Romans 3:28–4:3

Paul says that a Gentile can be sure that he is justified by faith without doing the works of the law, e. g., circumcision or new moons or the veneration of the sabbath.

This must not be understood in such a way as to say that a man who has received faith and continues to live is righteous, even though he leads a wicked life.

The controversy about faith and works is one that has gone on for a very long time, and it is a highly technical matter. I personally rely on the paradoxical text: "Work out your own salvation... for it is God that worketh in you." [Philippians 2:12] It looks as if in one sense we do nothing, and in another case we do a damned lot. "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling," but you must have it in you before you can work it out.

"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the Law." When he had shown that by faith they were superior to the Jews, then he goes on with great confidence to discourse upon it also, and what seemed therein to annoy he again heals up. For these two things were what confused the Jews; one, if it were possible for men, who with works were not saved, to be saved without them, and another, if it were just for the uncircumcised to enjoy the same blessings with those, who had during so long a period been nurtured in the Law; which last confused them more by far than the former. And on this ground having proved the former, he goes on to the other next, which perplexed the Jews so far, that they even complained on account of this position against Peter after they believed. What does he say then? "Therefore we conclude, that by faith a man is justified." He does not say, a Jew, or one under the Law, but after leading forth his discourse into a large room, and opening the doors of faith to the world, he says "a man," the name common to our race.

It remains for us who are trying to affirm everything the apostle says, and to do so in the proper order, to inquire who is justified by faith alone, apart from works. If an example is required, I think it must suffice to mention the thief on the cross, who asked Christ to save him and was told: "Truly, this day you will be with me in paradise." … A man is justified by faith. The works of the law can make no contribution to this. Where there is no faith which might justify the believer, even if there are works of the law these are not based on the foundation of faith. Even if they are good in themselves they cannot justify the one who does them, because faith is lacking, and faith is the mark of those who are justified by God.

Some people misinterpret this verse in order to do away with the works of righteousness, saying that faith by itself is enough, even though Paul says elsewhere: "If I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing." If this seems to contradict the sense of the other [verses], what works did the apostle mean when he said that a man is justified by faith, without works? Obviously, these are the works of circumcision, the sabbath and so on, and not the works of righteousness about which St. James says: "Faith without works is dead." [In this verse] Paul is speaking about the man who comes to Christ and is saved when he first believes by faith alone. But by adding the works of the law Paul is saying that there are also works of grace which believers ought to perform.

Paul did not say "we hold" because he was himself uncertain. He said it in order to counter those who concluded from this that anyone who wished to could be justified simply by willing faith. Note carefully that Paul does not say simply "without the law," as if we could just perform virtue by wanting to, nor do we do the works of the law by force. We do them because we have been led to do them by Christ.

Having proved that justification is in the Blood of Christ and not in the works of the law, he concludes his discourse and says: from all that has been said, we conclude that every person is justified by faith. Do not be troubled by this, O Jew, as though it were an absurdity.

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

Not only without the ceremonial works, which did not confer grace but only signified it, but also without the works of the moral precepts, as stated in Titus, not because of deeds done by us in justice (Titus 3:5). This, of course, means without works prior to becoming just, but not without works following it, because, as is stated in James: faith without works (Jas 2:26), i.e., subsequent works, is dead, and, consequently, cannot justify.

Undoubtedly there is only one God for everybody. For even the Jews cannot claim that their God is not the God of the Gentiles also, because they believe that the origin of all people is from the one Adam and that no one who comes willingly to the law may be prevented from accepting it. Some Gentiles actually went with the Israelites into the desert of Egypt, and the Israelites were ordered to accept them as long as they agreed to be circumcised and eat unleavened bread, or the Passover, together with the rest of them. Then again Cornelius, a Gentile who was not judaized, received the gift of God, and it is clear from holy Scripture that he was justified.

Wherefore also, to those that ask the wisdom that is with us, we are to hold out things suitable, that with the greatest possible ease they may, through their own ideas, be likely to arrive at faith in the truth. For "I became all things to all men, that I might gain all men." Since also "the rain" of the divine grace is sent down "on the just and the unjust." "Is He the God of the Jews only, and not also of the Gentiles? Yes, also of the Gentiles: if indeed He is one God," exclaims the noble apostle.

