Romans 2

Romans 2:1

Ambrosiaster: Paul shows that the man who does evil and consents to others who do it is deserving of death, lest perhaps the one who does it and pretends not to approve of others who do it … might think he can be excused, because he can conceal his sin for a time.… It is not right to give in to someone who pretends to be better when in fact he is worse. Such a person appears to escape notice and to be worthy of honor, but in fact he will be punished. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Augustine of Hippo: Paul is speaking here of sins already committed. And when he says “O man, whoever you are,” he includes not only the Gentile but also the Jew who wanted to judge the Gentiles according to the law. — AUGUSTINE ON Romans 7-8

Cyprian: That we must not rashly judge of another. In the Gospel according to Luke: “Judge not, that ye be not judged: condemn not, that ye be not condemned.” Of this same subject to the Romans: “Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. But he shall stand; for God is able to make him stand.” And again: “Wherefore thou art without excuse, O every man that judgest: for in that in which thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou doest the same things which thou judgest. But dost thou hope, who judgest those who do evil, and doest the same, that thou thyself shalt escape the judgment of God” Also in the first Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians.: “And let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.” And again: “If any man thinketh that he knoweth anything, he knoweth not yet in what manner he ought to know.” — Treatise XII Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews

John Chrysostom: “Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man; whosoever thou art that judgest; for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself.” These things he says, with an aim at the rulers, inasmuch as that city then had the rule of the world put into its hands. He anticipated them therefore by saying, Thou art depriving thyself of defence, whoever thou mayest be; for when thou condemnest an adulterer, and thyself committest adultery, although no man condemneth thee, in thy judgment upon the guilty person thou hast also passed sentence against thyself. — Homily on Romans 5

Pelagius: This concerns those who are in a position to pass judgment. Judges and princes are being put on trial. By a natural process everyone pronounces a sentence which fits the crime and knows that righteousness deserves reward while wickedness should be punished. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Romans 2:2

Ambrosiaster: This means that we are not unaware that God will judge these people in truth, for we judge them ourselves. If what they do is displeasing to us, how much more will it be so to God, who is truly just and efficient in carrying out his work.… Paul is instilling fear, so that although the ungodly say that God does not care, in fact he will judge the wicked and most severely render to each one according to his deserts, not sparing any. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

John Chrysostom: “For we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them who commit such things.” For lest any should say, until now I have escaped, to make him afraid, he says, that it is not so with God as it is here. For here one is punished, and another escapes while doing the same thing. But hereafter it is not so. That he that judgeth then knoweth the right, he has said: but whence he knoweth it, he hath not added; for it was superfluous. For in the case of ungodliness, he shows both that the ungodly was so even with a knowledge of God, and also whence he got that knowledge, namely, from the Creation. For inasmuch as it was not plain to all, he gave the cause also; but here he passes it over as a thing admitted. But when he says, “whosoever thou art that judgest,” he is not addressing himself to the rulers only, but to private individuals and subjects also. For all men, even if they have no chair of state, nor executioners, nor stocks at command, yet even they judge those that offend, in conversations and public meetings and by the vote of their conscience. And no one would venture to say, that the adulterer does not deserve punishment. But it is others, he says, they condemn, and not themselves. And for this cause he stands forth vehemently against them. — Homily on Romans 5

Origen of Alexandria: “But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who do such things.” That the judgment of God is according to truth, not only against those who do the things enumerated above, but also against all who in any manner whatever have done anything good or evil, is to be expected and believed. But this is what seems to be shown in this passage: that judgment according to truth belongs to God alone. For there are certain things that are committed with an evil deed, but not with an evil intention: as if someone, for example, should commit a homicide unwillingly. And other things are done with a good deed, but not with a good intention: as if someone should perform an act of mercy, not on account of God’s commandment, but that he may be praised by men. But there are other things in which, whether in good or in evil, the intention agrees with the deed. And because to know the hearts of men belongs to God alone, and to discern the secrets of the mind, therefore he alone is the one who can hold judgment according to truth. But it is asked whether, toward those whose iniquities have been forgiven through the grace of baptism, or whose sins have been covered through repentance, or to whom sin is not to be imputed through the glory of martyrdom, God may be seen to preserve judgment according to truth. For the truth of judgment demands this, that the evil man receive evil things, and the good man good things: and although the gifts and bounty of God by no means admit the curiosity of one who scrutinizes them, nevertheless let us show even in this how great is the truth of his judgment. It is a common profession that the good ought not to be punished, nor the evil to obtain good things. If therefore there be someone, for example, who has at some time done evil things, it is certain that he was evil then, when he was doing evil things. But if he, repenting of things past, should correct his mind toward good things, and act well, speak well, think well, will well — he who does these things, does he not seem to you good, and deservedly to receive good things? Likewise also if someone should be turned from good to evil, he will no longer be judged good, which he was and is not, but evil, which he is. For acts, whether good or evil, pass away, but according to their own quality they stamp and shape the mind of the one acting, and leave it either good or evil, to be destined either for punishment or for rewards. It will therefore be unjust either that a good mind be punished for evil deeds, or that an evil one be rewarded for good acts. But that what we are saying may become still plainer, we shall add these things also: let us suppose there is a soul in which impiety, injustice, folly, and wantonness dwell, and the whole multitude of evils, to which, that is, it has subjected itself as their servant and handmaid. But if, returning into itself, this soul should open the door of its mind again to piety and to the virtues, will not piety, having entered, immediately drive out impiety? Likewise also justice will thrust out injustice, and wisdom folly, and sobriety will put wantonness to flight; and thus, the barbarian inhabitants having been driven out from itself, it will offer to the virtues a civil and lawful lodging. How then will it be just to accuse a soul now full of virtues concerning those things which it did when it was not yet a friend of the virtues, and to condemn one that is pious for impiety, one that is just for injustice, one that is sober for wantonness? In this manner, therefore, even in those whose iniquities have been forgiven, and whose sins have been covered, God is to be believed to preserve judgment according to truth. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Pelagius: If you, a sinner, pass judgment upon a sinner like yourself, how much more will God, who is just, condemn you as unjust? If he did not do so, it might appear that evil is pleasing to him while good is not. But God has no favorites, and he spared neither his friends (the patriarchs) nor his angels when they sinned! Human judgment on the other hand is imperfect in many ways. The integrity of judges is often compromised by love, hate, fear and greed, and occasionally mercy is allowed to overturn the rule of justice. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Tertullian: The truth, therefore, will be His, whose is also the wrath, which has to be revealed to avenge the truth. Likewise, when adding, “We are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth,” he both vindicated that wrath from which comes this judgment for the truth, and at the same time afforded another proof that the truth emanates from the same God whose wrath he attested, by witnessing to His judgment. — Against Marcion Book V

Tertullian: So that both the gospel and Christ must be His, to whom appertain the law and the nature which are to be vindicated by the gospel and Christ-even at that judgment of God which, as he previously said, was to be according to truth. The wrath, therefore, which is to vindicate truth, can only be revealed from heaven by the God of wrath; so that this sentence, which is quite in accordance with that previous one wherein the judgment is declared to be the Creator’s, cannot possibly be ascribed to another god who is not a judge, and is incapable of wrath. — Against Marcion Book V

Theodore of Mopsuestia: “Judgment” means the tribunal and judgment seat of God, and as if to make the condemnation of the wicked certain Paul added “rightly.” — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

Romans 2:3

Ambrosiaster: Paul does not want them to hope that they can be pardoned, since that would be unjust, when they have been given the ability to judge evil and wrongdoing and to avoid it. If they cannot manage to avoid it in this life, they will not be able to escape the judgment of God in the future. For God, with whom there is neither flattery nor respect of persons, will judge them on his own authority.If someone thinks he ought to be immune from such punishment, let him say so. But if it is right that he should not escape, let him trust that God will judge and judge rightly, and that God, the Creator of the world, will offer proper attention and care to his creation. If God had made the world and then neglected it, he would be called a bad Creator, because he would be demonstrating by his neglect that what he had made was not good. But since it cannot be denied that God made good things—for it is unworthy and impossible for one who is good to make evil things—it is necessary to say that he is concerned about them. It would be a crime and a reproach to him if he were to neglect the good things which he had made. Life itself is governed by his servants the natural elements, who act according to his pleasure and plan, as the Lord himself says: “he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.” Therefore, if he does all that, will he not take care to look after what he has made, so as to reward those who love him and condemn those who reject him? — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Augustine of Hippo: Is the fact that some persist in their wickedness any proof that God does not persist in his patience, punishing very few sins in this world, lest we fail to believe in his divine providence and, saving many for the last judgment, to justify his future decree? — LETTER 153

