulse to run away. Now this thing that judges between two instincts, that decides which should be encouraged, cannot itself be either of them. You might as well say that the sheet of music which tells you, at a given moment, to play one note on the piano and not another, is itself one of the notes on the keyboard. The Moral Law tells us the tune we have to play: our instincts are merely the keys.

[Arguing that the existence of moral progress proves an objective moral standard independent of human convention]

The other reason is this. When you think about these differences between the morality of one people and another, do you think that the morality of one people is ever better or worse than that of another? Have any of the changes been improvements? If not, then of course there could never be any moral progress. Progress means not just changing, but changing for the better. If no set of moral ideas were truer or better than any other, there would be no sense in preferring civilised morality to savage morality, or Christian morality to Nazi morality. In fact, of course, we all do believe that some moralities are better than others. We do believe that some of the people who tried to change the moral ideas of their own age were what we would call Reformers or Pioneers—people who understood morality better than their neighbours did. Very well then. The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other. But the standard that measures two things is something different from either. You are, in fact, comparing them both with some Real Morality, admitting that there is such a thing as a real Right, independent of what people think, and that some people's ideas get nearer to that real Right than others. Or put it this way. If your moral ideas can be truer, and those of the Nazis less true, there must be something—some Real Morality—for them to be true about. The reason why your idea of New York can be truer or less true than mine is that New York is a real place, existing quite apart from what either of us thinks. If when each of us said 'New York' each means merely 'The town I am imagining in my own head', how could one of us have truer ideas than the other? There would be no question of truth or falsehood at all. In the same way, if the Rule of Decent Behaviour meant simply 'whatever each nation happens to approve', there would be no sense in saying that any one nation had ever been more correct in its approval than any other; no sense in saying that the world could ever grow morally better or morally worse.

[On how the very attempt to argue against God from the injustice of the universe presupposes an objective standard of justice — and thus points back to God]

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too—for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist—in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless—I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality—namely my idea of justice—was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple.

We have two bits of evidence about the Somebody. One is the universe He has made. If we used that as our only clue, then I think we should have to conclude that He was a great artist (for the universe is a very beautiful place), but also that He is quite merciless and no friend to man (for the universe is a very dangerous and terrifying place). The other bit of evidence is that Moral Law which He has put into our minds. And this is a better bit of evidence than the other, because it is inside information. You find out more about God from the Moral Law than from the universe in general just as you find out more about a man by listening to his conversation than by looking at a house he has built.

Suppose someone asked me, when I see a man in blue uniform going down the street leaving little paper packets at each house, why I suppose that they contain letters? I should reply, 'Because whenever he leaves a similar little packet for me I find it does contain a letter.' And if he then objected—'But you've never seen all these letters which you think the other people are getting,' I should say, 'Of course not, and I shouldn't expect to, because they're not addressed to me. I'm explaining the packets I'm not allowed to open by the ones I am allowed to open.' It is the same about this question. The only packet I am allowed to open is Man. When I do, especially when I open that particular man called Myself, I find that I do not exist on my own, that I am under a law; that somebody or something wants me to behave in a certain way.

I know that the Enemy disapproves many of these causes. But that is where He is so unfair. He often makes prizes of humans who have given their lives for causes He thinks bad on the monstrously sophistical ground that the humans thought them good and were following the best they knew.

"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves; uncircumcision observing the precepts of the law".

"For when the Gentiles," he says, "which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves." I am not, he means, rejecting the Law, but even on this score I justify the Gentiles. You see how when undermining the conceit of Judaism, he giveth no handle against himself as villifying the Law, but on the contrary by extolling it and showing its greatness he so makes good his whole position. But whenever he saith "by nature," he means by the reasonings of nature. And he shows that others are better than they, and, what is more better for this, that they have not received the Law, and have not that wherein the Jews seem to have an advantage over them. For on this ground he means they are to be admired, because they required not a law, and yet exhibited all the doings of the Law, having the works, not the letters, graven upon their minds.

Who that is acquainted with the mystery of God could so significantly relate the law of God, as a man far removed from the knowledge of the truth has set forth that law? But I consider that they who speak true things unconsciously are to be so regarded as though they prophesied under the influence of some spirit. But if he had known or explained this also, in what precepts the law itself consisted, as he clearly saw the force and purport of the divine law, he would not have discharged the office of a philosopher, but of a prophet. And because he was unable to do this, it must be done by us, to whom the law itself has been delivered by the one great Master and Ruler of all, God.

The Gentiles need not keep the sabbaths or the new moons or the sacrifices which are written down in the law. For this law is not what is written on the hearts of the Gentiles. Rather it is that which can be discerned naturally, e.g., that they should not kill or commit adultery, that they should not steal nor bear false witness, that they should honor father and mother, etc. It may well be that since God is the one Creator of all, these things are written on the hearts of the Gentiles.… For the natural law may agree with the law of Moses in the spirit, if not in the letter. For how would anyone understand by nature that a child should be circumcised on the eighth day? … But we who feel that such things must be understood in a spiritual sense believe that we are not merely hearers of the law but doers of it also, being justified not according to the letter of the law, which in any case is so difficult that nobody could ever do it correctly, but according to the Spirit, which is the only way the law can ever be kept. This then is the work of the law which the apostle says even the Gentiles can fulfill. So when they do what the law says, it seems that they have the law written on their hearts by God, "not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God."

Paul is referring either to those who were righteous before the law or to those who even now are doing some good. He shows that the Gentiles are not without any kind of law in order to leave them with no excuse and to take away the glory which the Jews had by their possession of the law.

For the man who, though listening not, doeth, is better than the man who is constant in listening and empty of works, even as the word of the apostle Paul teacheth us, "For not the hearers of the law are righteous before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified: for if the Gentiles which have no law do by their own nature the things of the law, these, having no law, are a law unto themselves; and they show the work of the law written upon their hearts, and their conscience testifieth concerning them". The hearing of the law is good, for it bringeth to the works thereof, and reading and meditation in the Scriptures, which purify our secret understanding from thoughts of evil things, are good, but if a man is constant in reading, and in hearing, and in the meditation of the word of God, and yet perfecteth not by his reading the labour of works, against this man hath the Spirit of God spoken by the hand of the blessed David, rebuking and reproving his wickedness.

Demanding then a law of God, you have that common one prevailing all over the world, engraven on the natural tables to which the apostle too is wont to appeal, as when in respect of the woman's veil he says, "Does not even Nature teach you? " -as when to the Romans, affirming that the heathen do by nature those things which the law requires, he suggests both natural law and a law-revealing nature.

He proves what he says against the Jews, and speaks with wise skill so as not to appear to be saying anything against the law. As if praising and exalting the law, he says that those who do not have the law "by nature," that is, having conviction in their thoughts, are worthy of admiration; for they had no need of the law, and yet fulfilled the law, having inscribed on their hearts not letters but deeds, and instead of the law, using conscience and natural thoughts as witness to the good. He speaks here of three laws: the written law, the natural law, and the law of deeds. "Gentiles, who do not have the law." Which one? The written one. "Do by nature the things of the law." By which law? By the law that manifests itself in deeds. "Not having the law." Which one? The written one. "They are a law unto themselves." How so? Being guided by the natural law. Notice the wisdom: he did not strike at the Jews, as the course of his argument demanded. According to the course of his argument, he should have said this: when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do the things of the law by nature, then they are far superior to those instructed in the law. But the apostle did not say this, and expressed himself more gently, thus: "they are a law unto themselves." By this he proves that even in the most ancient times, and before the law was given, the human race was under the same Providence. By this he also stops the mouths of those who say: why did Christ not come to teach the doing of good earlier, from the beginning? The knowledge of good and evil, he says, He implanted in all from the beginning; but when He saw that it was not helping, He finally came Himself.

Then when he says for when the gentiles, he clarifies his position. First, he shows that doers of the law are justified even without being hearers; second, that hearers of the law are not justified without observing the law, at but if you are called a Jew (Rom 2:17).

