Commentary on Romans 2.13

"If the uncircumcision keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not that which is uncircumcision by nature, fulfilling the law, judge you, who through the letter and circumcision are a transgressor of the law?" We said above that the Apostle discusses two kinds of Jews and two circumcisions, and mentions now the fleshly and now the spiritual. In the present passage, then, he seems to call "the uncircumcision" the Gentiles who have come to faith in Christ in the uncircumcision of the flesh: these, keeping the spiritual law, he sets beside and compares with the Jews who through the letter and the circumcision of the flesh are transgressors of the law, and he says that they are to be judged by those in whom there is not circumcision of the flesh but observance of the law. From this comparison we can also admonish our own people in the Church: for example, if we say that the catechumens, or even the Gentiles, are still in uncircumcision, and that the faithful are circumcised through the grace of baptism. If, then, a catechumen who has not yet been circumcised through the grace of the washing keeps the law of Christ and guards his righteous requirements and commandments, will he not by this comparison judge the one who is called faithful but does not keep the law of Christ? … The Lord himself says: "The queen of the South will rise in the judgment with the men of this generation and will condemn them, because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon."

Let these things be said by us for the instruction of the Church. But consider whether in this passage that understanding too can be admitted, so that it is said that even after the coming of Christ the fleshly circumcision observed from the law is of some value to those who keep the law, according to the fact that it was still observed at the beginnings of the faith, as it is taught in the Acts of the Apostles that Peter did in the distinction of foods, or Paul in the sacrifices of purification. Perhaps here too the Apostle may seem to have put forward a circumcision of this kind, which he says is of value only if the law is also kept; if not, this circumcision is to be turned into uncircumcision, that is, it will be of no value; indeed, one who through circumcision of the flesh seems to profess observance of the law has a greater judgment, and, by transgressing the law, is judged by one who has not received circumcision of the flesh but has kept the righteous requirements of the law. Whether this sense too ought to be received, see for yourself, reader; since indeed the Apostle himself professes that to the Jews he becomes a Jew, and to those who are without law as one without law, and becomes all things to all, that he may gain all; perhaps it is for this reason that here he seems to make allowances for the Jews which, writing to the Galatians, he does not allow to those who had believed from the Gentiles. For he says: "If you are circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you." Circumcision, then, was of no value to those who thought that some justification was gained from it; but it was of value to those who thought that they could not come to Christ if they were forbidden to circumcise their sons. For there were some at the beginning who kept circumcision as a native badge of their nation out of an excessive love, and who seemed … [to be kept from the faith] if they were forbidden what they could not do without. So the Apostle seems to say to people of this kind, so as not to close the door of faith to them, that "circumcision is of value if you keep the law; but if you are a transgressor of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision." On the other hand, if those who believe from the Gentiles were compelled to be circumcised, an injury would seem to be done to the faith of Christ and to the preaching of the word.

This too must be observed: that when he had said, "Circumcision is of value if you keep the law," he did not add, "But if you do not keep it," as seemed to follow, but said: "But if you are a transgressor of the law." By this he shows that not to keep the law is one thing and to transgress the law another. For Paul himself did not always keep the law, yet he is never a transgressor of the law. That is why he says next: "But if the uncircumcision keeps the righteous requirement of the law, will not that which is uncircumcision by nature, fulfilling the law, judge you, who through the letter and circumcision are a transgressor of the law?" He keeps the law, then, who observes it according to the letter; and he transgresses it who does not hold its spiritual sense. The righteous requirement of the law is its moral part. For "law" is a general word, but righteous requirement is a part of the law: for the law contains righteous requirements, and judgments, and commandments, and ordinances, and very many other kinds. If, then, the uncircumcision keeps, not, he says, the law itself, but the righteous requirements of the law, it is preferred to the circumcision that transgresses the law so far as even to judge it. And he did well to add, "fulfilling the law." For the one who lives according to the letter is said to keep the law, but the one who lives according to the spirit to fulfill it; and the fulfillment of the law is in Christ, who said: "I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it." To fulfill the law is to bring the law to completion. The carnal Jew, then, keeps the law, but the spiritual Jew, who is a Jew in secret, fulfills it. In this the former becomes a transgressor of the law, and the latter the judge of the transgressor. The carnal Jew becomes a transgressor because the law itself was weakened through the flesh. For unless it had been weakened according to the flesh, it would surely not be said: "For what was impossible for the law, in that it was weak through the flesh." But you will never find it written that the law is weakened through the spirit. And therefore "those who are in the flesh cannot please God"; but those who through the spirit have put to death the deeds of the flesh will not only live but will be judges not only of men but also of angels; because the praise of the one is from men, of the other from God.

Let these things be said by us for the explanation of the apostolic word that we set out to discuss. Yet it will not seem out of place also to discuss the general principle of circumcision itself, since the passage itself has prompted us about it. Let us go back, then, and bring forward whatever is contained about it in the law or in the other Scriptures. We find written in Genesis the first commandment about circumcision, when answers were given to Abraham in this way: "And God said to Abraham: You shall keep my covenant, you and all your seed after you in their generations. And this is the covenant that I have set between me and you, and between me and your seed after you in their generations: every male of yours shall be circumcised, and you shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you; and a boy shall be circumcised among you on the eighth day, every male in your generations: the home-born slave and the one bought with money from any foreigner who is not of your seed; the home-born slave of your house and the one bought by you with money shall be circumcised with circumcision; and my covenant shall be upon your flesh as an everlasting covenant. And the uncircumcised male who has not been circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin on the eighth day, that soul shall be cut off from its kindred, because he has broken my covenant." It should not escape us, however, that in other copies "on the eighth day" is not found in this place alone. Again in Leviticus it is written: "And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them: Whatever woman has conceived seed and borne a male shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of her purification she shall be unclean; and on the eighth day she shall circumcise the flesh of his foreskin, and for thirty-three days she shall remain in her blood unclean." These are the testimonies we have set down from the law of Moses. The Savior, moreover, says in the Gospel that a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath and the law of Moses is not broken; and he says that it is from the fathers and was given before Moses. Moved by the authority of this saying and at the same time by the weight of the legal precept, some were persuaded to be circumcised even after the coming of Jesus, though they were from the Gentiles. But others, shuddering at the weight of the precept, fled altogether even from the very laws in which these things were seen to be written, so that they thought these were not the commandments of the good God, nor of the God whom our Lord and Savior had come to preach. And therefore it seems to me that a more careful discussion should be applied in such places: whether there is any usefulness in a commandment of this kind even according to the letter; and if there are people to whom it is useful, or to what end its usefulness tends; or whether something more useful is indicated figuratively.