One righteous man, then, differs not, as righteous, from another righteous man, whether he be of the Law or a Greek. For God is not only Lord of the Jews, but of all men, and more nearly the Father of those who know Him. For if to live well and according to the law is to live, also to live rationally according to the law is to live; and those who lived rightly before the Law were classed under faith, and judged to be righteous,-it is evident that those, too, who were outside of the Law, having lived rightly, in consequence of the peculiar nature of the voice, though they are in Hades and in ward, on hearing the voice of the Lord, whether that of His own person or that acting through His apostles, with all speed turned and believed. For we remember that the Lord is "the power of God," and power can never be weak.

"Is He the God of the Jews only?" As if he said, On what foot does it then seem to you amiss that every man should be saved? Is God partial? So showing from this, that in wishing to flout the Gentiles, they are rather offering an insult to God's glory, if, that is, they would not allow Him to be the God of all. But if He is of all, then He taketh care of all; and if He care for all, then He saveth all alike by faith. And this is why he says, "Is He the God of the Jews only? is He not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also." For He is not partial as the fables of the Gentiles (cf. Ov. Tr. I. ii. 5. sqq) are, but common to all, and One...

Here Paul gives a short sharp answer to those who would say that there is one God for the Jews and another for the Gentiles, i.e., one God of the law and another of the gospel.

Did God create only the Jews, and is he exclusively concerned with them? For even if the Gentiles sinned, so did the Jews, and even if the Jews repent, so do the Gentiles. If Christ came to the Jews as promised by the law, he came to the Gentiles as well. For the prophets often spoke of the calling of the Gentiles. Paul wants to show the Gentiles that the first saints had not been circumcised and that Abraham was righteous before his circumcision. But he adds "as well," so as not to appear to be excluding the Jews.

Is not all humankind one flock of God? Is not the same God both Lord and Shepherd of all nations?

Tell me, is not all mankind one flock of God? Is not the same God both Lord and Shepherd of the universal nations? Who more "perishes" from God than the heathen, so long as he "errs? "Who is more "re-sought" by God than the heathen, when he is recalled by Christ? In fact, it is among heathens that this order finds antecedent place; if, that is, Christians are not otherwise made out of heathens than by being first "lost," and "re-sought" by God, and "carried back" by Christ.

God is not a partial God, so as to save only you and not every person. Here he also shames the Jews and greatly frightens them as fighters against God, if they do not admit that the Gentiles are saved through faith; for they do not believe that He is the God of all and equally provides for all.

Then when he says or is he the God of the Jews only, he manifests something he had presupposed, namely, that the justice of faith stands in the same common relation to all. He had previously explained this with a reason based on the material cause, when he stated above that all have sinned and need the glory of God (Rom 3:23), i.e., they are sinners, who need to be made just by the grace of God. But a proof based solely on the material cause is not enough, because matter is not moved to a form by itself without an agent cause. Accordingly, he now presents a proof based on the agent cause, i.e., the justifier, who is God: God is he who justifies (Rom 8:33). Now it is manifest that our God by justifying saves those whose God he is, according to a psalm, our God is a God of salvation (Ps 68:20). But he is the God not of the Jews only but of the gentiles also; therefore, he justifies both.

On this point he does three things. First, he raises a question concerning the Jews, when he says, is he the God of Jews only? It might seem that he is, because it says in Exodus, the God of the Hebrews called us (Exod 5:3). Hence it must be said that he was the God of the Jews only by the special worship paid to God by them; hence it is stated in a psalm: in Judah God is known (Ps 76:1); yet he was the God of all by his common reign over all things, as is stated in a psalm: God is king of all the earth (Ps 47:8). Second, he raises the question on the side of the gentiles, saying: is he not also of the gentiles? and he answers: yes, of gentiles also, whom he governs and rules: who would not fear you, O king of the nations? (Jer 10:7).

By "the circumcised" Paul means the Jews who have been justified by their faith in the promise and who believe that Jesus is the Christ whom God had promised in the law. By "the uncircumcised" he means the Gentiles who have been justified with God by their faith in Christ. Thus God has justified both Jews and Gentiles. For because God is one, everyone has been justified in the same way. What benefit then is there in circumcision? Or what disadvantage is there in uncircumcision when only faith produces worthiness and merit?

