What advantage then has the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
All Commentaries on Romans 3:1 Go To Romans 3
Thomas Aquinas
AD 1274
After showing that Judaism, which involved receiving the Law and circumcision, is not sufficient for salvation without the Law’s observance, through which the Gentile without external Judaism and circumcision obtains the fruit of each [n. 163 and 210], he now objects to his own doctrine: 129 first, he presents the objection; secondly, he answers it, there [v. 2; n. 248] at Much in every way. 247. First, he objects: If what I say is so, i.e., that the true Jew and true circumcision are not something outward but inward in the heart, then what advantage has the Jew, i.e., what has been given to him more than to others? It seems to be nothing. But this is not fitting, since the Lord had said: "The Lord, your God, has chosen you to be a people for his own possession" (Dt 7:6). Or what is the value of circumcision, i.e., outward? It seems from his previous teaching that there is no value. But this is not fitting, since it was imposed by God, Who says: "I am the Lord, your God, who teaches you unto profit" (Is 48:17). 248. Then when he says Much in every way (v. 2) he answers the objection: first, in regard to Judaism’s prerogative; secondly, in regard to the value of circumcision, in chapter 4, there [n. 322] at What therefore shall we say? In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows Judaism’s prerogative; secondly, he rejects their boasting over the Gentiles, there [v. 9; n. 271] at What then?. In regard to the first he does three things: first, he states his position; secondly, he explains it, there [v. 2b; n. 250] at First indeed; thirdly, he excludes an objection, there [v. 3; n. 251] at What if some. 130 249. First, therefore, he says: the question is raised what advantage has the Jew. The advantage is both quantitative, which is indicated when he says, much, and numerical, which is indicated when he says, in every way. For they have an advantage both in contemplating divine matters: "In Judah God is known" (Ps 76:1) and in the provision of temporal things: "He has not dealt thus with any other nation" (Ps 147:20). They have further advantages relating to their ancestors, to the promises and to their offspring: "They are Israelites, and to them belong the sonship, the glory, the covenant" (Rom 9:4). In each of these there is no small advantage, but great and important ones, which are summed up when he says, much. For man’s greatest good lies in knowing God, in clinging to God and in being instructed by God: "Blessed is the man whom thou dost teach out of thy law" (Ps 93:12). 250. Then when he says First indeed he explains his statement, saying: First indeed, i.e., the chief advantage is that to them are entrusted the oracles of God, being His friends: "I have called you friends" (Jn 15:15). This is important, because the oracles of God are trustworthy: "The ordinances of the Lord are true and righteous altogether" (Ps 19:9) and pleasant: "How sweet are thy words to my taste" (Ps 119:103) and useful for avoiding sin: "I have laid up thy word in my heart, that I may not sin against thee" (Ps 119:11). 251. Then when he says What if some were unfaithful (v.3) he excludes an objection: first, he presents it; 131 secondly, he rejects it by showing its consequences, there [v. 3b; n. 253] at Does their faithlessness; thirdly, by showing that the consequence is unfitting, there [v. 4b; n. 254] at But God is true. 252. Someone could belittle the Jews’ prerogative by citing their ingratitude, through which they would seem to have set aside the value of God’s message. Hence he says, what if some were unfaithful? Does this show that the Jew has no advantage, especially in the light of 2 Pt (2:21): "It would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandments delivered to them." For they did not believe the Lawgiver: "They had no faith in his promises" (Ps 106:24) or the prophets: "They are a rebellious house" (Ez 2:6) or the Son of God: "If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me?" (Jn 8:46). 253. Then when he says Does their faithlessness (v3b) he excludes this objection by showing the unsuitable conclusion it engenders. For if the Jews’ prerogative were taken away on account of the unbelief of some, it would follow that man’s unbelief would nullify God’s faithfulness -- which is an unacceptable conclusion. This is what he says: Does their unfaithfulness, namely, of those who have not believed, nullify the faithfulness of God? This can be understood in two ways: in one way, as referring to the faith by which one believes in God. For the faith of believers is not nullified by those who have not believed, because the evil in some members of society does not nullify the good in other members: "Some of them he blessed and exalted and some of them he made holy and 132 brought near to himself; some he cursed and brought low, and he turned them out of their place" (Si 33:12). This is against those of whom Augustine says in The Letter to the People of Hippo: "What other motive inspires them and what else do they discuss save that when a bishop or cleric or monk or nun falls, they believe that all are such, but not all can be exposed?" In another way, it can be understood as referring to the faith with which God is faithful in keeping His promises: "He who promised is faithful" (Heb 10:23). This faithfulness would be nullified, if it happened that the Jews had no advantage, just because some have not believed. For God promised to multiply that people and make it great: "I will multiply your descendants" (Gen 22:l6). 254. Then when he says, Let it not be!, he shows that it is unfitting for God’s faithfulness to be nullified on account of men’s unbelief. First, he gives a reason for this; secondly, he cites a text, there [4b; n. 256] at As it is written; thirdly, be excludes a false understanding of this text, there [v. 5; n. 262] at But if our injustice. 