Taking up again, then, the testimonies we brought forward from the law, let us discuss more attentively whether a commandment of this kind seems to bind the nation of the Jews alone, or whether it constrains with equal lot all who have believed from the Gentiles. Let us look, then, at the oracle given to Abraham, by which he was commanded to keep the covenant of circumcision. "You," it says, "shall keep my covenant, and all your seed after you through their generations. And this is the covenant that I have set between me and you and them, that every male of theirs be circumcised, and that they circumcise the flesh of their foreskin, that it may be a sign of the covenant between me and them; and let every male be circumcised on the eighth day." Whom he wishes to be circumcised also from among foreigners, that is, those not said to be of the stock of Abraham, he clearly declares. For he says: "Your home-born slave and the one bought with money from any foreigner who is not of your seed shall be circumcised with circumcision." Nowhere did he make mention of the proselyte, that is, the newcomer; but he orders to be circumcised the home-born slave, born in the house, certainly of that nation, or even one bought for a price; he does not bind the free man, nor the guest, nor the newcomer.

Let us now also examine the law of Leviticus, how God commands Moses there too: "Speak," it says, "to the sons of Israel and say to them: If a woman has conceived seed and borne a male"; and some way after: "On the eighth day," it says, "she shall circumcise the flesh of his foreskin." Look here too how Moses is commanded to speak about the law of circumcision only to the sons of Israel, and no mention is made of foreigners. For if we believe that what is set down in the law was written through the divine Spirit, it must surely not be thought that anything is either added or left unsaid without reason. And therefore, since in some commandments it is said, "Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them," but in others it is added that he should speak not only to the sons of Israel but also to the proselytes, that is, the newcomers, the distinction must necessarily be observed. For just as in these places it is said to one person, "Speak to Aaron," and elsewhere, "Speak to the sons of Aaron," and elsewhere, "Speak to the Levites and say to them," it is certain that the other sons of Israel are not subject to these laws that were promulgated to the sons of Aaron or the Levites or Aaron himself; so too in what is commanded to the sons of Israel, where no mention at all is made of the foreigner, it is not to be thought that the commandment is common in these cases or that the law becomes common, where there is an exception of naming. Let us, however, adduce a few testimonies out of many to prove this, by which we may show that the addition or exception of names of this kind is necessary.

In the first parts of Leviticus a law of this kind is given to the sons of Israel alone: "Speak," says the Lord, "to the sons of Israel and say to them: If a man among you offers gifts to God from the cattle," and so on; and again: "And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to the sons of Israel: If a soul sins unwillingly," and so on. Who would doubt that these and things like them are commanded to the sons of Israel alone? But others are commanded not to them but to Aaron or his sons, as it says later: "And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: Command Aaron and his sons, saying: This is the law of the burnt offerings," and so on; and again: "The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to Aaron and his sons, saying: This is the law of the sin offering: in the place where they slaughter the burnt offering, there they shall slaughter for sin before the Lord"; and again to Aaron: "Wine and strong drink you shall not drink, you and your sons with you, when you go into the tabernacle of testimony." Others again are commanded neither to Aaron nor to the sons of Israel but to the elders of Israel, in this way: "Speak," it says, "to the elders of Israel, saying: Take a he-goat from the goats for sin," and so on. Is there any doubt that this law is commanded only to the elders of the sons of Israel? And about the clean and unclean animals, too, a special law seems to be given to the sons of Israel. For thus it is written: "And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying: Speak to the sons of Israel, saying to them: These are the animals that you shall eat," and the rest. So, then, about circumcision too, whether in the answers given to Abraham or in what is contained in Leviticus, no one else is bound by the law of circumcision unless he either traces his origin from Abraham or is their home-born slave or one bought for a price.

But do you want to see that wherever he wishes foreigners also to be bound by one and the same law he shows it expressly? Hear what is written: "And the Lord spoke," it says, "to Moses, saying: Speak to Aaron and to his sons and to all the sons of Israel and say to them: Any man of the sons of Israel, or of the newcomers who are among you, who eats any blood, I will set my soul against that soul that has eaten blood, and I will destroy it from its people; for the soul of all flesh is its blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement with it upon the altar for your souls, because the blood will atone for the soul. Therefore I have said to the sons of Israel: No soul of you shall eat blood, and whatever newcomer is among you shall not eat blood." You see, then, that this law about the observance concerning blood, which was given in common to the sons of Israel and to the newcomers, is observed also by us who from the Gentiles believe in God through Jesus Christ. For Scripture is accustomed to call us proselytes and newcomers, when it says: "The newcomer who is among you will go up above you, higher and higher, but you will go down lower and lower. He will be the head for you, and you will be his tail." That is why the Church of the Gentiles has taken up the law about the observance concerning blood in common with the sons of Israel. For understanding these things to be written thus in the law, that blessed council of the apostles then decreed, writing doctrines and decrees for the Gentiles, that they should abstain not only from what is sacrificed to idols and from sexual immorality, but from blood and from what is strangled.