John Chrysostom: “And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest those which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?” For since he had shown the sin of the world to be great, from its doctrines, from its doings, and that they did yet sin though wise, and though they had the creation to lead them by the hand, and not by leaving God only, but also by choosing the images of creeping things, and by their dishonoring virtue, and deserting, in spite of nature’s drawings back, to the service of vice even contrary to nature: he goes on next to show, that they who do such things are punished too. He did indeed at once point out a punishment by mentioning their very practice. For “they received,” he says, “in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.” But as they do not perceive that, he mentions another also, which they stood most in fear of. For if the Gentile be on this score inexcusable, because, when the creation led him on and his own reasonings, he yet did not amend, much more were the Jew so, who besides these had the teaching of the Law also. Having then persuaded him to a ready admission of these reasonings, in the case of other men’s sins, he now compels him even against his will to do so in the case of his own. And in order that what he says may be more readily allowed, he leads him forward with the better things also in view. Thou hast not been acquitted of thine own judgment, and wilt thou escape through God’s? Who indeed would say this? And yet thou hast judged thyself. But since the rigorousness of the judgment-court was such, and thou wert not able to spare even thyself, how should not God, that cannot do amiss, and who is in the highest sense just, be much surer to do the same? But hast thou condemned thyself, and is God to approve of thee and praise thee? And how can this be reasonable? — Homily on Romans 5

Origen of Alexandria: “But do you suppose this, O man, every one of you who judges those who do such things, and does them yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God?” If all the things which the Law speaks, it speaks to those who are under the Law, then the things which the Gospel, or the Apostle, now speaks, it speaks not to the princes of this age, nor to the kings of the world, but to the rulers and leaders of the Churches, namely to those who judge those who are within, that is, to bishops, or presbyters and deacons. To these, therefore, he says that they should not suppose they will escape the judgment of God, if they themselves commit those things concerning which they judge and condemn others. And therefore each one ought first to judge concerning his own conscience, and then to examine the deeds of him whom he judges. And if this were done, all ambition for approaching ecclesiastical honor would be utterly cut off, if those who wish to preside over peoples were to consider that they are rather to be judged than to judge. Let no one therefore suppose that he can escape the judgment of God, as the Prophet also says: “Whither shall I go from your spirit, and whither shall I flee from your face?” And because these things are said especially to those who preside over the judgments of peoples, therefore he says elsewhere also that “judgment begins at the house of God.” And again elsewhere the Lord says: “In those who draw near to me I will be sanctified;” as was done in the case of Nadab and Abihu, when they offered strange fire, that is, not sacred fire, upon the divine altars. Judgment therefore begins first from the sons. For “God scourges every one whom he receives into the number of sons.” But, as I reckon, not even if one could, ought he to wish to escape the judgment of God. For not to come to the judgment of God is to come neither to correction, nor to health, nor to remedy. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Romans 2:4

Ambrosiaster: Paul says this so that no one should think that he has escaped, just because God’s goodness has allowed him to go on sinning. Nor should anyone think that God’s patience is to be despised, as if he did not care about human affairs, but rather understand that God conceals himself, because his judgment is not promised in this life. It is for the future, so that in the next life the man who did not believe that God is a judge will repent. For in order to reveal the terror of future judgment and that his patience should not be despised, God said: “I have been silent. But shall I be silent for ever?” Thus the man who has been punished and has not repented will repent when he sees the future judgment of God, which he has spurned. Then he who thought that the longsuffering of God’s goodness was something to laugh at will not hesitate to beg for mercy. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Cyprian: But what and how great is the patience in God, that, most patiently enduring the profane temples and the images of earth, and the sacrilegious rites instituted by men, in contempt of His majesty and honour, He makes the day to begin and the light of the sun to arise alike upon the good and the evil; and while He waters the earth with showers, no one is excluded from His benefits, but upon the righteous equally with the unrighteous He bestows His undiscriminating rains. We see that with undistinguishing equality of patience, at God’s behest, the seasons minister to the guilty and the guiltless, the religious and the impious-those who give thanks and the unthankful; that the elements wait on them; the winds blow, the fountains flow, the abundance of the harvests increases, the fruits of the vineyards ripen, the trees are loaded with apples, the groves put on their leaves, the meadows their verdure; and while God is provoked with frequent, yea, with continual offences, He softens His indignation, and in patience waits for the day of retribution, once for all determined; and although He has revenge in His power, He prefers to keep patience for a long while, bearing, that is to say, mercifully, and putting off, so that, if it might be possible, the long protracted mischief may at some time be changed, and man, involved in the contagion of errors and crimes, may even though late be converted to God, as He Himself warns and says, “I do not will the death of him that dieth, so much as that he may return and live.” And again," Return unto me, saith the Lord." And again: “Return to the Lord your God; for He is merciful, and gracious, and patient, and of great pity, and who inclines His judgment towards the evils inflicted.” Which, moreover, the blessed apostle referring to, and recalling the sinner to repentance, sets forward, and says: “Or despisest thou the riches of His goodness, and forbearance, and long-suffering, not knowing that the patience and goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But after thy hardness and impenitent heart thou treasurest up unto thyself wrath in the day of wrath and of revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who shall render to every one according to his works.” He says that God’s judgment is just, because it is tardy, because it is long and greatly, deferred, so that by the long patience of God man may be benefited for life eternal. Punishment is then executed on the impious and the sinner, when repentance for the sin can no longer avail. — Treatise IX On the Advantage of Patience

Cyprian: That God is patient for this end, that we may repent of our sin, and be reformed. In Solomon, in Ecclesiasticus: “Say not, I have sinned, and what sorrow hath happened to me? For the Highest is a patient repayer.” Also Paul to the Romans: “Or despisest thou the riches of His goodness, and forbearance, and patience, not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But, according to thy hardness and impenitent heart, thou treasurest up to thyself wrath in the day of wrath and of revelation of the just judgment of God, who will render to every man according to his deeds.” — Treatise XII. Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews.

Ignatius of Antioch: The last times are come upon us. Let us therefore be of a reverent spirit, and fear the long-suffering of God, lest we despise the riches of His goodness and forbearance. For let us either fear the wrath to come, or let us love the present joy in the life that now is; and let our present and true joy be only this, to be found in Christ Jesus, that we may truly live. — Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians

Irenaeus: And in man, as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice (for angels are rational beings), so that those who had yielded obedience might justly possess what is good, given indeed by God, but preserved by themselves. On the other hand, they who have not obeyed shall, with justice, be not found in possession of the good, and shall receive condign punishment: for God did kindly bestow on them what was good; but they themselves did not diligently keep it, nor deem it something precious, but poured contempt upon His super-eminent goodness. Rejecting therefore the good, and as it were spuing it out, they shall all deservedly incur the just judgment of God, which also the Apostle Paul testifies in his Epistle to the Romans, where he says, “But dost thou despise the riches of His goodness, and patience, and long-suffering, being ignorant that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But according to thy hardness and impenitent heart, thou treasurest to thyself wrath against the day of wrath, and the revelation of the righteous judgment of God.” “But glory and honour,” he says, “to every one that doeth good.” God therefore has given that which is good, as the apostle tells us in this Epistle, and they who work it shall receive glory and honour, because they have done that which is good when they had it in their power not to do it; but those who do it not shall receive the just judgment of God, because they did not work good when they had it in their power so to do. — Irenaeus Against Heresies Book 4

