Homilies on Romans

And he seems to be bringing a testimony beside his purpose. For it does not say, Blessed are they whose faith is reckoned for righteousness. But he does so on purpose, not through inadvertency, to show the greater superiority. For if he be blessed that by grace received forgiveness, much more is he that is made just, and that exhibits faith. For where blessedness is, there all shame is removed, and there is much glory, since blessedness is a greater degree both of reward and of glory. And for this cause what is the advantage of the other he states as unwritten, “Now to him that works is the reward reckoned not of grace;” but what the advantage of the faithful is, he brings Scriptural testimony to prove, saying, As David says, “Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.” What, he means, is it that you say? Is it that “it is not of debt but of grace that he receives forgiveness?” But see it is this person who is pronounced blessed. For he would not have pronounced him so, unless he saw him in the enjoyment of great glory. And he does not say this “forgiveness” then comes upon the circumcision; but what says he?

Ver. 9. “Comes this blessedness then” (which is the greater thing) “upon the circumcision or upon the uncircumcision?”

For now the subject of enquiry is, With whom is this good and great thing to be found; is it with the circumcision or with the uncircumcision? And notice its superiority! For he shows that it is so far from shunning the uncircumcision, that it even dwelt gladly with it before the circumcision. For since he that pronounced it blessed was David, who was himself also in a state of circumcision, and he was speaking to those in that state, see how eagerly Paul contends for applying what he said to the uncircumcised. For after joining the ascription of blessedness to righteousness, and showing that they are one and the same thing, he enquires how Abraham came to be righteous. For if the ascription of blessedness belong to the righteous, and Abraham was made righteous, let us see how he was made righteous, as uncircumcised or circumcised? Uncircumcised, he says.

“For we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.”

After mentioning the Scripture above (for he said, “What says the Scripture? Abraham believed in God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness,”) here 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?

Ver. 11. “He received it,” he says, “a sign and seal of the righteousness that was by the faith, which he had being yet uncircumcised.”

See you how he shows the Jews to be as it were of the class of parasites (i.e. guests), rather than those in uncircumcision, and that these were added to the others? For if he was justified and crowned while in uncircumcision, the Jews came in afterwards, Abraham is then the father first of the uncircumcised, which through faith appertain to him, and then of those in the circumcision. For he is a forefather of two lines. See you faith lightening up? For till it came the patriarch was not justified. See you the uncircumcision offering no hindrance? For he was uncircumcised, yet was not hindered from being justified. The circumcision therefore is behind the faith. And why wonder that it is behind the faith, when it is even behind the uncircumcision. Nor is it behind faith only, but very far inferior to it, even so far as the sign is to the reality of which it is the sign; for instance, as the seal is to the soldier. (See Hom. iii. on 2 Cor. at the end.) And why, he says, did he want a seal then? He did not want it himself. For what purpose then did he receive it? With a view to his being the father alike of them that believe in uncircumcision and in circumcision. But not of those in circumcision absolutely: wherefore he goes on to say, “To them who are not of the circumcision only.” For if to the uncircumcised, it is not in that he is uncircumcised that he is their father, although justified in uncircumcision; but in that they imitated his faith; much less is it owing to circumcision that he is the forefather of those in the state of circumcision, unless faith also be added. For he says that the reason of his receiving circumcision was that either of us two parties might have him for a forefather, and that those in the uncircumcision might not thrust aside those in the circumcision. See how the former had him for their forefather first. Now if the circumcision be of dignity owing to its preaching righteousness, the uncircumcision even has no small preeminence in having received it before the circumcision. Then will you be able to have him as a forefather when you walk in the steps of that faith, and art not contentious, nor a causer of division in bringing in the Law. What faith? Tell me.

Ver. 12. “Which he had being yet uncircumcised.”

Here again he lays low the lofty spirit of the Jews by reminding them of the time of the justification. And he well says, “the steps,” that you as well as Abraham may believe in the resurrection of bodies that are dead. For he also displayed his faith upon this point. And so if you reject the uncircumcision, be informed for certain that the circumcision is of no more use unto you. For if you follow not in the steps of his faith, though you were ten thousand times in a state of circumcision, you will not be Abraham's offspring. For even he received the circumcision for this end, that the man in a state of uncircumcision might not cast you off. Do not then demand this of him too. For it was you whom the thing was to be an assistance to, not he. But he calls it a sign of the righteousness. And this also was for your sake, since now it is not even this: for thou then were in need of bodily signs, but now there is no need of them. “And was it not possible,” one might say, “from his faith to learn the goodness of his soul?” Yes, it was possible but you stood in need of this addition also. For since thou did not imitate the goodness of his soul, and were not able to see it, a sensible circumcision was given you, that, after having become accustomed to this of the body, you might little by little be led on to the true love of wisdom in the soul also, and that having with much seriousness received it as a very great privilege, you might be instructed to imitate and revere your ancestor. This object then had God not only in the circumcision, but in all the other rites, the sacrifices, I mean, and the sabbath, and feasts. Now that it was for your sake that he received the circumcision, learn from the sequel. For after saying that he received a sign and a seal, he gives the reason also as follows. That he might be the father of the circumcision— to those who received the spiritual circumcision also, since if you have only this (i.e. the carnal), no farther good will come to you. For this is then a sign, when the reality of which it is the sign is found with you, that is, faith; since if you have not this, the sign to you has no longer the power of a sign, for what is it to be the sign of? Or what the seal of, when there is nothing to be sealed? Much as if you were to show one a purse with a seal to it, when there was nothing laid up within. And so the circumcision is ridiculous if there be no faith within. For if it be a sign of righteousness, but you have not righteousness, then you have no sign either. For the reason of your receiving a sign was that you might seek diligently for that reality whereof you have the sign: so that if you had been sure of diligently seeking thereafter without it, then you had not needed it. But this is not the only thing that circumcision proclaims, namely righteousness, but righteousness in even an uncircumcised man. Circumcision then does but proclaim, that there is no need of circumcision.

Ver. 14. “For if they which are of the Law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect.”