But perhaps you will ask whether, just as it has become clear about the observance concerning blood, so too it is taught about what is strangled, whether the law was given in common to the sons of Israel and the newcomers, since the statutes of the apostles decree that the Gentiles observe this too. Hear how carefully provision has been made about this too in the laws of God: "Any man," it says, "any man of the sons of Israel, or of the newcomers who are among you, who has hunted a wild beast or a bird that is eaten, shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth, because the soul of all flesh is its blood." See, then, how carefully the lawgiver, where he wants the commandment to be common, joins the newcomers to the sons of Israel; but where he gives special precepts, he distinguishes by whom he wants them observed.

But since among those things from Leviticus that we brought forward above this too is reported as written: "Any man, any man of the sons of Israel, or of the newcomers who are among them, who has made a burnt offering or a sacrifice and has not brought it to the door of the tabernacle of testimony to make it to the Lord, that man shall be cut off from his people"; and by this the newcomer too seems to be enjoined concerning sacrifices, and the Church from the Gentiles to be made liable to bringing burnt offerings: these words, too, and syllables, so to speak, of the law must be observed more carefully. For it says: "If he has made a burnt offering or a sacrifice," that he should bring it to the door of the tabernacle of testimony. The law does not command him to make it, but teaches how he ought to make it if perhaps he has made it. For it is certain, and cannot be doubted, that while the temple stood at Jerusalem and the religion handed down to the fathers flourished, very many even of the Gentiles came to worship and offer sacrifices. But since it was commanded that this be done in one place only, about which he also commands here that the victim to be slaughtered be brought to the door of the tabernacle, it could be done lawfully only so long as the state of that place remained intact. Indeed, the Savior too said to the ten lepers he had cleansed: "Go and show yourselves to the priest, and offer sacrifices for yourselves, as Moses commanded"; and when one of them had returned to the Savior giving thanks, the Lord said: "Were not ten cleansed? Where are the nine? None was found to return and give thanks to God except this foreigner." So, then, while the temple stood, it was customary even for foreigners to offer sacrifices; but now what is demanded of newcomers that is not permitted even to its own worshippers to perform?

All these things have been said by us to show how great the distinction of the commandments in the law is, and especially to teach about the precept of circumcision that it was enjoined on none but those who trace their descent from Abraham, and their home-born slaves or those bought for a price; but that those who from the Gentiles believe in God through Christ are free from laws of this kind. We have discussed these things for the moment without adding any allegory, so that no occasion might remain, as usually happens, for those who are of the circumcision to clamor against the truth. But they may still raise a strong weapon against us, maintaining that even proselytes are made liable to circumcision by the law, from what is written in Exodus in this way: "But if a proselyte comes to you and makes the Passover to the Lord, you shall circumcise every male of his, and then he shall come near to make it, and he shall be as a native. No uncircumcised person shall eat of it. There shall be one law for the native and for the newcomer who has come to you." Although this objection may seem clever, yet the admirable caution of the lawgiver comes to our aid everywhere. For consider that here too he did not say that the newcomer who has come to you should make the Passover to the Lord and be circumcised; but with the most careful restraint he decrees, saying: "If he comes to you and makes the Passover." For there can be no doubt that if someone makes the Jewish Passover with the Jews, he must also be circumcised. This is one point, meanwhile, by which the caution of the lawgiver provided for the refutation of those who contradict. There is also this besides, at which they will not be able to mutter a word. The Passover that the law commands to be made it orders to be made in the place that the Lord God chose, that is, at Jerusalem; for sacrifices are decreed to be offered only in that temple. Let them first recover the state of the temple, and then argue about circumcision; but if, according to the Savior's sentence, there has not remained there a stone upon a stone that has not been destroyed, the pleading about circumcision is superfluous.

So much, indeed, is circumcision the native badge of that nation and of no other, that nowhere in the histories of the ancients is anyone else recorded to have been reproved for it except the son of Moses, whose mother Zipporah checked by circumcision the force of the angel who threatened the death of her son. From all these things, then, it is shown that the Israel which is according to the flesh alone is liable to circumcision of the flesh; but the proselyte people is free from it and a stranger to it, the people who came to it, who went up and became higher, while that one went down and became lower; and through the mercy of Christ this people has been made the head and that one the tail. For "the last have become first, and the first last"; and for this reason that which is uncircumcision by nature, fulfilling the law, judges those who through the letter and circumcision are transgressors of the law. For it is not this circumcision, which is done outwardly in the flesh, that purifies the soul; but that which is in secret, the circumcision of the heart, itself purifies the mind and cuts away the stains of vices.

So far let what we could say about fleshly circumcision be said. Come now, according to him who said that "the law is spiritual," and who says of the things reported in the law that they were said by allegory, let us see what we should think of it also according to the laws of allegory. I know that the sayings or writings of many on this subject are reported; but we too will add what the Lord may give to those things that seem to have been suitably composed by others. To circumcise is to cut off some part of the genital member, through which the succession of the human race and the propagation of the flesh is provided. By this, then, I think it is figuratively indicated that whatever impurity has clung to the soul from its partnership with the flesh, whatever the evil-counseling sense of lust has covered it with, must be cut off from the soul. That is why this cutting is inflicted not on other members but on the genital members, so that it may be clear that vices of this kind come to the soul not from its own substance but from the inborn motion and incitement of the flesh. As for circumcision being given on the eighth day, I think this is designated: that a week is assigned to the present age, but the eighth day holds the mystery of the age to come. Spiritual circumcision, then, belongs to those who serve as soldiers for the age to come, in which they will neither marry nor be given in marriage but will be like the angels of God; and to those who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of God; and to those whose citizenship, while they walk on earth, is in heaven, and who look not at the things that are seen but at those that are not seen, and know that the things that are seen are temporary, but the things that are not seen are eternal.