255. The reason is based on the fact that God in Himself is true: "The Lord is the true God" (Jer 10:10); "This is the true God and life eternal" (1 Jn 5:20); though every man be false: "I said in my consternation, ‘Men are all a vain hope’" (Ps 116:11). Hence, it is plain that man’s mendacity or unbelief in not adhering to the truth does not nullify God’s truth or faithfulness. This is easier to understand, if we consider that truth implies agreement between thing and understanding. But things are in agreement with our understanding in one way 133 and with God’s in another way. For our intellect derives its knowledge from things; consequently, the cause and measure of our truth stems from the thing’s being. For an opinion is called true or false depending on whether the thing is as stated or is not. Hence, our understanding can be true or it can be false, for it can be in agreement or disagreement. But whatever is open to being or not being needs someone acting to make it be; otherwise, it continues not to be. For as air without something illuminating it remains dark, so our intellect by itself, unless it is enlightened by the first truth, continues in falseness. Hence, of himself every man is false in his intellect and is true only in virtue of participating in the divine truth: "Send out thy light and thy truth" (Ps 43:3). The divine intellect, on the other hand, is the cause and measure of things. For this reason it is of itself unfailingly true, and everything else is true inasmuch as it conforms to that intellect. Similarly, considering truth on the part of the thing, man of himself does not have truth, because his nature is convertible into nothing. Only the divine nature, which is not produced from nothing or convertible into nothing, has of itself truth. 256. Then when he says, As it is written, he proves his statement on the authority of a text in Ps 51 (v.4): That thou mayest be justified in thy words and prevail when thou art judged. How this is to the point can be gathered from considering what the Psalmist had said just ahead of it For he says just before this, "Against thee, thee only, have I sinned," and then: "So that thou art justified in thy sentence and blameless in thy judgment." For God through the prophet Nathan had promised David that He would establish his kingdom forever in his seed, as is gathered from 2 Sam (7:16). But later, when he fell into serious 134 sin, namely, adultery and murder (2 Sam 11:2 ff), some said that on account of these sins God would not keep the promises made to him. 257. Hence, the Psalmist’s intention bears on two things. First, that God’s justice, which involves keeping His promises, is not changed on account of sin. Touching on this he says, that thou mayest be justified in thy words, i.e., that You may be shown just in your words, since You do not disregard them because of my sins: "All the words of my mouth are righteous" (Pr 8:8); "The Lord is faithful in all his words" (Ps 145:13). Secondly, that God’s promise imitates men’s judgment. And this is what he says, and prevail, namely, by keeping Your promise, when thou art judged, namely, by men, that on account of my sins You did not keep Your promises: "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good" (Rom 12:21), which is said to men. Accordingly, it is truer of God. 258. It should be noted that God’s promise to David was to be fulfilled in Christ’s incarnation. Hence it was a predestinative prophecy, in which something is promised as destined to be fulfilled in every way; whereas something promised or foretold by a prophecy of warning is not predicted as destined to be fulfilled in every way but according to men’s merits, which can change. Therefore, if the promise made to David had not been fulfilled, it would have been prejudicial to God’s justice; whereas the non-fulfillment of a promise made through a prophecy of warning is not prejudicial to God’s justice, but indicates a change in deserts. Hence it is written in Jer (18:7): "If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a 135 kingdom that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, and if that nation turns from its evil, I will repent of the evil that I intended to do to it." Therefore, it is plain, according to this sense, that man’s sin does not exclude God’s faithfulness. 259. Other senses of this text are presented in the Gloss [of Lombard, col. 1352], but they are not closely related to the Apostle’s intention. The first is that these words are linked with the words, "Wash me more thoroughly from my iniquity" (v. 4) to the end "that you may be justified," i.e., appear just, "in thy words," in which You promised pardon to sinners not only in Ezekiel, because these words antedated that, but also in Lev (26:41): "If they make amends for their iniquity, then I will remember my covenant," and Dt (30:1): "If, lead by repentance of heart, you turn to God, the Lord your God will bring you back, and have compassion on you." Thus "may you prevail when you are judged" by men that you ought not pardon me. 260. Secondly these words are connected with the verse, "Against you only have I sinned," i.e., in comparison with you who alone are just. And this is what he means when he says "that you may be justified," i.e., by you may appear just in comparison to me and other sinners: "The Lord is just, and loves justice" (Ps 10:8), and this not only in deeds but also in your words, which is the greatest of all according to Jam 3(:2), "If anyone does not offend in word." "And that you may overcome when you are judged," i.e., when you are compared to anyone else in judgment: "Judge between me and my vineyard" (Is 5:3). 