John Chrysostom: “Or despiseth thou the riches of His goodness and forbearance and long-suffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?” For after praising God’s long-suffering, showing the gain thereof to be very great to them that heeded it (and this was the drawing sinners to repentance); he adds to the terror. For as to them, who avail themselves of it aright, it is a ground of safety; so to them that slight it, it is conducive to a greater vengeance. For whenever you utter this common notion, that God doth not exact justice, because He is good and long-suffering, he says, You do but mention what will make the vengeance intenser. For God showeth His goodness that you may get free from your sins, not that you may add to them. If then thou make not this use thereof, the judgment will be more fearful. Wherefore it is a chief ground for abstaining from sin, that God is long-suffering, and not for making the benefit a plea for obstinacy. For if He be long-suffering, He most certainly punisheth. Whence does this appear? from what is next said. For if the wickedness be great and the wicked have not been requited, it is absolutely necessary that they should be requited. For if men do not overlook these things, how should God make an oversight? And so from this point he introduces the subject of the judgment. For the fact of showing many who, if they repent not, are liable, yet still are not punished here, introduces with it necessarily the judgment, and that with increase. — Homily on Romans 5

Origen of Alexandria: “Or do you despise the riches of his goodness, and forbearance, and patience? Do you not know that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?” That man can recognize the riches of God’s goodness who considers how many evils men commit daily upon the earth, and how nearly all have turned aside and together become unprofitable, and walk the broad and spacious road of perdition, neglecting the narrow way of life — and yet, for all these, God daily brings forth his sun and supplies the rains; and he who considers how many blaspheme God daily, and stretch out their tongues against heaven. And what shall I say now of frauds, of violence, of crime, of sacrileges and of deeds requiring expiation? Yet among all these, in this passage, those seem to be given precedence in wickedness who, while judging others, themselves commit the very things they punish in the rest. If, therefore, anyone despises this goodness of God, and his forbearance, and his patience, he does not know that through these he is being summoned to repentance. But forbearance seems to differ from patience in this, that those who sin more from weakness than from deliberate purpose are said to be borne with; whereas those who with obstinate mind, as it were, exult in their offenses must be said to be endured patiently. But just as God made all things in measure and weight and number, so also there is a fixed measure of his patience — a measure which we must believe was filled up either by those who perished in the flood, or by those who were destroyed in Sodom by fire from heaven. Whence it is also said concerning the Amorites: “For the sins of the Amorites are not yet filled up until now.” God therefore bears patiently, and awaits the repentance of each one. But let this not make us lax and slow to conversion, since there is again a fixed measure of his patience and forbearance. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Pelagius: Do you imagine you can act with impunity just because God does not punish immediately.… Listen to the words of Scripture: “The Lord is not slow with his promises … but is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish but that all should reach repentance.” The Lord is good in as much as he waits and just in as much as he punishes.… People may go far astray because of God’s patience, because he does not want to punish sinners immediately. And because he delays, people suppose either that he does not care at all about human affairs or that he overlooks sins. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Romans 2:5

Ambrosiaster: The one who hopes he can get away with his sins not only remains unconvertible and intractable but in addition sins more seriously still, sure that there will be no future judgment. He has an impenitent heart, unaware that he is storing up wrath for himself on the day of wrath. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Augustine of Hippo: Whenever Paul talks about the wrath of God he understands it to mean punishment. — AUGUSTINE ON Romans 9

Caesarius of Arles: If a person sins once or even twice and then without excuses has recourse to the healing of penance, he will recover his former good condition without any delay. But if he begins to add sin upon sin and prefers to acquire an infection by concealing or defending the wounds of his soul rather than cure them by confession and the performance of penance, it is to be feared that these words of the apostle will be fulfilled in him. — SERMON 65.1

Gaius Marius Victorinus: Without doubt this is said of Christ, for he himself will judge. — AGAINST ARIUS 1A.17

Gennadius of Constantinople: God’s patience toward you gives you the opportunity for every kind of wickedness. Realize clearly therefore that you are storing up wrath for yourself because of your hardness. — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

Irenaeus: …from whom those who believe God and follow His word receive that salvation which flows from Him. Those, on the other hand, who depart from Him, and despise His precepts, and by their deeds bring dishonour on Him who made them, and by their opinions blaspheme Him who nourishes them, heap up against themselves most righteous judgment. — Irenaeus Against Heresies Book 4

John Chrysostom: “But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath.” For when a man is neither to be softened by goodness nor to be turned back by fear, what can be harder than such an one? For after that he had showed the goodness of God towards men, he then shows His vengeance that it is unbearable for him who does not even so return to repentance. And observe with what propriety he uses the words! “Thou treasurest up unto thyself wrath,” he says, so making it plain what is certainly laid up, and showing that it is not He that judgeth, but he that is condemned, who is the author of this. For he says, “thou treasurest up for thyself,” not God for thee. For He did all, whatsoever things were fitting, and created thee with a power to discern between good and what was not so, and showed long-suffering over thee, and called thee to repentance, and threatened a fearful day, so by every means drawing thee to repentance. But if thou shouldest continue unyielding, “thou treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation and the righteous judgment of God.” For lest on hearing of wrath thou shouldest think of any passion, he adds, “the righteous judgment of God.” And he said “revelation” with good reason, for then is this revealed when each man receives his desert. For here many men often annoy and practise harm to one without justice. But hereafter it is not so. — Homily on Romans 5