But, as we mentioned above, it has also been said by others that spiritual circumcision is to cut off and cast out of the heart every unclean thought and impure perception. But against explanations of this kind there is an objection from what is reported written in Ezekiel, where the Lord says: "No foreign son, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter my holy places, among all the sons of foreigners who are in the midst of the house of Israel." For here the prophetic word clearly shows two circumcisions, saying: "uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh." Hence we are compelled, according to the laws of allegory, to assign the forms and kinds of both circumcisions, although this could be objected to us also in the reasons we set out above. But meanwhile let us now pursue what figure of two circumcisions can be kept according to allegory, and let us see whether perhaps it can be referred to two general kinds of sin in which it is not good to be uncircumcised, that is, in faith and in works: so that he is uncircumcised in heart who does not have faith, and uncircumcised in flesh who does not have works. For the one without the other is rejected, since "faith without works" is said to be "dead," and "by works without faith no one is justified" before God. So, then, as I think, the prophetic saying will be fittingly applied to the people of the faithful, to whom it is said: "Every foreigner who is among you in the midst of the house of Israel, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, shall not enter my holy places." This is no doubt what the Lord also says in the Gospel: "Whoever believes in me keeps my commandments"; and again: "Whoever hears these words of mine and does them"; and again: "Why do you say to me, Lord, Lord, and do not do what I say?" You see, then, that everywhere faith is joined with works, and works are associated with faith. Circumcision of the heart, therefore, is to think nothing sordid, nothing unworthy, concerning the faith. Circumcision of the flesh is to commit nothing unclean, nothing defiled, in work and deeds. For one who is uncircumcised and unclean in either of these is forbidden by the voice of God to enter the holy places. Yet even a foreigner enters the holy places, where according to the law of the letter only priests were allowed to enter. But now it is granted to foreigners too to enter, provided they have been purified by the circumcision of faith and of acts.

But if someone insists on calling us back to the earlier questions and objects to us again what is written about the foreigner, that if he wishes to enter the holy places not only circumcision of the heart but also of the flesh is required of him: to one who persists so troublesomely we in turn oppose what the prophet Jeremiah says: "Behold, your ears are uncircumcised." Let this demander of fleshly circumcision show us a perceptible and bodily circumcision of the ears, if he can; but it is certain that he can by no means do it. He will therefore turn back, compelled by necessity, to allegories, and will say that the ears are circumcised when, according to Solomon's warnings, they do not receive an idle report, and when they are stopped so as not to hear a judgment of blood, and when they are hedged with thorns so as not to receive slander, but are open only to the word of God and to what is said for edification. Let the circumcision of the heart, then, be such as this circumcision of the ears, which is commonly seen to be explained. In this way, too, one is said to be uncircumcised in lips who has not circumcised blasphemy, buffoonery, and foul talk from his mouth, who has not set a guard on his mouth and a door of enclosure about his lips, who has not circumcised his mouth even from the idle word. Indeed, where Moses says to the Lord, "Provide, Lord, another whom you may send; but I am slow of tongue and thin of voice," they themselves say they have in the Hebrew copies: "But I am uncircumcised in lips." If, in the way we said above, someone can be seen to be uncircumcised in ears and uncircumcised in lips, why should not one likewise be called uncircumcised in the foreskin of his flesh who pours himself out too immoderately and intemperately in the natural motion of intercourse; but held to be circumcised if someone in a matter of this kind uses lawful duties and only so much as suffices for posterity?

But since we are treating the principle of circumcision, it does not seem absurd to add this too: that Jesus the son of Nun is recorded to have circumcised the sons of Israel a second time with knives of stone by the Lord's command; which, as far as the letter is concerned, certainly seems an impossible deed. For in those once circumcised in the flesh of the foreskin, what could a second circumcision find to remove? But our Jesus, who truly after Moses leads the sons of Israel into the holy land flowing with milk and honey, into the land of promise: it is evident how he circumcises the people of believers not once but a second time. For his first circumcision is that by which he cut away from them either the worship of idols or the fictions of philosophical persuasion. But he uses a second circumcision when he cuts away from them the habit of the old man and the passions and vices of the flesh; and then is fulfilled what is written in Joshua: "Today I have taken away from you the reproaches of Egypt." For one carries about with him the reproaches of Egypt if, placed in the Church and serving as a soldier under Jesus as leader, he keeps Egyptian ways and barbarous motions of the soul.

Marcion, indeed, who is pleased to have nothing understood by allegory, will not find at all how to explain what the Apostle says, that circumcision is of value. Nor will he be able in any way to give an account even of the particular things that are brought in. Indeed, not only he but all the heretics who reject the Old Testament, together with the pagans, are accustomed to oppose and to censure with a certain mockery the God of the law who gave circumcision; all of them redouble such accusations against the God of the law as if in a league of slander. The Stoics say: "Granted that circumcision indicates something mystical and holds an allegorical figure: was it right that, with the pain and danger of little ones, with the torments of tender and still innocent infancy, the forms of figures and the riddles of the law should be established? Did the lawgiver have nowhere to put mystical forms except in the disfigurement of the private parts? And could the law of almighty God and the seal of an eternal covenant be placed nowhere but in the obscene parts of the members? Is this God so good that he commanded a man, as soon as he is born, to be wounded at the very first auspices of the new light? And if, as you think, he is the maker of soul and body, either he condemns himself for having fashioned superfluously that part of the body which he afterwards commands to be cut off, so as to correct his own error by the punishments of the wretched; or what he made necessarily and usefully he wrongly commands to be removed. Then besides, if God wishes very many to be brought to the worship of his religion, the greatest obstacle arises from circumcision. For each one both avoids the punishment and flees the mockery of the shame; hence this should be regarded as a hindrance to religion rather than a badge."