In regard to the first he does three things: first, he mentions the worthiness of those who observe the law without having heard it; second, he clarifies what he had said, at who show the work of the law; third, he proves it, at their conscience bearing witness.

In regard to the first he touches on three things relating to the gentiles.

First, their lack of the law, saying, for when the gentiles, who have not the law, namely, the divine law, which they have not received. For the law was not delivered to the gentiles but to the Jews: the law which Moses commanded us as an inheritance for the congregations of Jacob (Sir 24:24); he has not dealt thus with any other nation (Ps 147:20); when Moses commanded us a law, as a possession for the assembly of Jacob (Deut 33:4).

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

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

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

Hence by nature should mean nature reformed by grace. For he is speaking of gentiles converted to the faith, who began to obey the moral precepts of the law by the help of Christ's grace. Or by nature can mean by the natural law showing them what should be done, as in a psalm: there are many who say, 'who shows us good things?' The light of your countenance, O Lord, is signed upon us (Ps 4:6), i.e., the light of natural reason, in which is God's image. All this does not rule out the need of grace to move the affections any more than the knowledge of sin through the law (Rom 3:20) exempts from the need of grace to move the affections.

Third, he shows their worth in that they, having not the law, are a law to themselves, inasmuch as they function as a law to themselves by instructing and inducing themselves to the good, because the Philosopher says: law is a statement laying down an obligation and proceeding from prudence and understanding (Ethics 11). Therefore, it is said that the law is not laid down for the just (1 Tim 1:9), who is not compelled by a law outside of him, but for the lawless, who need to be compelled from without.

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

The meaning here is that those who believe under the guidance of nature do the work of the law not through the letter but through their conscience. For the work of the law is faith, which, although it is fully revealed in the Word of God, also shows itself to be a law for the natural judgment. Faith goes beyond what the law commands. Faith trusts in Christ. These people believe because of the inner witness of their conscience, because they know in their conscience that what they believe is right. It is not disjunctive for the creature to believe and worship his Creator, nor is it absurd for the servant to recognize his Lord.Unbelieving Gentiles will be judged first of all by other believing Gentiles, just as the Lord said that his disciples would judge the unbelieving Jews: "They themselves will be your judges." The unbelief of the Jews will be judged by the faith of the apostles who, although Jews themselves, believed in Christ while the rest of their people rejected him. Similarly the Gentiles will be accused by their own thoughts if, touched by the faith and power of the Creator, they refuse to believe. But if because of some foolishness a man does not think to believe the words or deeds of the Lord, his conscience will defend him on the day of judgment, because he did not think that he was obliged to believe. He will be judged not as an intentional malefactor but as one who was merely ignorant.… It is Christians to whom Paul is referring when he speaks of accusing and excusing on the day of judgment. Those who differ from the true church, either because they think differently about Christ or because they disagree about the meaning of the Bible in the tradition of the church (e.g., Montanists, Novatianists, Donatists and other heretics) will be accused by their own thoughts on the day of judgment. Likewise one who recognizes that the Christian faith is true but refuses to follow it so as not to appear that he has been corrected and who is ashamed to depart from what he has so long held will be accused by his own thoughts on the day of judgment.

Compare this with 1 John [3:20]: "Dearly beloved, if our own hearts condemn us, God is greater than our conscience."

Nothing can be, in the strictest sense of the word, more comic than to set so shadowy a thing as the conjectures made by the vaguer anthropologists about primitive man against so solid a thing as the human sense of sin. By its nature the evidence of Eden is something that one cannot find. By its nature the evidence of sin is something that one cannot help finding.

"Which show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the meanwhile accusing or else excusing one another." See how he again puts that day before them, and brings it close to them, battering down their conceit, and showing, that those were to be the rather honored who without the Law strove earnestly to fulfil the things of the Law. But what is most to be marvelled at in the discretion of the Apostle, it is worth while to mention now. For having shown, from the grounds given, that the Gentile is greater than the Jew; in the inference, and the conclusion of his reasoning, he does not state it, in order not to exasperate the Jew. For the conscience and reason doth suffice in the Law's stead. By this he showed, first, that God made man independent, so as to be able to choose virtue and to avoid vice. And be not surprised that he proves this point, not once or twice, but several times. For this topic was very needful for him to prove owing to those who say, Why ever is it, that Christ came but now? And where in times before was the scheme of Providence? Now it is these that he is at present beating off by the way, when he shows that even in former times, and before the Law was given, the human race fully enjoyed the care of Providence.

"Written on their hearts" should not be taken too literally. What Paul calls the heart is the rational faculty of the soul.It is also necessary to discuss what Paul means by the word conscience. Is it something distinguishable from the heart or from the soul?… Conscience is the spirit which the apostle says is with the soul, according to which we have been instructed in the higher things. This spirit or conscience is linked to the soul as a teacher and guide to point out what things are best and to reprove and condemn faults. The apostle was speaking of it when he said: "What person knows a man's thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him?"

Nature produces a law in their hearts through the witness of their conscience. Or it may mean that the conscience testifies to the fact that it has its own law, because even if the sinner is afraid of no one the conscience is worried when he sins and rejoices when that sin is overcome.

For the man who, though listening not, doeth, is better than the man who is constant in listening and empty of works, even as the word of the apostle Paul teacheth us, "For not the hearers of the law are righteous before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified: for if the Gentiles which have no law do by their own nature the things of the law, these, having no law, are a law unto themselves; and they show the work of the law written upon their hearts, and their conscience testifieth concerning them". The hearing of the law is good, for it bringeth to the works thereof, and reading and meditation in the Scriptures, which purify our secret understanding from thoughts of evil things, are good, but if a man is constant in reading, and in hearing, and in the meditation of the word of God, and yet perfecteth not by his reading the labour of works, against this man hath the Spirit of God spoken by the hand of the blessed David, rebuking and reproving his wickedness.

"They show that the work of the law is written in their hearts." Of which law? The law in deeds. On the day of judgment our own thoughts will stand forth, now condemning, now justifying, and a person will need at that tribunal neither another accuser nor another defender.

Then when he says who show, he explains how they are a law to themselves. This can be likened to a law presented to man from without and which it is customary to deliver in writing on account of the memory's weakness; whereas, those who observe the law without externally hearing the law show the work of the law written not with ink, but first and chiefly with the Spirit of the living God (2 Cor 3:3), and second through study: write them on the tablet of your heart (Prov 3:3), i.e., the precepts of wisdom. Hence, here, too, he continues in their hearts, not on parchment or on stone or copper tablets: I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts (Jer 31:33).

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

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

Hence, this conscience sometimes gives testimony of good: our boast is this, the testimony of our conscience (2 Cor 1:12); and sometimes of evil: your conscience knows that many times you have yourself cursed others (Eccl 7:23).

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

Another function is to accuse and defend. Here, too, knowledge of the law is required.

In regard to this he says and their conflicting thoughts accusing or also defending, following the Greek practice whereby a genitive is used for accusing and defending in place of an ablative. And these are conflicting.

For an accusing thought in regard to some action arises in a man, when he has reason to suppose that he has acted evilly: now I rebuke you and lay the charge before you (Ps 50:21); the show of their countenance witnesses against them (Isa 3:9).

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

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

There are two thoughughts inside a man which will accuse each other—the good and the evil. The good accuses the evil because it has denied the truth. The evil accuses the good because it has not done what it knows to be right. One who knows that the church is good and true but persists in heresy or schism will be judged guilty. Other thoughts will excuse, insofar as one has done what is expedient to do. He will say inwardly: "In my mind I have always thought it expedient to do what I have done. This was my faith." He will have a better case, even though he will still have to be corrected, because his conscience will not accuse him on the day of judgment. This is how the secret things of men will be judged by Jesus Christ our Lord on the day of judgment.

Men sit as judges of the external things only. It is God who judges things hidden. For Scripture says: "Man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks upon the heart." When Christ judges, then God is the judge.

The awe-inspiring countenance of the Judge will compel you to speak the truth. Even if you are silent, it will convict you. You will rise clothed either in your sins or in your just deeds. The Judge himself declared this.