Origen of Alexandria: “But according to your hardness and impenitent heart, you treasure up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath, and of the revelation of the just judgment of God, who will render to each one according to his works.” A heart is said in the Scriptures to be hard when the human mind, bound fast as wax by the cold of iniquity, does not receive the impress of the divine image. This same thing is elsewhere called a thick heart, as when it is said: “The heart of this people has grown thick.” But the opposite of hard is soft, which in the Scriptures is named a heart of flesh; and the opposite of thick is fine, or thin, which the Apostle calls the spiritual man — he who examines all things. Therefore, when someone knows what things are good, and does not do the good, he must be believed to hold contempt for all good things through hardness of heart. But thickness of heart is where the perception of subtle and spiritual understanding is not received; and thus a heart made impenitent treasures up for itself wrath in the day of wrath and of the revelation of the just judgment of God, since the good work is not done because of hardness, while good understanding is shut out through the thickness of the heart. Concerning the wrath of God, both above — so far as the subject allowed — and in other places, it has often been discussed. But what he says, “You treasure up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath,” must be considered. That is called a treasury in which wealth and riches of various kinds are gathered together. Of this we read a threefold signification in the Scriptures. For in the Gospel there is said to be a certain treasure on earth, in which the Lord forbids treasure to be laid up; and another treasure in heaven, in which he bids all the faithful to store away their wealth; and here now the Apostle speaks of treasures of wrath. All men, therefore, through the things they do in this world, gather treasures in some one of these three. For either a man is unbelieving and unjust, and through hardness of heart and an impenitent heart stores up his deeds in the treasury of wrath. Or he is earthly, and is wise concerning the earth, and speaks of the earth, and when his field has brought him abundant fruits, he pulls down his barns and builds greater ones, and treasures up on earth. And the former indeed is called hard, but this one foolish. For it is said to him: “Fool, this night they will demand your soul from you, and the things you have prepared, whose shall they be?” Or he is wise, and rich toward God, and while walking on earth has his conversation in heaven, and all that he does is worthy of the kingdom of heaven: and such a one lays up the treasures of his riches in heaven. Thus, then, the possessor and founder of each treasury may be called, the one a carnal man, another a natural (animal) man, and another a spiritual man. Now let us see what is the day of wrath which the Apostle here names — which, however, will more easily be recognized if we inquire what the rest of the Scriptures also indicate about it. Therefore we shall fit to the matter such examples as can come to hand at present, and from these it will be shown what the day of wrath is. It is written in the prophet Amos: “Woe to those who desire the day of the Lord. To what end is the day of the Lord for you? And it is darkness, and not light. As if a man should flee from the face of a lion, and a bear should meet him, and he should enter into his house, and stretch out his hands to the wall, and a serpent should bite him. Is not the day of the Lord darkness, and not light, and gloom that has no brightness?” But Joel also says to the priests and to those who serve at the altar: “Cry to the Lord without ceasing: Alas for me, alas for me for that day, for the day of the Lord is near, and it will come like misery out of misery!” And a little after: “Sound the trumpet in Zion, proclaim on my holy mountain, and let all who dwell upon the earth be confounded, for the day of the Lord is at hand, for the day of darkness and gloom is near, a day of cloud and mist. Like the morning there shall be poured out over the mountains a people many and strong. There has been none like it from the beginning of the age, and after it there shall be none unto the years of ages of ages. Before it a consuming fire, and after it a kindled flame. Like a paradise of delights shall the land be before its face, and behind its back a field of desolation, and there is none that escapes it. As the appearance of horses is their appearance; and as horsemen, so shall they follow. Like the sound of chariots they shall leap upon the tops of the mountains.” And he writes all that follows about the same day, up to that place where he says: “And the Lord will utter his voice before the face of his host, for the multitude of his camps is exceedingly great, and mighty are the works of his words. Wherefore great is the day of the Lord, great and exceedingly notable: and who shall be fit for it?” But Zephaniah speaks thus: “Stand in awe before the face of the Lord God, for the day of the Lord is near, and the Lord has prepared his victim, he has sanctified those whom he has called.” And a little after: “Near is the great day of the Lord, it is near and exceedingly swift. The voice of the day of the Lord is bitter, and it is set as harsh and mighty. A day of wrath is that day, a day of distress and constraint, a day of bitterness and destruction, a day of darkness and gloom, a day of cloud and mist, a day of the trumpet and of the war-cry over the fortified cities and over the lofty walls. And I will afflict men, and they will walk like blind men, because they have sinned against the Lord: and I will pour out their blood like dust, and their flesh like dung. Their gold and their silver shall not be able to deliver them in the day of the wrath of the Lord. In the fire of his jealousy the whole earth shall be consumed, for he will make an end, and that speedily, of all who dwell upon the earth.” Isaiah likewise records: “For behold, the day of the Lord will come, of incurable fury and wrath, to make the world a desert, and to destroy sinners out of it.” And a little after: “For heaven shall be kindled with fury, and the earth shall be shaken from its foundations, because of the fury of the wrath of the Lord of Sabaoth, in the day in which his fury shall come upon it.” Having gathered together so many and such testimonies concerning the day of wrath, I think that this passage needs no further exposition. For plainly in all of these the day of wrath is designated as the day of vengeance and of judgment. And so finally to “the day of wrath” the Apostle adds, “and of the revelation.” For thus he says: “In the day of wrath and of the revelation of the just judgment of God.” For that all things must be revealed is indicated also in the Gospel, when it is said: “Nothing is hidden that shall not be made manifest; nor covered, that shall not be revealed.” But the Apostle too, in what follows in this Epistle, says: “Their thoughts accusing, or even defending them, in the day when God shall judge the hidden things of men.” In which he certainly shows that the hidden things of men are not to be revealed except in the day when God is to judge, just as he says still more plainly to the Corinthians: “Do not,” he says, “judge before the time, until the Lord comes, who will both illuminate the hidden things of darkness, and make manifest the counsels of hearts.” All of which things are certainly understood to be said of this same day, in which darkness and mourning and sadness are said to be in store, on account of those who, pierced through with many wounds of sins, will stand in need of the remedies of fire. At which time it will be said to the saints: “Go, my people, enter into your storechambers, shut your door, hide yourself for a little while, until the fury of my wrath passes by.” How great the riches of God’s goodness are hidden away in these words, on account of those who despise his patience and goodness, there is no need to make manifest. It is indeed asked by some why this day, concerning which we above set in motion the prophetic libraries, has been appointed at the end of the world, so that all who have died from the beginning of the age up to its end are reserved to be judged on this last day. It is certain that the inner causes of this matter are covered over by more secret mysteries. But “it is good to hide the mystery of a king.” Nevertheless, for the sake of explanation we shall speak, insofar as it is possible to commit the words to pages. There are many who, departing from this life, have left behind them certain seeds either of goods or of evils, from which the people who survive receive occasions either of salvation or of destruction: for example, I might say, such as are all those who founded among the philosophers depraved sects estranged from God; or those who devised magical sacrileges, or the errors of the stars and their decrees; or certainly those who among us have arisen as authors of heretics and of depraved doctrines by publishing books; or also those who have worked schisms in the Churches, and scandals and dissensions. But on the contrary there is the work of the apostolic writings, and the progress of the universal Church through them, and the conversion to God, and the correction of the whole world. The causes of all these things will not be closed off except with the end of the world itself: and therefore the judgment of God would not be just, so long as either the advances or the hindrances from each of these were still hanging in the balance. This too the Apostle seems to signify, when he says: “The sins of some men are manifest, going before them to judgment; but those of some follow after them.” Now indeed, if even those placed outside the body — whether the saints, who are with Christ, do anything and labor on our behalf, after the likeness of the angels who administer the services of our salvation; or again if sinners also, themselves placed outside the body, do anything according to the purpose of their mind, after the likeness nonetheless of the angels on the left hand, with whom they are said by Christ to be sent also into the eternal fire — let this too be held among the hidden things of God, and mysteries not to be committed to paper. Let these things suffice concerning the day of wrath and revelation. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Pelagius: Unaware that you are sick, you use the very cure in order to sustain even greater wounds.… Rejected kindness leads in the end to severer judgment, so that the man who refused to be touched by mercy is afflicted with punishment. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Severian of Gabala: When talking about the way they were “storing up” an accumulation of sins, Paul showed that there would also be a greater store of punishment, as a result of the patient endurance of the judge toward those who were suffering so incurably. — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

Shepherd of Hermas: For luxury and deceit have no memories, on account of the folly with which they are clothed; but when punishment and torture cleave to a man for one day, he is punished and tortured for a year; for punishment and torture have powerful memories. While tortured and punished, therefore, for a whole year, he remembers at last the luxury and deceit, and knows that on their account he suffers evil. — Shepherd of Hermas, Similitude 6

Romans 2:6

Ambrosiaster: Such a person must be punished more severely, even to the point of being tortured in eternal fire, because despite a long stay of execution, not only did he not want to change, but he increased his sinning, adding to his contempt for God. The day of wrath is for sinners, because it is the day on which they will be punished. Therefore the wrath is on those who receive punishment on the day when the just judgment of God is revealed. For it will be revealed and made known, even though it continues to be denied as long as it is in the future. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Ignatius of Antioch: …attain to a full assurance in Christ, who was begotten by the Father before all ages, but was afterwards born of the Virgin Mary without any intercourse with man. He also lived a holy life, and healed every kind of sickness and disease among the people, and wrought signs and wonders for the benefit of men; and to those who had fallen into the error of polytheism He made known the one and only true God, His Father, and underwent the passion, and endured the cross at the hands of the Christ-killing Jews, under Pontius Pilate the governor and Herod the king. He also died, and rose again, and ascended into the heavens to Him that sent Him, and is sat down at His right hand, and shall come at the end of the world, with His Father’s glory, to judge the living and the dead, and to render to every one according to his works. — Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians

John Chrysostom: “Who will render to every man according to his deeds, to them who by patient continuance in well doing,” etc. Since he had become awestriking and harsh by discoursing of the judgment and of the punishment that shall be, he does not forthwith, as one might expect, enter upon the vengeance, but turns his discourse to what was sweeter, to the recompense of good actions, saying as follows, “To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life.” Here also he awakens those who had drawn back during the trials, and shows that it is not right to trust in faith only. For it is deeds also into which that tribunal will enquire. But observe, how when he is discoursing about the things to come, he is unable to tell clearly the blessings, but speaketh of glory and honor. For in that they transcend all that man hath, he hath no image of them taken from this to show, but by those things which have a semblance of brightness among us, even by them he sets them before us as far as may be, by glory, by honor, by life. For these be what men earnestly strive after, yet are those things not these, but much better than these, inasmuch as they are incorruptible and immortal. See how he has opened to us the doors toward the resurrection of the body by speaking of incorruptibility. For incorruptibility belongs to the corruptible body. Then, since this sufficed not, he added glory and honor. For all of us are to rise incorruptible, but not all to glory, but some to punishment, and some to life. — Homily on Romans 5