These and many things like them the pagans or the heretics loudly urge against the lawgiver. I think it necessary to answer them, but first the pagans. No wise man censures in others what he himself regards as honorable and great. For circumcision is held in such esteem among you, O pagans, that it is entrusted not indiscriminately to the common, ignoble crowd but only to priests and to those among them who are devoted to the more select studies. For among the Egyptians, who in your superstitions are held to be both the most ancient and the most learned, from whom nearly all the rest borrowed the rite of their sacred things and ceremonies: among these, I say, no one studied either geometry or astronomy, which are counted chief among them; certainly no one searched out the secrets of astrology and nativities, than which they think nothing more divine, unless he had received circumcision. The priest among them, the soothsayer, or the minister of any sacred rites, or, as they call him, every prophet, is circumcised. No one learned the priestly letters of the ancient Egyptians, which they call hieroglyphic, unless circumcised. No hierophant, no seer, no initiate and confidant, as they think, of heaven and the underworld is believed among them to be so unless he has been circumcised. Do you, then, judge shameful and obscene among us what among you is held so honorable and great that you believe the secrets of heaven and the underworld can be declared to you only through badges of this kind? And if among you, for so many and such great reasons of your secret rites that are performed with circumcision as their minister, it will be necessary to seek a reason, and one that ought not to be despised, lest all your ceremonies be overturned along with it, why should you not hope that the same can be done among us? And if you unroll your histories, you will find that not only the priests and hierophants of the Egyptians used circumcision, but also the Arabs and Ethiopians and Phoenicians and others whose zeal for superstitions of this kind flourished more nobly. Let this be said sufficiently against the pagans, to whom it was not right to speak more openly about the mysteries of our law.

Now let our word be directed to those who believe in Christ but do not accept the Law and the Prophets. You confess without doubt that what is written in the Epistle of Peter is true: that we have been redeemed not with the corruptible price of silver and gold but with the precious blood of the Only-begotten. If, then, we have been bought for a price, as Paul also agrees, we have without doubt been bought from someone whose slaves we were, who also demanded what price he wished, to release from his power those whom he held. Now it was the devil who held us, to whom we had been sold by our sins. He demanded, therefore, as our price the blood of Christ. But until the blood of Jesus was given, which was so precious that it alone sufficed for the redemption of all, it was necessary that those who were being trained in the law should each give his own blood for himself, as a kind of imitation of the future redemption; and for this reason we, for whom the price of the blood of Christ has been paid in full, do not need to offer a price for ourselves, that is, the blood of circumcision. But if it seems blameworthy to you that the God of the law commands wounds to be inflicted on infants and blood to be shed, you blame this also as done in Christ, who was both circumcised on the eighth day and received the wounds of the passion and shed his blood with the punishment of the cross. And if, because of the horror of circumcision, approach to religion seems difficult to you, entry into the Gospel seems much more difficult, where one is commanded to lay down not a small part of the body but the soul itself. But, according to you, the examples of the martyrs will forbid men to come to the faith! Or is a religion believed the firmer because it promises nothing slack, nothing soft or delicate? And even if circumcision held nothing else of a sacrament figuratively, what would be absurd if, to distinguish it from all the nations, the people that was being trained under the law of God should bear some badge of its own? And if the cutting off of some part seemed necessary, what was so fitting as to find that part which seemed obscene, and to remove those things whose diminution would in no way hinder the function of the body?

As for their saying that, if that part of the member was not necessary, it ought not to have been made by the Creator, and if it was made necessarily, it ought not to be removed: let us in turn ask them whether they say that the procreation of children is necessary. They will without doubt answer that it is necessary. Then those will be blameworthy who, for the sake of continence and virginity, do not serve the necessary functions of nature; and all who according to the laws of the Gospel have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of God will have to be compelled to marry, though they have as the author of this example both many others of the saints and the Lord Jesus himself. In sum, it must be said that just as many baptisms were necessary before the baptism of Christ, and many purifications before purification through the Holy Spirit took place, and many sacrifices before the one sacrifice, the spotless Lamb, Christ, offered himself as a sacrifice to the Father: so too there was need of many circumcisions until the one circumcision in Christ was handed on to all; and the shedding of the blood of many went before, until through the blood of one the redemption of all took place. These are the things about the principle of circumcision that could occur to us for the present; yet let them be said by us on this condition, that if anyone says better and more reasonably, his words rather than these of ours are to be held.

But after a digression perhaps larger than was right, let us return to the conclusion of the apostolic passage. Since this treatment is frequent in the Apostle, by which he designates two men in each person, one of whom he usually calls the outer and the other the inner, and says that one is according to the flesh and the other according to the spirit (taught, I think, by what is written in Genesis, where one is reported made according to the image of God and another fashioned from the slime of the earth), and these same he now calls one a Jew outwardly and the other a Jew in secret: it must be known that each of these follows practices that in some things differ and in some are common. For there are some things that take their beginning from the inner man and reach to the outer; but others, begun from the outer man, reach to the inner. What I mean is this. If chastity takes its beginning from the inner man, it without doubt reaches to the outer. For it cannot happen that if someone first does not commit adultery in the heart he could commit adultery in the body. But it does not at once follow that if someone begins from the chastity of the outer man he also reaches inner continence, so that if he does not commit adultery in the body he will not commit adultery in the heart either. According to this, then, let the circumcision of the inner and the outer man be understood by the laws of allegory, when neither the inner man desires in the heart nor the outer man serves desire in the body: so that he may be called circumcised in the flesh whom the Apostle says is no longer in the flesh but in the spirit, and who through the spirit puts to death the deeds of the flesh.