"In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my Gospel." See how he again puts that day before them, and brings it close to them, battering down their conceit, and showing, that those were to be the rather honored who without the Law strove earnestly to fulfil the things of the Law. ... For the conscience and reason doth suffice in the Law's stead. By this he showed, first, that God made man independent, so as to be able to choose virtue and to avoid vice. ... And why does he put the words "accusing or else excusing?"-for, if they have a Law written, and show the work of it in them, how comes reason to be able to accuse them still? But he is not any longer speaking of those only who do well, but also of mankind (Gr. the nature) universally. For then our reasonings stand up, some accusing and some excusing. And at that tribunal a man needeth no other accuser. Then to add to their fear, he does not say the sins of men, but the secrets of men. For since he said, "Thinkest thou, that judgest them that do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God;" that thou mayest not expect such a sentence as thou passest thyself, but mayest know, that that of God is far more exact than thine own, he brings in, "the secrets of men," and adds, "through Jesus Christ according to my Gospel." For men sit in judgment upon overt acts alone. And above too he spake of the Father alone, but as soon as he had crushed them with fear, he brought in the mention of Christ also. But he does not do barely this, but even here, after having made mention of the Father, he so introduceth Him. And by the same things he raises the dignity of his preaching. For this preaching, he means, openly speaks out what nature taught by anticipation. Do you see with what wisdom he has bound them both to the Gospel and to Christ, and demonstrated that our affairs come not here to a stand, but travel further. And this he made good before also, when he said, "thou treasurest up to thyself wrath against the day of wrath:" and here again, "God shall judge the secrets of men."

Who can doubt that a trial is properly conducted when there are accusers and defenders and witnesses all present?… See therefore how on that day, when God will judge the secrets of men, our thoughts will either accuse or defend our soul—not the thoughts which we will have then but the ones which we have now.

Paul says that there is a mental debate when we decide after long deliberation what we should and should not do. On the day of the Lord we shall be judged by this. This proves that we were not ignorant of good and evil. Or perhaps it means that on the day of judgment our conscience and our thoughts will appear before our eyes like history lessons to be learned; they will either accuse us or excuse us.

If God will judge the secrets of men … surely the God who will judge is he to whom belong both the law and that nature which is the rule for those who do not know the law. But how will he conduct this judgment? "According to my gospel," says the apostle, "by Christ Jesus." The law and nature are vindicated by the gospel and Christ.

Now he did not observe how much this clause of the sentence made against him: "For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to (give) the light of the knowledge (of His glory) in the face of (Jesus) Christ." Now who was it that said; "Let there be light? " And who was it that said to Christ concerning giving light to the world: "I have set Thee as a light to the Gentiles" -to them, that is, "who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death? " (None else, surely, than He), to whom the Spirit in the Psalm answers, in His foresight of the future, saying, "The light of Thy countenance, O Lord, hath been displayed upon us.

Paul continually preached that there will be a day of judgment and that it will be necessary to have believed in Christ in order to escape punishment.

And to increase the fear, he did not say: sins, but: "secret deeds." People can judge only manifest deeds, but God, he says, will judge the secret deeds through Jesus Christ, that is, the Father through the Son, because the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son (John 5:22). You can also understand the words "through Jesus Christ" this way: according to my gospel, entrusted to me by Jesus Christ. Here he suggests that the gospel preaches nothing contrary to nature, but proclaims the very same thing that was originally implanted in people by nature itself, that is, that the gospel also testifies of judgment and punishment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

He also shows the teaching from which faith in this judgment is had when he says, according to my Gospel, i.e., preaching by me: on the day of judgment men will render account for every careless word (Matt 12:36).

He says according to my Gospel, although he could not say, my baptism, and be a minister of both, because in baptism a man's diligence effects nothing, but in preaching the Gospel the preacher's industry achieves something: when you read this you can perceive my insight in the mystery of Christ (Eph 3:4).

Then he mentions the judge, when he says, by Christ Jesus, who has been appointed by God to be judge of the living and the dead (Acts 10:42); the Father has given all judgment to the Son (John 5:20), who will appear to the good and the wicked during the judgment: to the good in the glory of the Godhead: your eyes will see the king in his beauty (Isa 33:17), but to the wicked in his human form: every eye will see him (Rev 1:7).

They are called Jews because it was their ancestral right to be called Israelites. Nevertheless, if we wish to understand everything which is relevant to the case, we must note that the name Jew had three different meanings. First, it meant the children of Abraham, who because of his faith was made the father of many nations. Then it refers to Jacob, who because of his increasing faith was called Israel, for the dignity which began with the father was honored in the sons. Third, they are called Jews not so much because of Judah as because of Christ, who was born of Judah according to the flesh, since in Judah it was made known that he would be in Christ. For it is said: "Judah will be your master," and: "Judah, your brothers praise you." This praise was given not to Judah as such but to Christ, whom nowadays all those whom he deigns to call his brethren praise.… The Jews themselves do not understand the meaning of their name and claim that it refers to the human Judah.

If a Jew boasts in God in the manner called for by grace, which is given not according to the merits of works but freely, his praise would be of God and not of men.… But they thought that they had fulfilled this law of God by their own righteousness, even though they were transgressors of it. And so for them it worked wrath as sin multiplied, committed by those who knew what sin was. Those who did what the law commanded without the help of the Spirit of grace did it through fear of punishment and not out of love for righteousness.

The beneficent action of the law, the apostle showed in the passage relating to the Jews, writing thus: "Behold, thou art called a Jew and restest in the law, and makest thy boast in God, and knowest the will of God, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law, and art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them who are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, who hast the form of knowledge and of truth in the law." For it is admitted that such is the power of the law, although those whose conduct is not according to the law, make a false pretence, as if they lived in the law.

"Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the Law, and makest thy boast of God, and knowest His will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the Law." After saying that the Gentile wanteth nothing appertaining to salvation if he be a doer of the Law, and after making that wonderful comparison, he goes on to set down the glories of the Jews, owing to which they thought scorn of the Gentiles: and first the very name itself, which was of great majesty, as the name Christian is now. For even then the distinction which the appellation made was great. And so he begins from this, and see how he takes it down. For he does not say, Behold, thou art a Jew, but "art called" so, "and makest thy boast in God;" that is, as being loved by Him, and honored above all other men. And here he seems to me to be gently mocking their unreasonableness, and great madness after glory, because they misused this gift not to their own salvation, but to set themselves up against the rest of mankind, and to despise them. "And knowest His will, and approvest the things that are more excellent." Indeed this is a disadvantage, if without working: yet still it seemed to be an advantage, and so he states it with accuracy. For he does not say, thou doest, but knowest; and approvest, not followest and doest.

The first thing to notice here is that Paul does not say that the person he is rhetorically addressing is a Jew; only that he calls himself one, which is not at all the same thing. For Paul goes on to teach that the true Jew is the one who is circumcised in secret, i.e., in the heart, who keeps the law in spirit and not according to the letter, whose praise is not from men but from God. But the man who is circumcised visibly in the flesh, observing the law in order to be seen by men, is not a real Jew; such a man only appears to be one.

At this point Paul turns to the Jews and says that a man should be a Jew in deed and not merely in name.

This is not to be read as a question, as some people think, but rather as a statement, as if to say: "Not as a true Jew, albeit in secret, but merely claiming to be one and making false pretenses."

Having said that nothing more is needed for the salvation of a Gentile who fulfills the law, he finally enumerates the advantages of the Jews, upon which they relied and boasted before the Gentiles. First of all, he speaks of the name of Jew; for it constituted a great advantage, as now the name of Christian. He did not say: you are a Jew, but: "you are called"; for the true Jew is the one who is confessed to be a Jew, because Judah means confession. "And rest in the law" — meaning you do not labor, do not go about, do not inquire what must be done, but you have the law, which instructs you in all things without effort. "And boast in God," that is, that you are loved by God and preferred above other people; but to turn the love of God into a means of despising beings of the same nature is a sign of the utmost folly.

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

First, therefore, he shows the Jews' privileged state in receiving the law; second, their shortcomings in transgressing the law, at you, therefore, who teaches another.