The difference of preposition ("on the ground of" versus "through") does not indicate any difference of meaning but serves simply to vary the phrase.

For all things had entered upon a new phase, the Word arranging after a new manner the advent in the flesh, that He might win back to God that human nature (hominem) which had departed from God; and therefore men were taught to worship God after a new fashion, but not another god, because in truth there is but "one God, who justifieth the circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision through faith."

For it was not merely for those who believed on Him in the time of Tiberius Caesar that Christ came, nor did the Father exercise His providence for the men only who are now alive, but for all men altogether, who from the beginning, according to their capacity, in their generation have both feared and loved God, and practised justice and piety towards their neighbours, and have earnestly desired to see Christ, and to hear His voice. Wherefore He shall, at His second coming, first rouse from their sleep all persons of this description, and shall raise them up, as well as the rest who shall be judged, and give them a place in His kingdom. For it is truly "one God who" directed the patriarchs towards His dispensations, and "has justified the circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision through faith." For as in the first we were prefigured, so, on the other hand, are they represented in us, that is, in the Church, and receive the recompense for those things which they accomplished.

Thus then does the Lord plainly show that it was the true Lord and the one God who had been set forth by the law; for Him whom the law proclaimed as God, the same did Christ point out as the Father, whom also it behoves the disciples of Christ alone to serve. By means of the statements of the law, He put our adversary to utter confusion; and the law directs us to praise God the Creator (Demiurgum), and to serve Him alone. Since this is the case, we must not seek for another Father besides Him, or above Him, since there is one God who justifies the circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision through faith.

Paul shows clearly that righteousness depends not on the merit of man but on the grace of God, who accepts the faith of those who believe without the works of the law.

"Seeing it is one God." That is, the same is the Master of both these and those. But if you tell me of the ancient state of things, then too the dealings of Providence were shared by both, although in diverse ways. For as to thee was given the written law, so to them was the natural; and they came short in nothing, if, that is, only they were willing, but were even able to surpass thee. And so he proceeds, with an allusion to this very thing, "Who shall justify the circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision through faith," so reminding them of what he said before about uncircumcision and circumcision, whereby he showed that there was no difference. But if then there was no difference, much less is there any now, And this accordingly he now establishes upon still clearer grounds, and so demonstrates, that either of them stand alike in need of faith.

Not only does Paul say that there is only one God for both Jews and Gentiles, but he adds that this God is the one who justifies the circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised through their faith.… Neither the circumcision nor the uncircumcision enjoys any advantage in this.

Jews and Gentiles have both believed in the same God and in the same Christ.

One, he says, is God, that is, the God of both Jews and Gentiles, Who justifies the circumcised not by the law, but by faith, and accepts the uncircumcised through faith. Having mentioned circumcision and uncircumcision, he also recalls what was said above, where he proved that neither does circumcision bring benefit when there are no works, nor does uncircumcision harm in and of itself. Thus, in both cases faith is needed.

Third, at for it is one God, he manifests what he had said with a sign, as if to say: it is clear that he is the God not only of the Jews but also of the gentiles, for it is one God who justifies circumcision, i.e., the Jews, from faith, as is said in Galatians, in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail (Gal 5:6).

According to the Gloss, from faith and through faith are exactly the same. However, a slight difference can be noted. For the preposition 'from' sometimes designates a remote cause, while the preposition 'through' designates a nearer cause. Therefore, the Jews are said to be justified from faith because faith was the first cause from which circumcision and the other sacraments of the law proceeded; thus, faith justified the Jews as a primary cause through intermediate causes. But the gentiles are justified by faith itself immediately.

Paul says that the law is not nullified by faith but fulfilled. For its status is confirmed when faith bears witness that what it said would come has actually happened. Paul says this because of the Jews who thought that faith in Christ was inimical to the law because they did not understand the true meaning of the law. For Paul does not nullify the law when he says that it must come to an end, because he asserts that at the time it was given it was rightly given, but now it does not have to be kept any longer. In the law itself it is said that a time would come when the promise would be fulfilled and the law would no longer have to be kept.… "Behold the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers."