But since one who is circumcised has given some flesh up to perish and kept some unharmed, by what he has given up to perish I think that flesh is signified of which it is written: "All flesh is grass, and all its glory like the flower of grass." But the flesh that is preserved and remains unharmed I think holds the form of that flesh of which it is said that "all flesh will see the salvation of God." But there is need of ears that can hear what the flesh is that perishes, and what is the flesh that will see the salvation of God, which remains safe after the putting off of the flesh of the foreskin, when that has fallen like the flower of grass. Whoever understands this will find the forms of immense mysteries set out beforehand in the principle of circumcision, and will find that he who is a Jew in secret and is circumcised in the inner man so far surpasses and is more eminent than he who … ["What advantage then has the Jew? …" Let] God [be true] but every man a liar, as it is written: "That you may be justified in your words and prevail when you are judged."

In this Epistle Paul, sitting as a kind of arbiter between Jews and Greeks, that is, those who believe from the Gentiles, so calls and invites both to the faith of Christ that he neither offends the Jews by altogether destroying the Jewish rites nor casts the Gentiles into despair by confirming the observance of the law and the letter; and whether he speaks of promises or of punishments, he divides the word between both peoples. For example, when he says: "But to those who are of contention and who disbelieve the truth but believe iniquity, wrath and indignation, tribulation and distress upon every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek." This about punishments. About promises he adds: "But glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek." Again he seems to speak of the Gentiles: "For all who have sinned without the law will perish without the law"; and again of the circumcised: "And all who have sinned in the law will be judged by the law." Again, lifting up the Gentiles, he says: "For when the Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are a law to themselves; they show the work of the law written in their hearts," and so on. And again he turns his word to the Jews, saying: "But if you are called a Jew and rest in the law," and the rest up to the place where he says: "For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you." And so as not to seem excessive in rebuking the Jews, he says: "Circumcision is indeed of value if you keep the law." But again, so as not to puff up those who place excessive glory in circumcision, he added: "But if you are a transgressor of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision." And to lift up a little the spirits of those who believe from the Gentiles, he adds: "But if the uncircumcision keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision?" And to raise the spirits of the Gentiles more strongly, and so that they might know that they could, if they observed the law more perfectly, be declared even better than the Jews, he says: "And that which is uncircumcision by nature, fulfilling the law, will judge you, who through the letter and circumcision are a transgressor of the law." But since he knew that there are many promises in the Law and the Prophets that seem to be made to the Jews, so that the Gentiles might not despair as having no share in the written promises, he teaches them that according to the mystical principle they too are Jews and have circumcision. That is why he says: "For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one in secret, and circumcision is of the heart, in the spirit, not the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God."

But since in all these he had in a certain way made the cause of the Gentiles superior, again, as if meeting the complaints of those who are of the circumcision, he puts to himself what is contained in the present passage, saying: "What advantage then has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way." If, then, he says, the one who is a Jew outwardly, and the circumcision that is outward in the flesh, is not counted, but he who is a Jew in secret, and the circumcision of the heart which is done in the spirit, is the true circumcision, you will say to me: What advantage is there in these Jews who are reckoned under this name? Or what value is held to be in bodily circumcision? To this, so as not to seem to have sat as a less than just arbiter between the two peoples, he declares what advantage the Jew has, and the circumcision that is in the flesh, and he says that they have much advantage in every way. And what the great advantage is he adds: "First," he says, "because the oracles of God were entrusted to them." For although the oracles of God are now entrusted to the Gentiles too, yet to them, he says, they were entrusted first.

I ask, however, what is meant by saying that the oracles of God were entrusted to them first: whether he says this of the letters and books, or of the sense and understanding of the law. For we see very many of the Jews always learning from infancy to old age and never arriving at the knowledge of the truth; and how will it seem true that is said, that they have some advantage in that the oracles of God were entrusted to them first, in which they understand neither what they say nor what they affirm? But if, according to Solomon, he is called wise who understands what comes from his own mouth and who carries understanding on his lips, these things must be understood to be said of Moses and the prophets, and others like them, to whom the oracles of God were entrusted, because it cannot be doubted that they too were Jews and had circumcision; and also of anyone among them who was wise and an intelligent hearer and a wonderful counselor, whom the Lord is said to take away from Jerusalem, offended by the impieties of the people. For thus Isaiah says: "Behold, the Ruler, the Lord of hosts, will take away from Jerusalem and from Judah the strong and mighty man"; and some way after: "and the prophet," he says, "and the diviner, and the elder, and the captain of fifty, and the wonderful counselor, and the wise architect, and the prudent hearer." To such as these, then, it must be thought that the divine oracles were entrusted first, and in these it must be confessed that there was much advantage in every way; and also if there were others like them, as the Apostle recalls is written in the books of Kingdoms: "I have left for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed their knees before Baal." And the apostles of Christ themselves, and Paul himself, the vessel of election, coming from the Jews and from the circumcision, had much advantage in every way over those whom he taught from the Gentiles. For the oracles of God were entrusted to them.

But this very saying, "because the oracles of God were entrusted to them," must be considered, because he did not say that letters were entrusted, but "the oracles of God." Hence a way is given us to understand that to those who read and do not understand, and who read and do not believe, only the letter has been entrusted, that of which the Apostle says that "the letter kills"; but the oracles of God have been entrusted to those who, understanding and believing what Moses wrote, believe also in Christ, as the Lord too says: "If you had believed Moses himself, you would surely believe me also; for he wrote of me." But granted that the Jew has an advantage in the letters, and has something also in the oracles of God: are those who come to Christ from the Gentiles altogether left behind? Or have they too something in which they have an advantage? Hear the Lord saying to the centurion who believed from the Gentiles: "Amen I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such faith." See, then, how great an advantage the Gentiles have where it comes to faith; of whom the Lord says in another place that "they will come from the east and the west and from the four winds of the earth and will recline with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of God; but the sons of the kingdom will be thrown out into the outer darkness." Where it comes to laws and letters, then, the Jews have much advantage in every way; but where it comes to faith, if I may say so by comparison, the Gentiles have much advantage in every way.