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

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

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

Rather, it seems that the Jews were named after the patriarch Judah: Judah, your brothers shall praise you (Gen 49:8); for in the time of Roboam, when ten tribes seceded from his kingdom and adored a golden calf, they were led away captive by the Assyrians (1 Sam 17). Scripture makes no mention of their return; rather, the land remained occupied by strangers later called Samaritans. But two tribes, Judah and Benjamin, remained in the kingdom of Roboam and persevered in the worship of God. Although they were led away captive to Babylon, they were permitted to return to their native land by Cyrus, the Persian king (1 Ezra 1). Then, because the tribe of Judah was the greater, the entire group was named after him: not only those from the tribe of Benjamin but those from the other tribes who joined them.

Then when he says and rests in the law he mentions their prerogative in regard to the law. First, in regard to the law itself, when he says, and rests in the law, as certifying what they believed and did. For an intellect in doubt is not at rest but is solicited by both sides; but once it has the certainty of wisdom it rests: when I enter my house, I shall find rest with her (Wis 8:16).

Second, in regard to the lawgiver, when he adds and make your boast of God, i.e., in their worship and knowledge of one God: let him who glories glory in this, that he understands and knows me (Jer 9:24); let him who boasts boast in the Lord (1 Cor 1:31).

It is hardly surprising that a Jew should believe, since he has been taught to do so by the law. It is indeed dangerous for him not to believe if he has the law as his guide.

The Jew boasts that he alone understands God and knows his will. He approves what is excellent, because what is beneficial by nature is made much more so by the law.

"And know His will," that is, God's. "And approve the things that are excellent," that is, you determine what must be done and what must not be done. By "excellent" (διαφέροντα) one should understand what is fitting or beneficial for each person.

Then when he adds and know his will, he mentions their prerogative in regard to the fruit of the law: first, with respect to the person himself; second, with respect to others, at are confident.

In regard to the first he mentions two fruits.

The first corresponds to boasting of their relation to God, when he says, and knows his will, i.e., what God wants us to do: that you may prove what is the will of God (Rom 12:2).

The second corresponds to their resting in the law, when he says, and approves the more profitable things, i.e., you know to select not only good from bad things but also better from less good. Hence someone asked: which is the great commandment? (Matt 22:36).

And this, being instructed by the law: blessed is the man whom you will instruct, O Lord, and will teach him out of your law (Ps 93:12).

"And art confident that thou thyself." Here again he does not say that thou art "a guide of the blind," but "thou art confident," so thou boastest, he says. So great was the unreasonableness of the Jews. Wherefore he also repeats nearly the very words, which they used in their boastings. See for instance what they say in the Gospels. "Thou wast altogether born in sin, and dost thou teach us?" (John ix. 34.) And all men they utterly looked down upon, to convince them of which, Paul keeps extolling them and lowering the others, that so he may get more hold on them, and make his accusation the weightier. Wherefore he goes on adding the like things, and making more of them by different ways of relating them. For "Thou art confident," he saith, "that thou thyself art a leader of the blind, An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and truth, which is in the Law." Here again he says not, in the conscience and in actions and in well-doings, but "in the Law;" and after saying so, he does here also what he did with regard to the Gentiles. For as there he says, "for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself," so saith he here also.

The blind are those who have been deprived of the light of knowledge.

Above he said that hearing the law brings no benefit if doing it is not joined to it; "for not the hearers of the law," he says, "are righteous before God, but the doers of the law" (v. 13), now he says something greater, namely: even if you were a teacher, but if you do not fulfill the law, then not only do you gain no benefit for yourself, but you also bring upon yourself a greater punishment. And since the Jews greatly boasted of their dignity as teachers, from this especially he proves that they are worthy of ridicule. For when he says: "a guide of the blind, a teacher of babes," and the rest, he depicts the arrogance of the Jews, who called themselves guides, a light, and instructors, while those converted from paganism they called those in darkness, babes, and ignorant.

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

For some are entirely ignorant of the law, because they lack natural talent, just as a man is physically blind, because he lacks visual power: we grope for the wall like the blind (Isa 59:10). To such persons cannot be given the light of knowledge enabling them to see by themselves what to do; rather, they must be led, as the blind are, by commanding them to do this or that, even though they do not understand the reason for the command: I became an eye to the blind (Job 29:15); they are blind and leaders of the blind (Matt 15:14).

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

These things are true, because this is the task of the law: to teach the ignorant, to subject the wicked to God, to provoke those who by the worship of idols are ungodly to trust in a better hope by the promise which is given through the law. The teacher of the law is right to glory in these things, because he is teaching the form of truth. But if the teacher does not accept the Expected One whom the law has promised, he glories in vain in the law, to which he is doing harm as long as he rejects the Christ who is promised in the law. In that case he is no more learned than the fools, nor is he a teacher of children, nor is he a light to those who are in the darkness, but rather he is leading all of these into perdition.

One who continually keeps the law in view does not stumble.

By "embodiment" is meant not the form but the substance and the knowledge and the truth, like the one "who was in the form of God."

But you have the form of knowledge and truth not in deeds and not in merits, but "in the law," relying on it as on a depiction of virtue. So someone, having a royal portrait in his possession, copies nothing from it himself, while those who do not have it, and without even seeing it, faithfully imitate it. So then, every teacher writes and imprints in the souls of his students the knowledge of good, and therefore truth itself. If he carries this out in practice as well, he will be perfect; otherwise he will be like those now condemned by the apostle. Some understood "form" to mean a pattern of knowledge that is not genuine. You have, he says, knowledge and piety that is not true, but counterfeit and covered with a false appearance.

Second, he touches on those who are on the way to knowledge they have not yet attained, in one way through lack of full instruction; hence he says, an instructor of the foolish, i.e., of those who have not yet received wisdom who are said to be instructed, i.e., free from ignorance which is present in everyone from the beginning when they are first instructed: do you have children? Discipline them (Sir 7:23).

In another way, through lack of age, as children. Hence he says, a teacher of infants: where is the teacher of little ones? (Isa 33:18).

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

However, people so patterned must be instructed by the authority of their forebears, if they are to know what has been handed down in the law. Therefore, he says, of knowledge: wisdom gave him knowledge of holy things (Wis 10:10).

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

This means: "You who complain about the Gentiles because they are without the law and God are accusing yourself, because you do not believe in the Christ promised by the law but find this belief in those you are complaining about." The Jew does what he preaches should not be done. For by denying the Christ promised to us in the law, he removes faith by false interpretation and thus does what he preaches against.

The memory of that lunch worries me during the last few minutes of the sermon. I am not worried by the fact that the vicar's practice differs from his precept. That is, no doubt, regrettable, but it is nothing to the purpose. As Dr. Johnson said, precept may be very sincere (and, let us add, very profitable) where practice is very imperfect, and no one but a fool would discount a doctor's warnings about alcoholic poisoning because the doctor himself drank too much. What worries me is the fact that the vicar is not telling us at all that home life is difficult and has, like every form of life, its own proper temptations and corruptions. He keeps on talking as if "home" were a panacea, a magical charm which of itself was bound to produce happiness and virtue. The trouble is not that he is insincere but that he is a fool. He is not talking from his own experience of family life at all: he is automatically reproducing a sentimental tradition—and it happens to be a false tradition.

Poemen also said, 'Teach your heart to follow what your tongue is saying to others.' He also said, 'Men try to appear excellent in preaching but they are less excellent in practising what they preach.'

"Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself?" But there he frames his speech with more of sharpness, here with more of gentleness. For he does not say, However on this score thou deservest greater punishment, because though entrusted with so great things thou hast not made a good use of any of them, but he carries his discourse on by way of question, turning them on themselves, and saying, "Thou that teachest another, teachest thou not thyself?" And here I would have you look at the discretion of Paul in another case. For he sets down such advantages of the Jews, as came not of their own earnestness, but by a gift from above, and he shows not only that they are worthless to them if neglectful, but that they even bring with them increase of punishment. For neither is the being called a Jew any well doing of theirs, nor yet is the receiving of the Law, nor the other things he has just enumerated, but of the grace from above. And towards the beginning he had said, that the hearing of the Law is valueless unless the doing be thereto added ("for not the hearers of the Law," he says, "are just before God,") but now he shows further still, that not only the hearing, but, what is more than the hearing, the teaching of the Law itself will not be able to screen the teacher, unless he do what he says; and not only will it not screen him, but will even punish him the more.