261. Third, these words are referred to Christ, Who alone is without sin: "He committed no sin; no guile was found on his lips" (2 Pt 2:22) and is, therefore, justified in 136 His words as compared to all men. And you prevail over sin, death and the devil: "The Lion of the tribe of Judah has conquered" (Rev 5:5), when you are judged unjustly by Pilate: "Thy cause has been judged as that of the wicked" (Jb 36:17). 262. Then when he says, But if our wickedness, he excludes a false understanding of the text he cited. For someone might understand these words according to the sense that "that" [ut] would be taken in a causal, not a consecutive, sense. Then it would follow that man’s sin would be directly ordained to commend God’s justice. But the Apostle shows that this is false. Hence he says that "that" is used consecutively, on the ground that David sinned and then the manifestation of divine justice followed, but not causally, as if a man’s sin commended God’s justice. He proves this by showing that it leads to something unfitting in two ways: first, on the part of divine judgment; secondly, on the part of human judgment [v. 7; n. 267]. In regard to the first he does three things: first, he presents the false sense; secondly, he shows that something unfitting follows from this, there [v. 5b; n. 264] at What then shall we say? Is God unjust; thirdly, he shows that it is unfitting, there [v. 6; n. 265] at Let it not be! 263. It should be noted that above (v.4) the Apostle had made two comparisons; in the first he compared divine truth to human falsity when he said: "Let God be true, though every man be false"; in the second, God’s justice to human sin, in the words of Ps 137 51 (v.4), where it is said: "Against thee, thee only, have I sinned.... That thou mayest be justified." In regard to the first comparison he says: If these words are taken to mean that our iniquity directly commends God’s justice, what shall we say? In other words, we could not accept the inconvenience that follows. For sin is not necessary for God to have His justice commended: "He does not desire a multitude of faithless and useless children" (Si 16:1). 264. He expresses the inconvenience that follows, when he says: Is God who inflicts wrath on us, i.e., vengeance for sin, unjust? For this follows from the supposition. For if sin were directly ordained to commending justice, it would not be deserving of punishment but of reward. Consequently, God would be unjust in punishing men for sin, contrary to what is stated in Dt (32:4): "God is faithful and without iniquity." 265. He rejects this inconvenience, when he says, Let it not be that is God unjust. I speak according to man, i.e., I say these words not from my understanding but from that of a man in error, as is stated in 1 Cor (3:3): "For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh?" 266. He shows that this must not be admitted, adding: For then, namely, if God is unjust, how could God judge the world, i.e., how could He be the universal and supreme judge of the world? For it is necessary that the first and highest item in every class be unerring, just as the first mover is unchangeable. Hence it is written in Ps 96 (v.13): "I will judge the world with righteousness." 138 A like argument is presented in Jb (34:12): "Of a truth God will not do wickedly, and the Almighty will not pervert justice. Who gave him charge over the earth and who laid on him the whole world?" In other words: If He were not to judge justly, it would be necessary to suppose that someone else is judge of the world. 267. Then when he says For if the truth (v.7) he shows the same on the part of human judgment. He does three things: first, he presents the false understanding of the above words; secondly, he shows the inconvenience that follows, there [v. 7b; n. 269] at Why am I sill; thirdly, he shows that it is inconvenient, there [v. 8b; n. 270] at Their condemnation. 268. He expresses the false understanding according to the comparison of divine truth to human falsity, when he says: But if through my falsehood, i.e., on account of my falsity, God’s truthfulness, being manifested, abounds to his glory, man’s falsity directly obtains an increase of glory. This is contrary to what is stated in Jb (13:7): "Does God need you to speak deceitfully for him?" 269. Then he adds two inconveniences that follow: one is that man should not be regarded a sinner for lying, on the ground that it is directly ordained to God’s glory. And this is what he says: Why am I still, i.e., even now, being condemned by men as a sinner for being false: "Whereas wickedness is fearful, it bears witness of its condemnation" (Wis 17:8), because sinners are condemned by the judgment of all. 139 The other inconvenience is that it lends support to the false accusation leveled against the apostles. For they preached that through the abounding grace of Christ the debt for an abundance of sins was paid, as is stated below: (5:20): "Where sin increased, grace abounded all the more." For this the apostles were blasphemed, as if preaching that men should do evil in order that good be obtained. This would follow, if man’s falsehood directly commended God’s grace and truth. Therefore, he says: and why not do evil by sinning and teaching falsehood, that good may come, i.e., that God’s truth and justice be commended, as some people slanderously charge us: "When slandered, we try to conciliate" (1 Cor 4:13) with saying by twisting our words: "Which the ignorant and unstable twit to their own destruction" (2 Pt 3:16). 270. He rejects these inconveniences when he says, Their condemnation is just, i.e., those who do evil that good may come. For just as it is not correct to deduce truth from falsity, so it is wrong to reach a good end through evil means: "Why does the way of the wicked prosper? Why do all who are treacherous thrive?" (Jer 12:1). Or their, namely, those who accuse us of this falsely, condemnation is just. For perverters of sacred doctrine are justly condemned: "If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book" (Rev 22:18).