It must indeed be asked whether it should also be said of the Samaritans that the oracles of God were entrusted to them first, since the law of Moses seems to be kept among them too. But to them I would not say that even the letter that is said to kill has been entrusted. For the prophet says of them: "Woe to those who despise Mount Zion and trust in the mountain of Samaria," rejecting the prophets. Nor would I say that the oracles of God have been entrusted to the heretics, who speak iniquity on high, who by their impiety divide the unity of the Godhead, and who separate the law from the Gospels, merely because the divine volumes seem to be read among them; but because they perceive nothing spiritual in them, nothing worthy of God, I would say that only the letter that kills has a place among them.

But if perhaps the Jews are unwilling to accept the sentence of our Apostle, which says that the letter of the law kills, and think that an injury is done to the law if it seems to be despised according to the letter, let us go back to Moses himself and see how highly he himself esteemed the letter of the law. When he had received the tablets of stone inscribed by the finger of God, he showed so much "honor" to the letter of the law that he threw the tablets out of his hands and broke them, though written by the finger of God, and yet he was not charged with the guilt of impiety for this. You see, then, that not Paul alone despises the letter of the law, but long before him Moses both despised and threw down and broke the letters of the law, signifying without doubt even then that the honor and power of the law were not in the letters but in the spirit. And when the Lord in the Gospel says, speaking to the Jews, "The kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation producing its fruit," I think he called the sense of the law the kingdom of God, which was taken from the Jews, only the letters of the law remaining with them, and was given to the Gentiles, who can produce the fruit of the spirit through faith.

Since this is so, why are we so idle and slothful that we do not at last, casting off all malice, hasten with simplicity and purity of heart to receive the oracles of God and to grasp from them the mind of Christ, since we hear that the kingdom of God is in them? Let each one, certainly, according to his strength, receive such oracles of God as he can; and if he is fit for solid food, let him receive those oracles of God which are the wisdom that the Apostle speaks among the perfect. But one who is not yet fit for this, let him receive the oracles of God in which he may know nothing more than Christ Jesus and him crucified. One who cannot do even this, let him receive the oracles of God in such a way as to use milk and not strong food. And if he is still weak in faith, let him take the oracles of God in vegetables. It only matters that we all in common know that the oracles of God are chaste oracles, and "silver tried by fire, proved in the earth, purified seven times": that is, that we keep the divine oracles in chastity and holiness of heart and body.

The oracles of God, then, were entrusted first to those of whom we spoke above; but some, as he says, did not believe either God or the oracles of God. You see that those who do not believe are those according to the flesh, of whom he also says elsewhere: "The soulish man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him." "But their unbelief does not nullify the faith of God." By the faith of God we understand either that faith which God has in those to whom he entrusts his oracles, or that faith by which those who receive the divine oracles from him believe God. We are reminded, then, that if the unbelief of those who either do not come to the faith or fall away from it should perhaps mock us when we do the works of faith, whether when we fast, or when we do acts of mercy, or when we give ourselves to study and to the law of God, or even when we suffer torments for the martyrdom of Christ, we should always remember that their unbelief does not nullify the faith of God that is in us.

After this, what follows seems to be attached less smoothly; for he says: "But let God be true, and every man a liar, as it is written: That you may be justified in your words and prevail when you are judged." Yet by some such turn as this we will try to fit it to what precedes. "Although," he says, "some of the Jews have not believed, yet concerning their unbelief it must be said that God alone is true, but every man is a liar": because even if someone is righteous, it is still necessary that in something he fall away from the truth, which it is almost impossible for human nature to keep in all things. Since, then, every man is a liar, some of the Jews, as lying men, did not believe. For since every man is a liar, necessarily on that day, when the Lord comes to judgment with men, he alone will be justified in his words. For his words are true in all things, because they are words of truth. That the Lord comes to judgment with men the prophet says: "Come, and let us be judged, says the Lord"; and: "The Lord himself will come to judgment with the elders of the people"; and again: "Remember, and let us be judged, says the Lord." The Apostle brought these things in with an eye to that objection which he puts to himself in another place, where he says: "But if our injustice commends the justice of God"; about which we will inquire when we come to its place.

Now, then, let us see what he says: "But let God be true, and every man a liar"; for so it is in the Greek copies, whereas the Latins read "is" instead of "let ... be." First, then, this must be known: that when he said "let ... be," he does not say it in the imperative mood. For it is foolish to think that God must be commanded to become true. But as we say, "Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven"; or as we also say, "Peace be in your strength," not commanding but wishing, or rather declaring, because peace cannot come about except in the strength of God: so here too the word is to be taken as that of one declaring: "But let God be true, and every man a liar."