Paul says to the Jew: If you rely on the law, why do you not obey it? If you glory in God, why do you dishonor him? If you know his will, why do you not do it? If you approve what is excellent, why do you go after what is harmful? Why do you not look for the right way, if you are a guide for the blind? Surely if you saw it you would walk in it! If you are a light for others, why do you not cast off the works of darkness? As an instructor of the foolish, why have you abandoned the fear of the Lord, which is the beginning of wisdom? As a teacher of children, why are you a child in understanding? If you have the standard of knowledge and truth in the law, why do you not follow it yourself, nor by your evil example allow others to follow it? Why does your life not match your teaching, and why does your behavior make a mockery of your faith? Because you have not kept the law it will happen that not only will the law do you no good, it will condemn you for the greater crime of holding it in contempt.

How is it that ye wish to instruct the elect of the Lord, while ye yourselves have no instruction? Instruct one another therefore, and be at peace among yourselves, that I also may stand joyful before your Father, and give an account of you all to the Lord.

Hence his invective against the transgressors of the law, who teach that men should not steal, and yet practise theft themselves. (This invective he utters) in perfect homage to the law of God, not as if he meant to ten sure the Creator Himself with having commanded a fraud to be practised against the Egyptians to get their gold and silver at the very time when He was forbidding men to steal, -adopting such methods as they are apt (shamelessly) to charge upon Him in other particulars also.

Paul shows here and in the next two verses that the Jews had learned little from the law even if they gloried in the letter of it. When they tried to teach others, their deeds contradicted their words, and their pride in the law was pointless.

He presents his thought in the form of a question, shaming those who boasted that they were teachers.

Then when he says you who teaches another, he indicates some of their failings.

First, failings toward themselves, when he says you who teaches another, by directing them to the good, teaches not yourself.

This can be taken as a question asked with an overtone of indignation or with an overtone of mildness which, nevertheless, suggests wickedness on their part, as it does in Job: behold, you have instructed many . . . the scourge has now touched you and you faint (Job 4:3–5).

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

The Jew adulterates the law by removing the truth of Christ from it and putting lies in his place. In another of his epistles Paul writes: "They are adulterers of God's Word." A man is sacrilegious when he denies Christ, whom the law and the prophets call God. Did the Jews ever say, "Thou art God and we did not know it" of God the Father, when the entire law proclaims the authority of God the Father, by whom all things are made? But when the Son of God appeared, what he was was hidden and not revealed until after the resurrection. It was then that it was said of him: "Thou art God and we did not know it."

These words could equally well be applied to the heretics who call themselves Christians.… Since they rob the Word of God of its true meaning and seduce the minds of their hearers by their perverse interpretation, joining an adulterated kind of faith to the bride of Christ which is the church, this [verse] fits them exactly.

There is not just one kind of adultery, for you commit adultery if you give anyone other than God what the soul owes exclusively to him.

By sacrilege he means the theft of things dedicated to idols; for although they abhorred idols, yet, being possessed by love of money, they laid hands on things dedicated to idols out of shameful greed.

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

Third, he indicates their failings with respect to God: first, that they sin against his worship, when he says, you, who abhors idols, since you know from the law that they are not to be adored, commits sacrilege by abusing the things of divine worship.

This they did during the old law: you profane it when you say that the Lord's table is polluted (Mal 1:12) and later, when they blasphemed Christ: it is only by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons (Matt 12:24).

The breaker of the law is the one who overlooks the meaning of the law, which speaks of the incarnation and divinity of Christ, and dishonors God by not accepting the testimony which he gave concerning his Son. For the Father said: "This is my beloved Son."

If we prefer a life of pleasure to the life of obedience to the commandments, how can we expect a life of blessedness, fellowship with the saints and the delights of the angelic company in the presence of Christ? Such expectations are truly the fantasies of a foolish mind.

"Thou that makest a boast in the Law through breaking the Law dishonorest thou God?" There are two accusations which he makes, or rather three. Both that they dishonor, and dishonor that whereby they were honored; and that they dishonor Him that honored them, which was the utmost extreme of unfeelingness. And then, not to seem to be accusing them of his own mind, he brings in the Prophet as their accuser, here briefly and concisely as it were in a summary, but afterwards more in detail, and here Isaiah, and after that David, when he had shown the grounds of reproof to be more than one. For to show, he means, that it is not I who speak these things to your reproach, hear what Isaiah saith.

Sacrilege is something committed only against God, because it is a violation of the sacred.

He sets forth the gravest charge, saying: "you boast in the law," as one exalted with honor from God through the law, "yet by transgressing the law you dishonor God." Here there are three charges. First: the Jews dishonor; second: they dishonor God, who exalted them with honor; third: they dishonor the law by violating it, when it served to their honor.

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

For as observance of the law by good works is an occasion for others to honor God, so its transgression by evil works is an occasion for others to blaspheme: that they may see your good deeds and glorify God (1 Pet 2:12).

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

Isaiah the prophet said this because God's name was being blasphemed among the Gentiles when the Jews, by their misdeeds, did not observe the things which were handed down to them but instead gave glory to idols.… So also at the time of the apostles, God's name was being blasphemed in Christ, because the Jews, by denying that Christ was God, were blaspheming the Father also, as the Lord said: "Whoever receives me does not receive me, but him who sent me." Therefore God was blasphemed among the Gentiles because when they believed in Christ the Jews tried to persuade them not to call Christ "God."

"Woe to that man," the Lord says, "it were well for him if he had never been born, than that he should cause one of my little ones to stumble. It were better for him that a millstone were hung about him and he cast into the sea than that he should pervert one of my elect." "For the name of God is blasphemed because of them." Therefore the apostle nobly says, "I wrote to you in my letter to have no company with fornicators," as far as the words "but the body is not for fornication but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body."

For as the Jews were alienated from God, as those on whose account "the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles," so on the other hand those are dear to God through whose conformity to discipline the name of God is declared with a testimony of praise, as it is written, the Lord Himself forewarning and saying, "Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify your Father which is in heaven." And Paul the apostle says, "Shine as lights in the world." And similarly Peter exhorts: "As strangers," says he, "and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul, having your conversation honest among the Gentiles; that whereas they speak against you as evil-doers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify the Lord."

"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you." (Is. lii. 5; Ez. xxxvi. 20, Ez xxxvi. 23.) See again another double accusation. For they not only commit insolence themselves, but even induce others to do so. And what is far worse-ye not only teach not the things of the Law, but ye even teach the opposite, viz. to blaspheme God, which is opposite to the Law. But the circumcision, one will say, is a great thing. Yea, I also confess it, but when? when it hath the inward circumcision. And observe his judgment, in bringing in what he says about it so opportunely. For he did not begin straightway with it, since the conceit men had of it was great. But after he had shown them to have offended in that which was greater and to be responsible for the blasphemy against God, then having henceforth possession of the reader's judgment against them, and having stripped them of their pre-eminence, he introduces the discussion about circumcision, feeling sure that no one will any more advocate it.

What Paul says [in verses 17-23] about the Jews is meant to be taken ironically, since anyone who genuinely relies on the law, glories in God and proves the things which are most useful would be doing the things which are listed here. But [in verse 24] he speaks directly to them, borrowing the words of the prophet Isaiah.

Paul realized that what he was saying was also to be found in the prophets, which is why he quotes them here.

There is a blasphemy which we must avoid completely, viz., that any of us should give a pagan good cause for blasphemy by deceit or injury or insult or some other matter justifying complaint. It is that blasphemy in which the Name is deservedly blamed, so that the Lord is deservedly angry. But the words "Because of you my Name is blasphemed" seem to cover every blasphemy. So then, are we all lost, since the whole Roman circus assails the Name, for no fault of ours, with its wicked outcries? Shall we stop being Christians in order for there to be less blasphemy? No! If the blasphemy continues, we will observe our discipline, not abandoning it, as long as we are being approved and not condemned. The blasphemy which affirms our Christian faith by detesting us because of it is in close proximity to martyrdom. To curse us for keeping our discipline is to bless our Name.