Origen of Alexandria: Now let us inquire concerning the just judgment of God, in which he will render to each one according to his works. And first indeed let the heretics be excluded, who speak of good or evil natures of souls; and let them hear that God will render to each one not according to nature, but according to his works. In the second place let the faithful be built up, lest they suppose that this alone can suffice for them, that they believe; but let them know that the just judgment of God renders to each one according to his works. Certainly, since he says that the just judgment of God consists in this, that he render to each one according to his works, it will seem that the Gentiles can by no means be excluded by this saying, if perhaps they too do good works and act more uprightly. But that also which is written in Ezekiel seems to be opposed to this opinion. For he says: “When the just man turns himself away from his justice, and commits iniquity according to all the iniquities which the unjust man has done, all his acts of justice which he has done shall not be remembered in his lapse by which he has lapsed; but in his sins which he has sinned, in these he shall die.” For indeed, if nothing of the just man’s justice will be remembered when he has lapsed, how will God render to each one according to his works? But let us see whether perhaps the divine word may find its own resolution within itself, if we observe how it is written when it says: “When the just man has been turned away from his justice,” and it was not enough for him to say: “When he has been turned away from his justice,” but he added: “And has committed iniquity according to all the iniquities which the unjust man has done.” In this he seems to have secretly inserted an understanding of this sort, so that if perhaps the just man has not acted according to all the iniquities which the unjust man has done, not all his acts of justice are taken away from memory; but if he has committed all the iniquities which the unjust man does, then at last all his acts of justice are withdrawn from memory in his lapse. Although the Holy Spirit has hidden these things in the Scriptures on account of those who despise the riches of his goodness and patience, nevertheless he has not utterly taken them away; because the treasure hidden in a field is indeed not found by all, lest it be easily plundered and perish: yet it is found by the prudent, who are able to go and sell all that they have, and buy that field. And so these things also, although they are hidden in the Scriptures, as it is written: “How great is the multitude of your sweetness, O Lord, which you have hidden for those who fear you!” — are nevertheless found by those who defend, from the things that are concealed in the mystery of the Scriptures, that the God of the law and the prophets is not only just, but also good. Of these things necessity has demanded that we disclose a few, for the sake of expounding the apostolic saying in which he says: “Of the just judgment of God, who will render to each one according to his works.” — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Tertullian: Who will ply the sword without practising the contraries to lenity and justice; that is, guile, and asperity, and injustice, proper (of course) to the business of battles? See we, then, whether that which has another action be not another sword,-that is, the Divine word of God, doubly sharpened with the two Testaments of the ancient law and the new law; sharpened by the equity of its own wisdom; rendering to each one according to his own action. Lawful , then, it was for the Christ of God to be precinct, in the Psalms, without warlike achievements, with the figurative sword of the word of God; to which sword is congruous the predicated “bloom,” together with the “grace of the lips; “with which sword He was then “girt upon the thigh,” in the eye of David, when He was announced as about to come to earth in obedience to God the Father’s decree. — An Answer to the Jews

Romans 2:7

Ambrosiaster: Now Paul predicts the just judgment of God, as he has declared it will be for the good; that is to say, for those who, recognizing that the patience of God is designed partly for concealment and partly for greater revenge on those who do not correct themselves, repent of their previous works and live rightly, armed with confidence in their faith in God that they will not have to wait long before receiving their promised reward of eternal life. For God will give them glory and honor. And to avoid invidious comparisons with this life, where there is another kind of glory and honor, Paul added “immortality,” so that people would realize that the glory and honor which they will obtain will be of a different order altogether.… For in this life honor and glory are frequently lost, for the one who gives them, what he gives and the one who receives them are all mortal. But on the day of God’s judgment honor and glory will be given to the immortal so that they will be eternal. For this same substance will be glorified by a certain change of properties. Therefore, those who seek eternal life are not merely those who believe correctly but those who live correctly as well. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Irenaeus: “But glory and honour,” he says, “to every one that doeth good.” God therefore has given that which is good, as the apostle tells us in this Epistle, and they who work it shall receive glory and honour, because they have done that which is good when they had it in their power not to do it; but those who do it not shall receive the just judgment of God, because they did not work good when they had it in their power so to do. — Irenaeus Against Heresies Book 4

Origen of Alexandria: “To those indeed who, according to the patience of good work, seek glory and honor and incorruption, eternal life; but to those who are of contention, and who indeed disbelieve the truth but obey iniquity, wrath and indignation: and tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that works evil, of the Jew first, and of the Greek; but glory and honor and peace to everyone that works good, to the Jew first, and to the Greek. For there is no respect of persons with God.” To those who seek glory and honor and incorruption, he says, eternal life will be given in return for the patience of good work — not only to the Jews, to whom the oracles of God seem to have been entrusted, but also to the Greeks, because the judgment of God is just, and he is not the God of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles. But to those who through contention of mind and depravity of soul do not believe the truth but follow iniquity, wrath and indignation are repaid, tribulation and anguish — not only to the Gentile, but also to the Jew, because there is no respect of persons with God. These things, indeed, so far as regards the order of the words. But now let us inquire into what pertains to the inner meaning. “To those,” he says, “who through the patience of good work.” In saying “the patience of good work,” he shows that a certain labor and struggles are imminent for those who wish to do good work. For “our wrestling is,” as the same Apostle also says, “not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, and powers, and the rulers of this world”; all of which are opposed to good work. And therefore patience is necessary, because it is written: “In your patience you shall possess your souls.” But let us see what he calls good work. The Lord in the Gospel says of that woman who poured out the alabaster jar of precious ointment upon his head that “she has worked a good work upon me,” indicating that he who pours ointment over the word of God — that is, who joins works to the word — works a good work. For the discourse becomes fragrant, filled with all the sweetness of ointments, when it has been adorned with work and deeds. Now let us inquire what it is to seek glory and incorruption. In many places of holy Scripture they write concerning glory. For in Exodus it is said of Moses that when he came down from the mountain his face was glorified. Recounting this, the Apostle says to the Corinthians: “But if the ministry of death, engraved in letters upon stones, was made in glory, so that the children of Israel could not look upon the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which is done away; how much more shall the ministry of the Spirit be in glory! For if there is glory in the ministry of condemnation, how much more shall the ministry of justice abound in glory?” And a little after he adds: “But we all, with unveiled face beholding the glory of the Lord, are transformed into the same image from glory to glory, as by the Spirit of the Lord.” There is therefore, according to the Apostle, a certain glory which is not glorified — such as that which was on the face of Moses, which is said to have been destroyed, and which can be understood as the letter of the Law, having indeed a certain glory of precepts, but one which cannot be glorified. And there is another glory, which remains and is glorified in Christ. For when he had gone up into the mountain with Peter and James and John, he is written to have been transformed into glory. “And then there appeared,” he says, “Moses and Elias talking with him.” By which it is shown that the glory of the Law and of the prophets then appeared when Christ had been transformed in glory, so that prophecy and law, illuminated by his glory, with the veil of the letter removed, might be understood in the spirit. But since in Exodus also it is said that the glory of God filled the tabernacle of testimony; and again, at the dedication of the temple, that the glory of God nonetheless descended and filled the house with smoke, darkness, and cloud — in which assuredly the very presence of God is indicated to be there — that glory must be thought to be spoken of in these passages of which the Apostle, writing to the Hebrews, says concerning the Son, that he is “the splendor of glory, and the express image of his substance.” By which this is declared: that the Father himself is called the fount of glory, from whom the Son, the splendor of glory, is begotten, by participation in whom all creatures are said to have glory — as it is written of those who are of the resurrection: “One glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, another glory of the stars. Star differs from star in glory.” Those, therefore, who seek this glory which is of the resurrection, and honor, and incorruption, will without doubt find that which is written: “The body is sown in dishonor, it shall rise in glory; it is sown in corruption, it shall rise in incorruption.” And therefore the seeker of this glory and honor and incorruption obtains eternal life through the patience of good work. But since we have discussed glory as far as we could, let us see what honor also indicates, since those who hasten to eternal life seek not only glory but also honor. It is written that “man, when he was in honor, did not understand; he was compared to the senseless beasts, and was made like unto them.” He seeks, therefore, that honor which he had before he was compared to the senseless beasts — that is, the one he had in paradise before he sinned, the honor by which he was worthy to hear the voice of God, the honor by which he enjoyed the fruits of paradise and the tree of life. But that also which the Apostle says — “Render to all their dues; to whom honor, honor” — seems to me to look toward this. For I so understand that the honor due is rendered to God if what is owed to justice is rendered, and nothing on its side is conceded to injustice; and likewise to truth, if what belongs to it is so rendered that nothing on its part is left to falsehood; and to wisdom too, and to innocence and goodness, if we so render what is theirs that we permit nothing of their goods either to folly, or to craftiness, or to malice. For when, for example, in judging you have either shown partiality to the person of a powerful man, or for the favor of a friend have suppressed what is true, you have not rendered the honor due to justice nor to truth, but you have dishonored justice and done outrage to truth; and since Christ is justice and sanctification and truth, you will be like those who struck Christ with blows, and who spat in his face, and who, beating his head with a reed, placed a crown of thorns upon his head. But what honor is owed by man to all these virtues, we are taught in the Gospels, the Lord saying: “That all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father.” He therefore honors the Father and the Son who renders worthy honor and zeal to wisdom, and to justice, and to truth, and to all those things which Christ is said to be. In this manner, then, those who hasten to eternal life seek glory and honor and incorruption. But what incorruption indicates we shall quickly know, if we examine what is contrary to it. Incorruption has corruption as its contrary. Corruption is said to happen in two ways: bodily and spiritually. It happens bodily when that comes to pass which is written: “If any man shall corrupt the temple of God, God shall destroy him.” But spiritually, when that happens which the Apostle likewise says: “But I fear lest, as the serpent seduced Eve by his cunning, so your senses may be corrupted from the simplicity of the faith which is in Christ Jesus.” If anyone, therefore, has remained uncorrupted in body and spirit from those things we have spoken of above, he is said to seek incorruption — namely, that through this incorruption of observance he may be worthy to obtain that incorruption which is of the resurrection. But let us see what is given to those who seek these things. “Eternal life,” he says: that of which the Savior teaches when he says: “But this is eternal life, that they may know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.” By which he shows that the substance of eternal life abides in the knowledge of God and of Christ Jesus. But how the knowledge of God may be had, we are taught in the Psalms, when it is said: “Be still, and know that I am God.” — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Pelagius: The reward for well-doing is awaited with patience because it is not given in this life. The glory is that with which the saints will shine like the sun. Nothing is greater than the honor of the children of God, on account of which they will judge even the angels. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Theodoret of Cyrus: Well-doing is for a time, but the reward is eternal. Moreover, eternity applies not only to life but to honor, glory and immortality as well. Paul wanted to show that there are many rewards for those who are good. — INTERPRETATION OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS

Theophilus of Antioch: For He who gave the mouth for speech, and formed the ear to hear, and made the eye to see, will examine all things, and will judge righteous judgment, rendering merited awards to each. To those who by patient continuance in well-doing seek immortality, He will give life everlasting, joy, peace, rest, and abundance of good things, which neither hath eye seen, nor ear heard, nor hath it entered into the heart of man to conceive. But to the unbelieving and despisers, who obey not the truth, but are obedient to unrighteousness, when they shall have been filled with adulteries and fornications, and filthiness, and covetousness, and unlawful idolatries, there shall be anger and wrath, tribulation and anguish, and at the last everlasting fire shall possess such men. Since you said, “Show me thy God,” this is my God, and I counsel you to fear Him and to trust Him. — Theophilus to Autolycus, Book I, Chapter XIV

Romans 2:8

Ambrosiaster: Those who doubt that there will be a future judgment of God through Christ, and who for that reason despise his patience, do all they can to discredit it as being true and certain. For they believe in wickedness. It is wickedness to deny what God has foretold. Paul mentions three things which are fitting punishments for unbelief—wrath, fury and tribulation. The locus of wrath is not in the one who judges but in the one who is judged. God is said to get angry and to take vengeance, but in reality the nature of God transcends such passions. But this is said so that we should believe that God judges sin and that he will finally take revenge. So Paul adds “and fury.” This means that God will seek vengeance, adding to his anger in response to the injury which has been done to him. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

John Chrysostom: “But unto them that are contentious,” he says. Again, he deprives of excuse those that live in wickedness, and shows that it is from a kind of disputatiousness and carelessness that they fall into unrighteousness. “And do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness.” See, here is another accusation again. For what defence can he set up, who flees from the light and chooses the dark? And he does not say, who are “compelled by,” “lorded over by,” but who “obey unrighteousness,” that one may learn that the fall is one of free choice, the crime not of necessity. — Homily on Romans 5