How should the law be upheld if not by righteousness? By a righteousness, moreover, which is of faith, for what could not be fulfilled through the law is fulfilled through faith.

Do we then make void freedom of choice through grace? God forbid! Rather, we establish freedom of choice. As the law is not made void by faith, so freedom of choice is not made void but established by grace. Freedom of choice is necessary to the fulfillment of the law. But by the law comes the knowledge of sin; by faith comes the obtaining of grace against sin; by grace comes the healing of the soul from sin's sickness; by the healing of the soul comes freedom of choice; by freedom of choice comes the love of righteousness; by the love of righteousness comes the working of the law. Thus, as the law is not made void but established by faith, since faith obtains the grace whereby the law may be fulfilled, so freedom of choice is not made void but established by grace, since grace heals the will whereby righteousness may freely be loved.

The law is confirmed by faith. Apart from faith the law merely commands, and it holds guilty those who do not fulfill its commands, so that it might thereafter turn to the grace of the Deliverer those groaning in their inability to do what is commanded.

On account of his humanity Emmanuel is called a prophet, who following Moses is the mediator between God and humanity. The law was a shadow, but even so it presented an image of the truth. Furthermore, the truth hardly destroys its images; rather it makes-them clearer.

"Do we then," he says, "make void the Law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the Law." Do you see his varied and unspeakable judgment? For the bare use of the word "establish" shows that it was not then standing, but was worn out. And note also Paul's exceeding power, and how superabundantly he maintains what he wishes. For here he shows that the faith, so far from doing any disparagement to the "Law," even assists it, as it on the other hand paved the way for the faith. For as the Law itself before bore witness to it (for he saith, "being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets"), so here this establisheth that, now that it is unnerved. And how did it establish? he would say. What was the object of the Law and what the scope of all its enactments? Why, to make man righteous. But this it had no power to do. "For all," it says, "have sinned:" but faith when it came accomplished it. For when a man is once a believer, he is straightway justified. The intention then of the Law it did establish, and what all its enactments aim after, this hath it brought to a consummation. Consequently it has not disannulled, but perfected it. Here then three points he has demonstrated; first, that without the Law it is possible to be justified; next, that this the Law could not effect; and, that faith is not opposed to the Law.

Whoever does not believe in Christ, of whom Moses wrote in the law, destroys the law. But whoever believes in Christ, of whom Moses wrote, confirms the law through faith, because he believes in Christ.The Lord himself said: "I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it." None of the saints nor even the Lord himself has destroyed the law. Rather its glory, which is temporal and transient, has been destroyed and replaced by a glory which is eternal and permanent.

Is the law which enjoins us to be circumcised unnecessary? Not at all! On the contrary, we enable it to stand firm when we show that what it said is true, viz., that (spiritual) law would follow after (physical) law, (spiritual) testament after (physical) testament, (spiritual) circumcision after (physical) circumcision.

But he had withal said above: "Are we, then, making void the law through faith? Far be it; but we are establishing the law " -forsooth in those (points) which, being even now interdicted by the New Testament, are prohibited by an even more emphatic precept: instead of, "Thou shalt not commit adultery," "Whoever shall have seen with a view to concupiscence, hath already committed adultery in his own heart; " and instead of, "Thou shalt not kill," "Whoever shall have said to his brother, Racha, shall be in danger of hell.

The statement that the law is overthrown by faith threw the Jews into confusion. Therefore he heals them with his great wisdom, saying that faith establishes the law. For what the law also desired, that is, to justify man, but could not do, faith accomplishes. Whoever has believed has already been justified. So faith did not destroy, but established the law. By the expression ίστώμεν he suggests that the law was lying down, and that which is lying down must be raised up and set upright.

Then when he says do we then destroy, he excludes an objection. For someone might claim that he is overthrowing the aforementioned law; therefore, he asks: do we then destroy the law through faith, inasmuch as we say that men are justified without the works of the law?