Else, if of all blasphemy it has been said, "By your means My Name is blasphemed," we all perish at once; since the whole circus, with no desert of ours, assails "the Name" with wicked suffrages.

And thus, the former gifts of grace being withdrawn, "the law and the prophets were until John," and the fishpool of Bethsaida until the advent of Christ: thereafter it ceased curatively to remove from Israel infirmities of health; since, as the result of their perseverance in their frenzy, the name of the Lord was through them blasphemed, as it is written: "On your account the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles: " for it is from them that the infamy (attached to that name) began, and (was propagated during) the interval from Tiberius to Vespasian.

Are we then to suppose that the apostle abstained through fear from openly calumniating God, from whom notwithstanding He did not hesitate to withdraw men? Well, but he had gone so far in his censure of the Jews, as to point against them the denunciation of the prophet, "Through you the name of God is blasphemed (among the Gentiles)." But how absurd, that he should himself blaspheme Him for blaspheming whom he upbraids them as evil-doers! He prefers even circumcision of heart to neglect of it in the flesh.

But lest they think he was accusing the Jews himself, he brought forward the prophet Isaiah as their accuser, setting forth two charges against them. For they not only offend God themselves, but also lead others to do the same, and not only do they not teach others to live according to the law, but they even teach the opposite—they teach others to blaspheme God, which is contrary to the law; for those who see their corruption say: is it these whom God should love? Can a God who loves such people truly be God?

In support of this he quotes an authority, when he says, the name of God through you is blasphemed among the gentiles, i.e., because the gentiles, noting the evil practices of the Jews, laid it to evil training dictated by the law.

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

An opponent might say: "If circumcision is of value, why was it stopped?" It is only of value if you keep the law. Circumcision may be retained therefore, but if it is to be of any value the law must be observed. So why did Paul prohibit what he shows to be of value if the law is observed?Paul answers by saying that if the law is not kept, the Jew effectively becomes a Gentile.… But to keep the law is to believe in Christ, who was promised to Abraham. Those who are justified by faith have their own merit and are included in the honor shown to the patriarchs. For every mention of salvation in the law refers to Christ. Therefore the man who believes in Christ is the man who keeps the law. But if he does not believe then he is a transgressor of the law because he has not accepted Christ … and it is no advantage for him to be called a son of Abraham.

The apostle did not say this as if he favored forcing either the Gentiles to remain uncircumcised or the Jews not to adhere to the traditions of their fathers. Rather, he urged that neither group should be forced into the practice of the other but that each person should have the right, not the obligation, to adhere to his own custom.

"For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the Law." And yet, were this not so, a man might have rejected it and said, What is circumcision? for is it any good deed on his part that hath it? is it any manifestation of a right choice? For it takes place at an unripe age, and those in the wilderness too remained uncircumcised for a long time. And from many other points of view also, one might look at it as not necessary. And yet it is not on this foot that he rejects it, but upon the most proper ground, from the case of Abraham. For this is the most exceeding victory,-to take the very reason for showing it to be of small regard, whence it was held by them in reverence. "For circumcision verily profiteth if thou keepest the Law; but if thou be a breaker of the Law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision." For here he speaks of two uncircumcisions, and two circumcisions, as also two laws. For there is a natural law and there is a written law. But there is one also between these, that by works. For he that hath not the Law written, and doeth by nature the things of the Law, is a law unto himself. See how he points these three out, and brings them before you.

We must examine carefully what this circumcision is which is of value, and what law this is which is profitable if it is kept, so that when we have understood his meaning we may be circumcised as well.… Paul teaches in the verses which follow that it is not the circumcision of the flesh which he is talking about but the circumcision of the heart, which is made by the Spirit and not according to the letter, and which receives its praise not from men but from God.Someone might raise the objection that, if it is true that the circumcision which the apostle regards as being profitable is nothing other than the cleansing of the soul and the rejection of all vices, why does he add here that it is profitable only if you keep the law, since circumcision does not exist apart from the observance of the law? It must be understood that circumcision is not just a matter of rejecting wickedness and ceasing from evil; it is also a matter of doing good and carrying out what is perfect. That is what keeping the law means. For there is no perfection in someone who merely desists from evil; rather it is found in him who does what is good. Circumcision becomes uncircumcision if, after abstaining from evil, you fail to do what is good. For then you are considered to be an unbeliever. Obviously it is not possible for one who has been physically circumcised to get his foreskin back again, and so this text must be understood figuratively. For if the containment of evil which circumcision signifies is not matched by the works of faith, it is regarded as a form of wickedness. Even in the church, if someone is "circumcised" by the grace of baptism and then becomes a transgressor of the law of Christ, the circumcision of baptism is reckoned to him as uncircumcision, because "faith without works is dead." Consider also whether in this passage the following interpretation may be accepted, that even after the coming of Christ physical circumcision, observed according to the law, might be said to be of some value to those who keep the law on the same principle as that which obtained at the beginning of our faith, when it was still observed by those who believed in Christ.… Now if this (Christian) circumcision were to be turned into uncircumcision, not only would it be of no benefit to anyone, it would call down even greater judgment on the one who by the circumcision of the flesh appeared to be proclaiming the observance of the law but was in fact breaking it. And this judgment would be given by the one who had not submitted to physical circumcision but who nevertheless did the works of the law. Whether this interpretation is to be accepted or not is up to you, the reader, to decide. Circumcision was of no value to those who thought they could be justified by it, but it was of value to those who thought that they might not come to Christ if they were forbidden to circumcise their children. For in the beginning there were some who thought of circumcision mainly as a recognizable symbol of their nationality and kept it up for that reason. They might have been hindered from coming to faith if they had been forbidden to do something which they could not do without. Therefore the apostle says this to them, so as not to close the door of faith to them.

Circumcision is of value as a sign if righteousness accompanies it; without righteousness the rest is useless. Or this [verse] may mean that circumcision enabled the Jew to live and escape condemnation in childhood before reaching the age of understanding. Or perhaps, because he set it in the context of the law, it is that … when the circumcision of the flesh ends, the true circumcision of the heart will come. A man breaks the law when he does not follow what is foretold in it.

Since circumcision was held in great esteem among the Jews, he did not say about it immediately at the beginning that circumcision is superfluous and useless, but in words he allows it, while in deed he rejects it, and says: I agree that circumcision is profitable, but only when you fulfill the law. He did not say that it is useless, lest they think he was abolishing circumcision; but he proves that the Jew does not have circumcision, saying: "your circumcision has become uncircumcision." So, he proves that the Jew is not circumcised in heart. He understands two circumcisions and two uncircumcisions: one outward and the other inward. Namely: the outward circumcision is the circumcision of the flesh, when someone is circumcised according to the flesh; the spiritual circumcision consists in the rejection of fleshly passions. And the uncircumcision of the flesh occurs when someone remains uncircumcised according to the flesh, while the spiritual uncircumcision occurs when someone, having a pagan soul, does not cut off the passions at all. Paul's thought is this: if you are circumcised in the flesh but do not fulfill what is prescribed by the law, then you are still uncircumcised, uncircumcised in spirit; likewise, whoever is uncircumcised in the flesh but fulfills what is prescribed by the law is circumcised in spirit, because his fleshly passions have been cut away. He explains this further as well. Listen.

Then when he says circumcision, he shows that circumcision is not sufficient for salvation any more than the law is, and for the same reason, namely, that without circumcision there is value in the law's observance, without which circumcision has no benefit, as was said above.

In regard to this he does three things. First, he compares circumcision to the circumcised Jews; second, to the uncircumcised gentiles, at if then, the uncircumcised; third, he explains what he had said, at for he is not a Jew who is so outwardly.

In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows how circumcision is of value; second, how not, at but if you be a transgressor.