This too must be known: that this saying, that is, "Every man is a liar," is taken from the hundred and fifteenth Psalm, where it says: "I said in my ecstasy: Every man is a liar." Here, to illuminate the Apostle's meaning more clearly, let it not seem burdensome to readers if we briefly set out the content of the psalm itself from which he takes the testimony. The prophet seems to me to announce some such meaning as this. "Since there are many doctrines among men, and many philosophize in the search for truth, and since in all these questions the Son of God must go first: others, who sought without first believing, did not find; but I, because I believed before I sought, therefore found what I was seeking; and not only found, but also spoke, and announced to the peoples the truth that I had found. Yet having found the truth I was not lifted up in wisdom nor puffed up in my knowledge; but I was humbled the more when I recognized and understood that it is the Lord who teaches all knowledge. Then, considering what and how much men, whether among the philosophers or among the other barbarians, have said about the truth, and that, saying many things with much labor, they found nothing, because they did not believe before they sought; considering all their sayings or writings, and being brought into ecstasy of mind, that is, astounded with amazement of heart that all those volumes of the philosophers, which seemed composed in splendid and brilliant speech, stood far from the truth: brought into ecstasy and amazement of mind, I said: Every man is a liar. But I, to whom God had shown these things, was not ungrateful; but I thought and asked within myself what gift I should repay to the Lord for this, that the Lord had granted me the knowledge of the truth. Yet I understood that that eternal nature, the mistress of all things, needs nothing. I found, then, only one thing that I ought to offer to God, namely to believe of him that he can never receive anything from man, but always gives. And therefore I said: I will take the cup of salvation; as if I were answering one who says, Can you drink the cup that I am about to drink? and were saying, I can, Lord. So, then, I say: I will receive the cup of your passion willingly and with all my will; and so that I may keep the grace of your cup, that is, of your passion, to the end, I will not act by my own strength, but I will call upon the name of the Lord. For precious in your sight is death that is undertaken for piety and truth." According to this, then, "Every man is a liar" is to be taken in the apostolic sayings too, whether of one who trusts without faith in the letter of the law, or of one who glories in any doctrines and letters whatever.

But it is objected to us: If every man is a liar, Paul himself, since he is a man, will then be a liar. And David too, who said these things, since he was a man, if every man is a liar, will himself also be a liar; and this very thing that he says, "Every man is a liar," will be false, because he necessarily declares himself a liar along with the other men; and if he is a liar, what is said by a liar, that every man is a liar, will certainly not be true. His saying therefore seems to have fallen into the syllogism that is called aporos, that is, without substance, which is also called false. But if we return to the inner understanding of Scripture, we will find that all the prophets or apostles are among those to whom the word of God comes, as it is written: "And the word of the Lord came to this or that prophet." Those, then, to whom the word of God comes the Lord in the Gospel declares to be not men but gods. For thus he says: "If he called them gods to whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken." Since, then, the word of God came both to David as a prophet and to Paul as an apostle, those to whom the word of God came were without doubt not men but gods. Therefore, since they were not men but gods, what they declare about the other men, to whom the word of God has not come, is true: that every man is a liar.

What follows is likewise taken from the fiftieth Psalm, that is: "That you may be justified in your words and prevail when you are judged." The complete sense is set down in the psalm in this way: "Against you only have I sinned and done evil before you, that you may be justified in your words and prevail when you are judged." And since it is a great digression to go back to the beginning of the psalm, for brevity's sake let us discuss only this saying that we have set in the middle; in which at once at the start this explanation seems difficult. For if we follow the history that is written in the title of the psalm, it is reported there that David took the wife of Uriah the Hittite after he had been killed. How then does he say, "Against you only have I sinned," when he certainly sinned also against Uriah himself and against his kinsmen, and also against Bathsheba herself and her whole house, on which he seems to have brought the stain of adultery? But it must be known that the content of a psalm does not always follow the history of its title, as anyone who observes will find in very many psalms. To give an example, the title of the seventeenth Psalm is: "To the end, for the servant of the Lord, David, who spoke the words of this song on the day when the Lord delivered him from the hand of all his enemies and from the hand of Saul; and he said." But the content of the psalm contains something far different from the title. For what foundations of the mountains were moved, or how was the earth shaken, when David fought against his enemies? Or where is it reported that there was darkness under the feet of the Lord? Or where is it indicated that he mounted upon the cherubim and flew, or upon the wings of the winds, and nearly all the rest, which differ in every way from the history of the title? In this way, then, in the fiftieth Psalm too there are things that do not agree with the history.

We must see whether perhaps mention of the woman was made figuratively in the title, so that under this name some such woman might be understood, either such as that valiant woman is described who made double cloaks for her husband, or certainly the opposite of her, as were those women who are said to have turned aside the heart of Solomon, so that he built altars and idols of the nations; who, taken in allegory, are not from the divine wisdom but from those things that are contrary to it, that is, the sects alien from God. Such, then, can be understood this wife of Uriah, a man alien from Israel, whom David, placed in the higher places, saw washing her uncleanness in the waters and wishing to wash off her filth, and whom he desired and took. But because it was not the will of the Lord that sects alien from the truth of God should be brought into the house of David, his first offspring and first fruit is extinguished, so that by a second offspring a wise king might be born from the foreign woman. But it is long to pursue the figures and riddles of these things. Yet we will briefly follow up what pertains to the matter. "Since," he says, "there is great subtlety in the variety of the sects, and it belongs to no one but God alone to know or judge which understanding is according to God and which is alien from God in the treatises and disputations of the wise, God who alone can catch the wise in their craftiness: therefore 'against you only have I sinned and done evil before you,' because all the others, being soulish men, cannot judge me, who am spiritual, even if I have erred; for the spiritual man judges all things, but is himself judged by no one." But since the spiritual Paul adds and says, "But he who judges me is the Lord," David too, knowing that it is the Lord alone who judges the spiritual man or the prophet, therefore says: "Against you only have I sinned," by whom alone I can be judged. For a human day cannot judge the spiritual man. And what follows also looks to this sense: "That you may be justified in your words and prevail when you are judged." For God is judged in the disputations of the wise, while some think of God in this way, others in that, and each differently. But he prevails over those who judge about him when he himself reveals to all who err his own sentence about himself, how or in what manner he is to be believed and worshipped. But let it suffice that the extent of the second book has been drawn out this far. For somehow, while we are reluctant to omit anything that suggests itself as necessary to the explanation, we are rolled away from brevity, which, if the subject allowed, we would greatly wish to keep, out of consideration for the reader's weariness.