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

This is true as regards the ceremonial precepts because, being figures, they were upheld and fulfilled by the fact that the truth signified by them is shown forth in the faith of Christ. This is also true as regards the moral precepts, because the faith of Christ confers the help of grace to fulfill the moral precepts of the law and even adds special counsels, through which the moral precepts are more safely and securely kept.

After showing that no one can be justified before God by the works of the law, Paul goes on to say that Abraham could not merit anything according to the flesh either. In saying "the flesh," Paul meant circumcision, because Abraham sought nothing on the basis of his circumcision. For he was already justified before he was circumcised.

Paul shows from the example of Abraham that faith is not given only to those who are under the law and the circumcision, but also to those who are not circumcised. For Abraham was not justified by his works either, nor did he have any reason to boast, for he was imperfect and apart from God he could do nothing.… Abraham our father was justified by faith. Paul calls him the "forefather according to the flesh" of those Israelites who have become sons of God by the Spirit. For Christ was made like them in his birth according to the flesh, and now he has made them like him through his birth by grace in the Spirit.

He had said that the world had become guilty before God, and that all had sinned, and that boasting was excluded and that it was impossible to be saved otherwise than by faith. He is now intent upon showing that this salvation, so far from being matter of shame, was even the cause of a bright glory, and a greater than that through works. For since the being saved, yet with shame, had somewhat of dejection in it, he next takes away this suspicion too. And indeed he has hinted at the same already, by calling it not barely salvation, but "righteousness. Therein" (he says) "is the righteousness of God revealed." For he that is saved as a righteous man has a confidence accompanying his salvation. And he calls it not "righteousness" only, but also the setting forth of the righteousness of God. But God is set forth in things which are glorious and shining, and great.

And he calls him "father, as pertaining to the flesh," to throw them out of the genuine relationship to him, and to pave the Gentiles' way to kinsmanship with him. And then he says, "For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory: but not before God." After saying that God "justified the circumcision by faith and the uncircumcision through faith," and making the same sufficiently sure in what he said before, he now proves it by Abraham more clearly than he promised, and pitches the battle for faith against works, and makes this righteous man the subject of the whole struggle.

For the great power of Paul is especially displayed in this, that he turns what is objected to the other side, and shows that what seemed rather to be on the side of salvation by works, viz. glorying or boldness of claim belonged much more truly to that by faith. For he that glorieth in his works has his own labors to put forward: but he that finds his honor in having faith in God, has a much greater ground for glorying to show, in that it is God that he glorifieth and magnifieth.

Paul calls the Jews back to the beginning of circumcision, so that what it originally stood for might be fully understood.

Having sufficiently proven that faith is necessary for all, he confirms this further with the example of Abraham, who enjoyed great respect among the Jews, and says that he too, having excellently accomplished many great things, was justified not by works, but by faith. He calls him father "according to the flesh," in order to show that the Jews do not have a spiritual kinship with him, or rather, in order to oblige them to imitate him in all things.

After excluding the glory which the Jews took in the law, on the basis of which they preferred themselves to the gentiles, the Apostle now excludes their glory in regard to circumcision.

About this he does two things.

First, he takes up the question he had raised earlier, when he asked, what is the profit of circumcision? (Rom 3:1). And because Abraham was the first to receive the command about circumcision, as stated in Genesis (Gen 17:10), he repeats the question in the person of Abraham himself, saying: if it is true that God justifies the uncircumcised as well as the circumcised, what profit shall we say then that Abraham has found, who is our father according to the flesh? That is, according to circumcision and other bodily observances. For it does not seem fitting to say that he found no usefulness, since it is stated in Isaiah, I am the Lord, your God, who teaches you useful things (Isa 48:17).

This is a rhetorical argument. For Abraham indeed does have glory before God, but because of the faith by which he was justified, because nobody is justified by the works of the law in a way which would give him glory before God. And because those who keep the law are still being justified, Paul adds: "If Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God."

Since Abraham without the law obtained glory not by the works of the law (as if he could fulfill the law in his own strength), since the law had not yet been given, the glory belongs to God, not to him. For he was justified not by his own merit, as if by works, but by the grace of God through faith.