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

However, the Apostle's statement that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you (Gal 5:2), refers to the era after grace; but now he is referring to the time before the passion of Christ, when circumcision had status.

Second, at but if you be a transgressor, he shows how circumcision has no value, when he says: if you, a Jewish adult, be a transgressor of the law, your circumcision is made uncircumcision, i.e., has no more value than your previous condition, because you do not observe what you profess by circumcision: all these nations are uncircumcised and all the house of Israel is uncircumcised in heart (Jer 9:26). In fact they are more guilty for not observing what they promised: a foolish and faithless promise displeases him (Eccl 5:3).

Faith in Christ is the righteousness of the law.… From this it is clear that if a Gentile believes in Christ he becomes a son of Abraham, who is the father of faith.

Gentiles become members of the house of Israel when their uncircumcision is counted for circumcision, inasmuch as they do not display the righteousness of the law by the cutting of the flesh but keep it in charity of heart.

"Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the Law, shall not his uncircumcision be turned into circumcision?" See how he acts. He does not say that the uncircumcision overcomes circumcision (for this was highly grating to those who then heard him), but that the uncircumcision hath become circumcision. And he next enquires what circumcision is, and what uncircumcision and he says that circumcision is well doing and uncircumcision is evil doing. And having first transferred into the circumcision the uncircumcised, who has good deeds, and having thrust out the circumcised man that lived a corrupt life into the uncircumcision, he so gives the preference to the uncircumcised. And he does not say, To the uncircumcised, but goes on to the thing itself, speaking as follows: "Shall not his uncircumcision be turned into circumcision?" And he does not say "reckoned," but "turned to," which was more expressive. As also above he does not say thy circumcision is reckoned uncircumcision, but has been made so.

We can apply this lesson to our situation in the church as well. For example, let us say that catechumens are still uncircumcised, i.e., Gentiles, and that believers are circumcised by the grace of baptism. Therefore, if a catechumen who has not yet been circumcised by the grace of baptism keeps the law of Christ, he obeys the precepts and commandments. Will he not by analogy with what is written here judge the one who claims to be a believer but does not keep the precepts and despises the law of Christ and his commands?

The visible needs the invisible but not the other way round, because the visible is an image of the invisible, while the invisible is the reality itself. Thus, the circumcision of the flesh needs the circumcision of the heart but not vice versa, because the reality does not need the image.… If circumcision has no value by itself, why was it instituted? First, in order to distinguish the people of God from among the Gentiles. This is why when they were by themselves in the desert they were not circumcised. Or perhaps so that their bodies might be identified in battle. The reason why they were marked in that part of the body was first so that they would not be disfigured in a part of the body which was open to public view, and second, because the promise of grace would make this part of the body honorable through chastity. Or perhaps it was because it signified that Christ would be born from its seed. He was destined to introduce spiritual circumcision, but until he was born, physical circumcision would continue.

He does not say that uncircumcision surpasses circumcision, for that would be too painful, but he says that it "shall be counted as circumcision." Therefore, true circumcision is good conduct, and likewise uncircumcision is bad conduct. Note, he did not say: if the uncircumcision keeps the law; for he probably anticipated such an objection from someone: is it possible for an uncircumcised man to keep the law, when the very state of being uncircumcised constitutes a violation of the law? How then did he express it? "The ordinances of the law," that is, the ordinances by the fulfillment of which they think to be justified. For circumcision was not a deed, but a suffering endured by the one being circumcised, and therefore it cannot be called a justification of the law. It was given as a sign, so that the Jews would not be confused with the Gentiles.

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

First, from the aspect that the gentiles obtain the benefits of circumcision by observing the law. Hence he says: since circumcision profits, if the law is observed, but not, if it is not; then, if then, the uncircumcised keep the justices of the law, i.e., the moral precepts of the law: all your commandments are true (Ps 119:86), will not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? As if to say: he will enjoy the fruit of true circumcision.

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

The Gentile who believes under the guidance of nature condemns the Jew, to whom Christ was promised through the law and who refused to believe in him when he came. For as much as the Gentile is being prepared for glory for having known the Creator of nature by nature alone, so the Jew deserves to be punished all the more because he did not know Christ the Creator, either by nature or by the law.

And that the Lord did not abrogate the natural [precepts] of the law, by which man is justified, which also those who were justified by faith, and who pleased God, did observe previous to the giving of the law, but that He extended and fulfilled them, is shown from His words. "For," He remarks, "it has been said to them of old time, Do not commit adultery. But I say unto you, That every one who hath looked upon a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." And again: "It has been said, Thou shalt not kill. But I say unto you, Every one who is angry with his brother without a cause, shall be in danger of the judgment." And, "It hath been said, Thou shalt not forswear thyself. But I say unto you, Swear not at all; but let your conversation be, Yea, yea, and Nay, nay." And other statements of a like nature. For all these do not contain or imply an opposition to and an overturning of the [precepts] of the past, as Marcion's followers do strenuously maintain; but [they exhibit] a fulfilling and an extension of them, as He does Himself declare: "Unless your righteousness shall exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." For what meant the excess referred to? In the first place, [we must] believe not only in the Father, but also in His Son now revealed; for He it is who leads man into fellowship and unity with God. In the next place, [we must] not only say, but we must do; for they said, but did not. And [we must] not only abstain from evil deeds, but even from the desires after them. Now He did not teach us these things as being opposed to the law, but as fulfilling the law, and implanting in us the varied righteousness of the law. That would have been contrary to the law, if He had commanded His disciples to do anything which the law had prohibited. But this which He did command-namely, not only to abstain from things forbidden by the law, but even from longing after them-is not contrary to [the law], as I have remarked, neither is it the utterance of one destroying the law, but of one fulfilling, extending, and affording greater scope to it.

"And shall not the uncircumcision which is by nature judge?" You see, he recognizes two uncircumcisions, one from nature, and the other from the will. Here, however, he speaks of that from nature, but does not pause here, but goes on, "if it fulfil the Law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the Law?" See his exquisite judgment. He does not say, that the uncircumcision which is from nature shall judge the circumcision, but while where the victory had been, he brings in the uncircumcision, yet where the defeat is, he does not expose the circumcision as defeated; but the Jew himself who had it, and so by the wording spares offending his hearer. And he does not say, "thee that hast the Law and the circumcision," but yet more mildly, "thee who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the Law." That is, such uncircumcision even stands up for the circumcision, for it has been wronged and comes to the Law's assistance, for it has been insulted, and obtains a notable triumph. For then is the victory decided, when it is not by Jew that Jew is judged, but by the uncircumcised; as when he says, "The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment against this generation, and shall condemn it." (Matt. xii. 41.)

The Jew according to the flesh may keep the law, but only the man who is spiritual, who is a Jew in secret, can fulfill it. Insofar as the former is a transgressor of the law, it is the latter who will be his judge.

This either means that as long as the Jews continue their literal circumcision they reject the spiritual circumcision, or that they will be judged because they have not followed what the law said, viz., that by believing in Christ they might receive the true circumcision.

Here he clearly shows that he means two uncircumcisions, one natural and the other voluntary, which occurs, as was said, when someone in no way cuts off the carnal passions, and two circumcisions, one according to the flesh and the other a circumcision of the heart in the spirit. "The uncircumcised," he says, "by nature," having the circumcision of the passions through the fulfillment of "the law," that is, as was said above, the ordinances of the law, "will judge," that is, will condemn, not circumcision (for to speak thus of it would be harsh), but "you," who are outwardly indeed circumcised in the flesh, but uncircumcised in heart, as a transgressor of the ordinances of the law.

Second, at and will not that which by nature, he shows that on account of observing the law the gentile is preferred to the Jew. Hence he says, will not that which by nature is uncircumcision, i.e., an uncircumcised gentile, if it fulfill the law through natural reason, judge you, the circumcised Jew, who by the letter is a transgressor of the law, by transgressing the precepts of the law, and have circumcision, i.e., of the flesh. Hence on the basis of this comparison it is written: the men of Nineveh will arise with this generation (Matt 12:4).