Origen of Alexandria: “But to those who are contentious, and who indeed disbelieve the truth but obey iniquity, wrath and indignation, tribulation and anguish.” Whoever takes these words simply believes it enough for understanding that, according to what was said above, God renders to each one according to his works: that is, just as to those who by patience in good work seek glory and incorruption he renders eternal life, so also to these who out of contentiousness disbelieve the truth but obey iniquity he renders wrath and indignation, tribulation and anguish. But whoever believes that in the apostolic writings, through which Christ speaks, not one iota or one tittle is idle, will affirm that it was not by mistake that the Apostle came to use such a manner of speech, saying: “Who will render to those indeed who by patience in good work seek glory and honor, eternal life.” But of those who out of contentiousness obey iniquity, he did not say “wrath and indignation,” so that this too should be referred to the “he will render” which he had said above; rather he says: “Wrath and indignation, tribulation and anguish.” Hence he who is spiritual, and understands what the Spirit speaks in Paul, says that the Apostle wrote these things not through unskillfulness but through divine skill: namely, that by them he might show that those things which are to be rendered to such as seek glory and incorruption according to patience in good work are rendered by God — that is, eternal life; but that those things which follow upon such as through contentiousness disbelieve the truth and obey iniquity are not given by God, whose gifts are surely lasting and worthy of himself, but that out of the consequence of their own deeds there will be, for those who work evil, wrath and indignation, tribulation and anguish, according to what they have treasured up for themselves. For surely, just as there he had put “eternal life” in the accusative case, so here too he would have put wrath and indignation, tribulation and anguish in the accusative case, had he wished to refer it to the person of the God who renders. And this is understood to be indicated in like manner in other places of Scripture as well, as in the first book of Kings, where the Lord says: “Those who glorify me I will glorify; those who despise me shall be despised.” In which it is plainly shown that the Lord says of those who are to be glorified that they are to be glorified by himself; but of those who are to be despised, that he did not refer it to himself, but said absolutely that they shall be despised. For if God bestowed evils through himself just as he furnishes goods through himself, it would follow that, in the same way as he said, “Those who glorify me I will glorify,” so he would say: Those who despise me I will despise. But in another place too something similar seems to be shown through the prophet, in that those who go into the fire find it kindled not by God but by themselves, as Isaiah says: “Walk in the light of your fire, and in the flame which you have kindled.” And that the discussion of these things may become still plainer, let this also be added: If someone, against the physician’s precept, has taken the juices of bad foods and, the body’s balance being disturbed, has fallen into fevers or any diseases of this kind, it is certain that he has received the plague of his sickness not through the physician but through his own intemperance; but if, keeping the physician’s precepts, he continues in soundness, he will surely be said to have the grace of health through the physician. In this way, then, it will consistently be seen that God himself through himself renders to each one according to his works, those which are good; but evils will be understood to come not from God, but from the worst juices of intemperance and the raw depravity of one’s deeds. But let us not leave undiscussed this very thing which he said: “Who out of contentiousness indeed disbelieve the truth, but obey iniquity.” For in these several expressions certain sicknesses of the soul are designated by the Apostle, whose remedy no one will find unless he has first come to know the causes of the diseases. And therefore in the divine Scriptures the ailments of the soul are enumerated and the remedies described, so that those who have submitted themselves to apostolic instruction may, having recognized their own sicknesses from what is written, be healed and able to say: “Praise the Lord, O my soul, who heals all your sicknesses.” One sickness of the soul, then, among the rest — and indeed the worst — is to be understood to be contentiousness, through which every depraved work is carried out. Through this heresies are born, through this schisms, and all scandals are generated in the Churches, while those who are prudent in their own eyes and wise in their own sight defend whatever pleases them as though it were law; and thence it comes about that the truth is disbelieved, while iniquity is obeyed. Moreover “to disbelieve” is customarily found in the holy Scriptures for “not to believe” or “not to obey,” as also in this place; which perhaps the Latin translator would have rendered more aptly had he said: Who do not obey the truth, but obey iniquity. Everyone, therefore, who enters upon a road foreign to the truth, and does not follow him who said, “I am the truth,” disbelieves the truth and is disobedient to it. So too those who err not only in acts but also in perceptions and in faith; which happens most of all out of contentiousness. But those also who set themselves against wisdom, and against righteousness and sanctification, disbelieve Christ, who as he is truth, so also is wisdom, so also is sanctification. But not to obey Christ, who is righteousness, this is to obey iniquity, and those acts which are without doubt followed by the things that are written: “wrath and indignation, tribulation and anguish.” Concerning wrath we have often already said that sometimes the very torment which is inflicted upon the soul from the consciousness of sin is called wrath; but by indignation is signified a certain swelling of that same wrath, and its agitation in each particular: as if, for example, we should set down some very bad wound as the wrath, while the swelling and distension of it should be called the indignation of the wound. But the tribulation which anguish follows is not to be thought like that tribulation of which the Apostle says that “tribulation works patience.” For that sort of tribulation does not have anguish following upon it, as the Apostle himself also says: “We suffer tribulation, but we are not in anguish.” Indeed, that tribulation of the saints not only has no anguish, but has breadth. Finally the just man speaks thus: “In tribulation you have enlarged me.” Of this breadth the Apostle also, conscious of it in himself, writes to the Corinthians: “You are not straitened in me, but you are straitened in your own inward parts.” And he added: “Be you also enlarged.” Therefore God says of his saints, whom he knows to be enlarged and to have within the dwelling of their heart spaces spread far and wide: “I will dwell in them, and I will walk about in them.” This gift also Solomon received from God among the other gifts of wisdom, as it is written: “And the Lord gave,” he says, “to Solomon very great prudence, and breadth of heart.” In this breadth, then, of the heart of the saints God not only dwells but also walks about. But in the hearts of sinners, where there are narrow straits, because they have given place to the devil to enter in, the devil indeed enters, yet not to dwell nor to walk about — for they are narrow — but to lie hidden as in a cave; for he is a serpent. So then within itself the unhappy soul which this most evil snake has besieged, stiffening with serpentine cold, is drawn together and constricted, and is forced into every narrowness; whereas that soul which obeys the truth is enlarged after the likeness of heaven, and is spread abroad, and is illumined by the rays of the sun of righteousness, and becomes the hall of wisdom and of truth. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Theophilus of Antioch: To the unbelieving and despisers who obey not the truth but unrighteousness, when they have been filled with adulteries, and fornications and filthiness, and covetousness and unlawful idolatries, there shall be anger and wrath, tribulation and anguish, and at the last everlasting fire shall possess them. You asked me to show you my God—this is my God, and I advise you to fear and trust him. — TO AUTOLYCUS 1.14

Romans 2:9

Ambrosiaster: “Tribulation” refers to the punishment which the condemned sinner will suffer. Evil is not just a matter of deeds but of unbelief as well.… Paul always puts the Jew first, whether he is to be praised or blamed, because of his privileged ancestry. If he believes he will be all the more honored because of Abraham, but if he doubts he will be treated all the worse, because he has rejected the gift promised to his forefathers. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

John Chrysostom: “Indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil.” That is, if a man be rich, if a consul, if a very sovereign, by none of them is the account of the judgment out-faced. Since in this dignities have no place. Having then shown the exceeding greatness of the disease, and having added the cause, that it was from the carelessness of the disordered, and finally, that destruction awaits them and that amendment is easy, in the punishment also he again gives the Jew the heavier lot. For he that had enjoyed a larger share of instruction would also deserve to undergo a larger share of vengeance if doing lawlessly. And so the wiser or mightier men we are, the more are we punished if we sin. For if thou art rich, thou wilt have more money demanded of thee than of the poor; and if wiser than others, a stricter obedience; and if thou hast been invested with authority, more shining acts of goodness; and so in the case of all the other things, thou wilt have to bring in measures proportioned to your power. — Homily on Romans 5

Pelagius: The apostle threatens the soul with punishment because of heretics who say that only the flesh does wrong and that the soul cannot sin. Or perhaps “soul” refers to the whole man. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Theodoret of Cyrus: Here Paul uses the word Greek to refer not to Gentile believers but to those who lived before Christ’s incarnation. — INTERPRETATION OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS

Romans 2:10

Ambrosiaster: Just as Paul mentioned three woes for unbelievers, so now he mentions three benefits for believers: genuine honor as sons of God, unchanging glory and peace. Those who live rightly may be quiet in the future, undisturbed by any commotion. For everyone who keeps himself from wrongdoing has a judge who will be favorable to him. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Apollinaris of Laodicea: Paul is right to put the Jew first here and then the Greek. For those who are closer to the Lord and to his rebukes are honored above others, and they enjoy their rewards more than others. — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

John Chrysostom: “But glory, honor, and peace to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile.” What Jew does he here mean? or about what Gentiles is he discoursing? It is of those before Christ’s coming. For his discourse had not hitherto come to the times of grace, but he was still dwelling upon the earlier times, so breaking down first from afar off and clearing away the separation between the Greek and the Jew, that when he should do this in the matter of grace, he might no more seem to be devising some new and degrading view. For if in the earlier times when this Grace had not shone forth in such, greatness, when the estate of the Jews was solemn and renowned and glorious before all men, there was no difference, what could they say for themselves now after so great a display of grace? And this is why he establishes it with so great earnestness. For when the hearer has been informed that this held in the earlier times, much more will he receive it after the faith. But by Greeks he here means not them that worshipped idols, but them that adored God, that obeyed the law of nature, that strictly kept all things, save the Jewish observances, which contribute to piety, such as were Melchizedek and his, such as was Job, such as were the Ninevites, such as was Cornelius. — Homily on Romans 5