What can we say to those who insist that Abraham was justified by works because he was ready to sacrifice his son Isaac on the altar? Abraham was already an old man when God promised him that he would have a son and that his descendants would be as countless as the stars of the sky. Abraham piously believed that all things are possible with God and so exercised this faith. God reckoned him to be righteous on this account and gave Abraham a reward worthy of such a godly mind, viz., the forgiveness of his previous sins.… So even if Abraham was also justified by his willingness to sacrifice Isaac, this must be regarded as an evident demonstration of a faith which was already very strong.

This is a rhetorical argument, which goes like this: Someone who is justified by works has nothing to boast of before God. But Abraham did have something to glory in before God. Therefore he was justified by faith and not by works.In this whole passage it seems that the apostle wants to show that there are two justifications, one by works and the other by faith. He says that justification by works has its glory but only in and of itself, not before God. Justification by faith, on the other hand, has glory before God, who sees our hearts and knows those who believe in secret and those who do not believe. Thus it is right to say that it has glory only before God, who sees the hidden power of faith. But the one who looks for justification by works may expect honor mainly from other persons who see and approve of them. Let no one think that someone who has faith enough to be justified and to have glory before God can at the same time have unrighteousness dwelling in him as well. For faith cannot coexist with unbelief, nor can righteousness with wickedness, just as light and darkness cannot live together.

If Abraham was justified because of his circumcision, then God gave him nothing and he could have gloried in what he did to himself. Or it may mean that if Abraham carried out the ordinances, he had glory in his own eyes but not in God's.

The accomplishment of good works honors those who do them, but it does not reveal the kindness of God. Faith, on the other hand, reveals both the love for God of the one who believes and God's kindness.

If he was justified by works, then he "has something to boast about, but not before God," that is, he can boast that he accomplished something well by his own labors, but this does not mean boasting before God, and is not directed toward God.

Second, when he says, for if Abraham, he answers the question he had raised.

He does two things.

First, he shows that Abraham did not obtain justification through circumcision and the other works of the law, but rather through faith;

second, he commends his faith, at who against hope (Rom 4:18).

In regard to the first he does two things.

First, he explains his position with a reason based on divine acceptance;

second, by reason of God's promise, at for not through the law (Rom 4:13).

In regard to the first he does three things.

First, he proposes a conditional statement;

second, he disproves the consequent, at for what says the Scripture?

Third, he proves the conditional statement, at as David also.

In regard to the first the Apostle intends to argue in the following manner: if Abraham were justified from works of the law, he would have no glory with God; therefore, he was not justified from works.

Hence, he presents the conditional statement, saying: it has been asked what Abraham found in virtue of bodily circumcision, and it is obvious that he did not find himself justified from works of the law, such that his justice consisted in the works of the law; he has glory, namely, before men, who see the outward works, but not before God, who sees in secret: the Lord looks on the heart (1 Sam 16:7); so let no one boast of men (1 Cor 3:21). Hence it is written against some that they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God (John 12:43).

Against this one might object that becoming accustomed to outward works generates an inward habit, according to which a man's heart is also well disposed and so made ready to perform well and take pleasure in good works, as the Philosopher teaches in Ethics II.

The answer is that this takes place in human justice, through which man is ordained to the human good. For the habit of this justice can be acquired through human works, but the justice which obtains glory before God is ordained to the divine good, namely future glory, which exceeds human ability, as is said: it has not arisen in the heart of man what God has prepared for those who love him (1 Cor 2:9).

Consequently, a man's works are not proportioned to causing the habit of this justice; rather, a man's heart needs first to be justified inwardly by God, so that he can perform works proportioned to divine glory.

I do not demand a reason from Christ. If I am convinced by reason, I deny faith. Abraham believed God. Let us also believe, so that we who are the heirs of his race may likewise be heirs of his faith.

Paul revealed that Abraham had glory before God not because he was circumcised nor because he abstained from evil, but because he believed in God. For that reason he was justified, and he would receive the reward of praise in the future.

Abraham, accordingly, who through hearing believed the voice, which promised under the oak in Mamre, "I will give this land to thee, and to thy seed," was either elect or not. But if he was not, how did he straightway believe, as it were naturally? And if he was elect, their hypothesis is done away with, in as much as even previous to the coming of the Lord an election was found, and that saved: "For it was reckoned to him for righteousness."