"For he is not a Jew which is one outwardly." Here he attacks them as doing all things for show.

This is the true Jew, for everything which was previously done externally was but an image of what was meant to happen internally.

Since this is the circumcision recommended by Jeremiah: "Circumcise (yourselves to the Lord, and take away) the foreskins of your heart; " and even of Moses: "Circumcise, therefore, the hardness of your heart," -the Spirit which circumcises the heart will proceed from Him who prescribed the letter also which clips the flesh; and "the Jew which is one inwardly" will be a subject of the self-same God as he also is who is "a Jew outwardly; " because the apostle would have preferred not to have mentioned a Jew at all, unless he were a servant of the God of the Jews.

On exactly the same principle, they consider the special soil of Judµa to be that very holy land, which ought rather to be interpreted of the Lord's flesh, which, in all those who put on Christ, is thenceforward the holy land; holy indeed by the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, truly flowing with milk and honey by the sweetness of His assurance, truly Judµan by reason of the friendship of God. For "he is not a Jew which is one outwardly, but he who is one inwardly." In the same way it is that both God's temple and Jerusalem (must be understood) when it is said by Isaiah: "Awake, awake, O Jerusalem! put on the strength of thine arm; awake, as in thine earliest time," that is to say, in that innocence which preceded the fall into sin.

And so to the Law presently had to succeed the Word of God introducing the spiritual circumcision. Therefore, by means of the wide licence of those days, materials for subsequent emendations were furnished beforehand, of which materials the Lord by His Gospel, and then the apostle in the last days of the (Jewish) age, either cut off the redundancies or regulated the disorders.

Thus, he rebukes not circumcision (which he apparently respects), but the one who insults or transgresses it. Then, having proved this, he clearly defines who is a true Jew, and gives to understand that the Jews did everything out of vainglory. "For he is not a Jew," he says, "who is one outwardly, but he who is one inwardly," who does nothing in a merely sensory manner, but understands spiritually both the sabbaths, and the sacrifices, and the purifications.

Then when he says for he is not a Jew who is so outwardly, he assigns the reason for his statements. First, he gives the reason; second, he proves it, at whose praise.

In regard to the first he does two things: first, he assigns the reason why circumcision or Judaism without observance of the law is fruitless; second, why observance of the law without Judaism and circumcision has value, at but he who is one inwardly.

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

It is clear why Paul denies that the circumcision of the flesh has any merit with God. For Abraham was not justified because he was circumcised; rather, he was justified because he believed, and afterward he was circumcised. It is the circumcision of the heart which is praiseworthy before God. To circumcise the heart means to cut out error and recognize the Creator. And because the circumcision of the heart was to come in the future, first Moses said: "Circumcise the hardness of your heart," and Jeremiah also: "Circumcise the foreskin of your heart." He said this to Jews who were following idols. For there is a veil over the heart which the one who is converted to God circumcises, because faith removes the cloud of error and grants those who are perfect knowledge of God in the mystery of the Trinity, which was unknown in earlier times. The praise of this circumcision is from God but is hidden to men, for it is the merit of the heart which God looks for, not that of the flesh. But the praise of the Jews is from men, for they glory in the circumcision of the flesh, which comes from their ancestors.

This means that the law should be understood according to the Spirit, and not according to what the letter says. This pertains especially to those who have interpreted circumcision more according to the flesh than according to the Spirit.

He impoverishes himself, in order that he may never overlook a brother who has been brought into affliction, through the perfection that is in love, especially if he know that he will bear want himself easier than his brother. He considers, accordingly, the other's pain his own grief; and if, by contributing from his own indigence in order to do good, he suffer any hardship, he does not fret at this, but augments his beneficence still more. For he possesses in its sincerity the faith which is exercised in reference to the affairs of life, and praises the Gospel in practice and contemplation. And, in truth, he wins his praise "not from men, but from God," by the performance of what the Lord has taught.

The apostle testifies without any hesitation that those who walk according to the teaching of Christ—in the spirit, not in the letter—are the Israel of God.

"But he is a Jew which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter." By saying this he sets aside all things bodily. For the circumcision is outwardly, and the sabbaths and the sacrifices and purifications: all of which he hints in a single word, when he says, "For he is not a Jew which is one outwardly." But since much was made of the circumcision, inasmuch as even the sabbath gave way to it (John vii. 22), he has good reason for aiming more especially against it. But when he has said "in the spirit" he thereafter paves the way for the conversation of the Church, and introduces the faith. For it too is in the heart and spirit and hath its praise of God. And how cometh he not to show that the Gentile which doeth aright is not inferior to the Jew which doeth aright, but that the Gentile which doeth aright is better than the Jew which breaketh the Law? It was that he might make the victory an undoubted one. For when this is agreed upon, of necessity the circumcision of the flesh is set aside, and the need of a good life is everywhere demonstrated. For the Greek is saved without these, but the Jew with these is yet punished, Judaism stands by doing nothing. And by Greek he again means not the idolatrous Greek, but the religous and virtuous, and free from all legal observances.

We must realize that in some people these two things go together while in others they do not. For there are some things which have their beginning inside a man and which proceed from there to the outside, but there are other things which start on the outside and work their way inside. What I mean is this. If chastity begins inside a man, there is no doubt that it will manifest itself on the outside of him as well. For it is hardly possible if someone does not commit adultery in his heart that he should do so in his body. But it does not follow from this that if chastity starts as an outward observance that it will necessarily penetrate to the point of inner continence, so that if someone does not commit adultery in his body it will follow immediately that he does not do so in his heart either. Therefore the circumcision of the inner and the outer man must be understood allegorically as meaning that the inner man should not lust in his heart, nor should the outer man surrender to lust in his body, so that he whom the apostle says is no longer in the flesh but in the Spirit, and who mortifies the deeds of the flesh by the Spirit, may be said to be circumcised in the flesh as well.It is true that he who has been circumcised has given up a part of his flesh to perdition and kept a part of it unharmed. The part that is lost is, I think, what is referred to in the following text: "All flesh is grass, and all its glory is as the flower of the field." But the flesh which is retained is, I think, a type of that flesh of which it is said: "All flesh shall see the salvation of God." It is the task of those ears which can hear to determine which is which.

This is foretold in the law: "And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the Lord your God," and again: "Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, and remove the foreskin of your heart," not according to the letter of the law but according to the New Testament, which examines the inner secrets which only God can see.

Now it is quite within the purpose of the God of the law that circumcision should be that of the heart, not in the flesh; in the spirit, and not in the letter. Since this is the circumcision recommended by Jeremiah: "Circumcise (yourselves to the Lord, and take away) the foreskins of your heart; " and even of Moses: "Circumcise, therefore, the hardness of your heart," -the Spirit which circumcises the heart will proceed from Him who prescribed the letter also which clips the flesh; and "the Jew which is one inwardly" will be a subject of the self-same God as he also is who is "a Jew outwardly; " because the apostle would have preferred not to have mentioned a Jew at all, unless he were a servant of the God of the Jews.

"Spiritual" here does not refer to the Holy Spirit. For Paul is not talking about those who have been put right by grace but is referring above all to those outside the faith who do the works of the law and who show themselves to be better than those transgressors who are under the law.

When he says: "circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit," he paves the way for the Christian way of life and shows the necessity of faith; for believing with the heart and spirit has praise from God, who searches the hearts and judges nothing according to the flesh. From all this it follows that everywhere a righteous life is needed. By the name of the uncircumcised or gentile he means, as was said above, not an idolater, but a pious and virtuous person who does not, however, observe Jewish rites.

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

Again, true circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, i.e., made by one's spirit, which expels superfluous thoughts from the heart. Or in the spirit, i.e., effected by a spiritual understanding of the law, and not in the letter: for we are the true circumcision who worship God in spirit (Phil 3:3).

Then when he says whose praise he proves this reason.

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

Hence, inward Judaism and circumcision prevail over the outward. And this is what he says: whose praise, i.e., of inward circumcision, is not of men but of God: it is not the man who commends himself that is accepted, but the man whom the Lord commends (2 Cor 10:18).