And on learning the way of truth, let us walk on the right way, without turning till we attain to what we desire. It was therefore with reason that the king of the Romans (his name was Numa), being a Pythagorean, first of all men, erected a temple to Faith and Peace. "And to Abraham, on believing, righteousness was reckoned."

And teaching this very thing, He said to the Jews: "Your father Abraham rejoiced that he should see my day; and he saw it, and was glad." What is intended? "Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness." In the first place, [he believed] that He was the maker of heaven and earth, the only God; and in the next place, that He would make his seed as the stars of heaven. This is what is meant by Paul, [when he says,] "as lights in the world." Righteously, therefore, having left his earthly kindred, he followed the Word of God, walking as a pilgrim with the Word, that he might [afterwards] have his abode with the Word.

The Master proclaimed that Abraham was just because he outran the weakness of his human nature. He strained with his whole mind toward the power of him who had made the promise.

"For what saith the Scripture? Abraham believed in God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness."

After mentioning the Scripture above he goes on to secure also the judgment of the speakers, and shows that justification took place in the uncircumcision. Then from these grounds he solves another objection which is starting up. For if when in uncircumcision, one might say he was justified, to what purpose was the circumcision brought in? "He received it," he says, "a sign and seal of the righteousness that was by the faith, which he had being yet uncircumcised."

Was Abraham justified just because he had the faith to believe that he would be given a son? Or was it also because of all the other things which he had believed previously?… Before this point, Abraham had believed in part but not perfectly. Now, however, all the parts of his earlier faith are gathered together to make a perfect whole, by which he is justified.

Abraham's faith was so great that his earlier sins were all forgiven him, and righteousness was counted as credit for every one of them by faith alone. Later he was on fire with such love for God that he piled one good work on top of another. Therefore he has glory in God's eyes.

Accordingly it is patience which is both subsequent and antecedent to faith. In short, Abraham believed God, and was accredited by Him with righteousness; but it was patience which proved his faith, when he was bidden to immolate his son, with a view to (I would not say the temptation, but) the typical attestation of his faith.

On the contrary, whoever is justified by faith has praise before God and can boast in God, as one saved by His grace and beloved by Him. The believer can also boast in another way, namely as one who has glorified God by believing that He can do what seems impossible to us. So, he has praise and boldness before God, as one having a true understanding of Him, and believing in Him as almighty.

Then when he says, for what says, he disproves the consequent, which was negative, by proving the opposite affirmative, namely, that Abraham did have glory before God.

He proves this on the authority of Scripture:

first, he cites the authority;

second, he explains, at now to him.

First, therefore, he says: I say that Abraham was justified in a way that gave him glory before God. For what says the Scripture? Abraham believed God who promised that his seed would be multiplied (Gen 15:6). Believe God and he will help you (Sir 2:6). And it was reputed to him, i.e., by God, unto justice: was not Abraham found faithful when tested? (1 Macc 2:52). Consequently, it is clear that before God, by whom that he believed was reckoned to him as justice, he has glory.

But it should be noted that Abraham expressed the justice described, which God regards, not in some outward work but in the inward faith of the heart, which God alone sees. Indeed, since the act of faith is said to be threefold, namely, to believe in God, to believe God, and to believe unto God, he mentions this act, namely to believe God, which is the proper act of faith and indicates its nature. For to believe unto God shows the ordering of faith to its end, which is through charity; for to believe unto God is to go to God by believing, which charity does. Consequently, it follows upon the nature of faith.

But to believe in God indicates the matter of faith taken as a theological virtue, having God for its object. Consequently, this act does not yet attain the nature of faith, because if one believes in God in virtue of certain human reasons and natural signs, he is not yet said to have the faith of which we now speak, but only when he believes something for the reason that it was said by God—which is indicated by the phrase, 'to believe God.' It is from this that faith takes its nature, just as any cognitive habit takes its nature from the reason in virtue of which it assents to something. For a person possessing scientific philosophical knowledge is inclined to assent to its statements for one reason, namely, through demonstration, but one having the habit of opinion is inclined to assent for a different reason, namely, through a dialectical syllogism.