Origen of Alexandria: Yet why wrath and indignation to the Jew first, and to the Greek? Because glory and honor also belong to them first. For to them first were entrusted the oracles of God, and they themselves say: “Blessed are we, O Israel, for the things that please God are known to us.” And therefore, according to the sentence of the Gospel, “the servant who knew his lord’s will and did it not shall deservedly be beaten with many stripes” — this is the Jew; “but he who did not know it,” the Greek, that is, the Gentile, “shall be beaten with few.” For there is a difference between having known God and having known the will of God, since God could be known “from the creation of the world through the things that were made” even by the Gentiles, and “his eternal power and divinity”; but his will is known only from the Law and the prophets. But since the Apostle puts the Jews first and the Greeks after, both for punishment and for reward, we must inquire whom he wishes to be understood here as Greeks and whom as Jews. If he calls those Jews who are still under the Law and do not come to Christ, and calls Christians Greeks — that is, those who believe from among the nations — he seems to go against the sense of the whole mystery. For how shall those be called first of whom it was said: “Behold, the first shall be last”; and to whom again he says: “Behold, your house shall be left to you desolate”? And again, when the Savior had come to the fig tree on which he found no fruit, he said that “never let fruit be born from you.” And two peoples were signified in the womb of Rebecca, of whom it is said that “the elder shall serve the younger,” and the younger received the blessing of the birthright. But you will find countless other things of this sort in the Scriptures. If, however, he calls us Jews — that is, Christians, and those who have believed out of every race, whom he himself calls Jews in secret — it remains that he calls those Gentiles Greeks who have not yet believed. But how does the Apostle set so great a hope before Gentiles who have not yet believed, when the ecclesiastical rule seems to stand in the way, which lays down that “unless one be born again of water and the Holy Spirit,” he cannot “enter into the kingdom of heaven”; and again Peter in the Acts of the Apostles declares concerning Christ, saying: “For neither is there any other name under heaven whereby we must be saved”? How then does he here make the nations partakers of glory and honor and peace in the second place after the Jews? But let us see whether perhaps that goodness and sweetness of God which is wont to be hidden in the holy Scriptures may here too be contriving something secret. In this passage the Apostle seems to me to have made three orders. For first he speaks of those “who by patience in good work seek glory and honor and incorruption,” that God renders to them “eternal life.” But it is certain that patience in good work is found in those who endure the contests and struggles of piety — which we expounded above to be said plainly of Christians, among whom martyrs are made. This is proved also by what the Lord says to the apostles, that “you shall have tribulation in this world, and the world shall rejoice, but you shall mourn”; and he added a little later: “In your patience you shall gain your souls.” It belongs, then, to Christians to suffer oppression in this age and to mourn, and theirs is eternal life. And do you wish to know that eternal life belongs to no one except him who believes in Christ? Hear the voice of the Savior himself plainly declaring it in the Gospels: “But this is eternal life, that they may know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” Everyone therefore who has not acknowledged the Father, the only true God, and his Son, Jesus Christ, is a stranger to the eternity of life. For this very acknowledgment and faith is designated as eternal life. This, then, is the first place, that of Christians, to whom, as they seek glory and honor and incorruption through patience in good work, eternal life will be rendered — that life, without doubt, which says: “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” And in Christ, who is eternal life, is the fullness of all good things. In the second place are set those “who are of contention, and who indeed disbelieve the truth but obey iniquity”; over whom hang “wrath and indignation, tribulation and anguish” — that is, upon every soul that works evil, of the Jew first, and of the Greek. But to these same, in the third place, a recompense of good things is also promised with an equal distinction, when he says: “But glory and honor and peace to everyone who works good, to the Jew first and to the Greek.” Which, so far as I can grasp it, he says of Jews and of Gentiles, both being as yet unbelievers. For it can happen that even among those who are in the Law, if someone by reason of the common persuasion does not believe in Christ, yet works what is good, holds to justice, loves mercy, preserves chastity and continence, guards modesty and gentleness, and performs every good work — this man, even though he does not have eternal life, because believing in the only true God he has not also believed in his Son Jesus Christ whom he sent, nevertheless the glory of his works, and peace, and honor will be able not to perish. But the Greek also, that is, the Gentile, if, though he has not the Law, he is a law to himself, showing the work of the law in his heart, and moved by natural reason — as we see some among the nations — either holds to justice, or preserves chastity, or guards prudence, temperance, and modesty: this man, although he seems a stranger to eternal life because he does not believe in Christ, and cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven because he has not been born again of water and the Spirit, nevertheless it seems, from these things which are said by the Apostle, that he cannot utterly lose the glory and honor and peace of good works. For if, according to what we have discussed above, the Apostle seems to condemn the Gentiles on the ground that, having known God by natural understanding, they did not magnify him as God, why do we not think that he can and ought also to praise them, if any among them, knowing God, magnify him as God? I do not think, therefore, that it can be doubted that the one who would have deserved to be condemned for an evil work would likewise, if he had done a good work, be held worthy of the reward of the good work. For you see the Apostle saying that “we must all stand before the tribunal of Christ, that each one may carry back the proper things of the body, according as he has done, whether good or evil.” — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Pelagius: Glory is opposed to wrath and honor to displeasure. What Paul called “immortality” above he calls “peace” here. The word first is emphatic and means “indeed,” because God does not play favorites. Or it may mean first in time but not in honor. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Theodoret of Cyrus: God did not promise eternal life to those who worshiped idols but to those who even apart from the law led a Mosaic life, embraced godliness and the worship of God, and were concerned about righteousness. — INTERPRETATION OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS

Romans 2:11

Ambrosiaster: Paul shows that neither Jews nor Greeks will be rejected by God if they believe in Christ, but that both are justified by faith. Likewise, he says that those who do not believe are equally guilty, since circumcision without faith is worthless but uncircumcision with faith is acceptable. For God does not stick to any privilege of race, so as to accept unbelief on account of ancestors and reject believers because of the unworthiness of their parents. Rather he rewards or condemns each one on his own merits. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Jerome: We are all born equal, emperors and paupers, and we die as equals. Our humanity is of one quality. — HOMILES ON THE Psalms 14

John Chrysostom: “For there is no respect of persons with God.” Wonderful! What more than victory has he gained! For he shows, by reducing it to an absurdity, that it was not meet with God that it should be otherwise. For it would then be a case of respecting of persons. But of such character God is not. And he does not say, “for if this were not so, God would be a respecter of persons,” but with more of dignity, “For there is no respect of persons with God.” That it is not quality of persons, but difference of actions, Which He maketh inquisition for. By so saying he shows that it was not in actions but in persons only that the Jew differed from the Gentile. The consequence of this would be thus expressed; For it is not because one is a Jew and the other a Gentile, that one is honored and the other disgraced, but it is from the works that either treatment comes. But he does not say so, since it would have roused the anger of the Jew, but he sets down something more, so bringing their haughty spirit yet lower, and quelling it for the admission of the other. — Homily on Romans 5

Origen of Alexandria: From this, finally, comes what he adds in this passage: “For there is no respect of persons with God.” But if this still seems doubtful to you, hear also what Peter declares in the Acts of the Apostles, when he had entered in to the Gentile Cornelius: “I find,” he says, “that God is not a respecter of persons, but in every place and in every nation, he who does his will is accepted by him.” But it can be objected against us what the Lord says in the Gospel: “Everyone who believes in me shall not be judged. But he who does not believe is already judged, because he does not believe in the name of the only-begotten Son of God.” But let us see how we who believe in Christ are not judged, that we may know how he too who does not believe is already judged. Do we suppose, perhaps, that one who has believed in Christ and after this has committed murder or adultery, or has borne false witness, or has done something of this kind — things we sometimes see even the faithful commit — that for these he who has believed in Christ will now not be judged? It is certain that all these come to judgment; and therefore the Lord’s word which he says, “He who believes in me shall not be judged,” is to be understood thus: that according to the fact that he has believed he shall not be judged as an unbeliever and faithless man; but concerning his own acts he shall without doubt be judged. So then he too who does not believe is already judged according to the fact that he has not believed; and just as for the believer, if he has committed anything of sin outside, his faith being safe, judgment remains: so also for the unbeliever, if he has done any good work, apart from his unbelief, the reward will not perish. Unless perhaps someone should wish to object something harsh and intolerable, so as to say that he who sins is not to be counted among believers; because if a man believes, he does not sin; but if he sins, by this very fact he is convicted of not believing. But I think it is doubtful to no one how hard this opinion is. For how few will be found on earth who so balance their life as to fail in nothing whatever? But John the Apostle too in his Epistle plainly marks an opinion of this sort, when he says: “If anyone says that he has no sin, he is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But if we confess our sins, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus the just, who entreats for our sins.” These things, then, have been discussed by us in this passage as far as we could, considering also what the Apostle says: “Or is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also”; so that through these things the explanation may become clearer of how Jews are placed first, and then Greeks, by the Apostle. But nevertheless let it be in the judgment of the reader to test what has been said. We, however, have brought many things into the treatment, lest we should seem to leave anything of the Apostle’s meaning undiscussed. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Peter of Alexandria: But the freemen shall be tried by penance for three years, both for their dissimulation, and for having compelled their fellow-servants to offer sacrifice, inasmuch as they have not obeyed the apostle, who would have the masters do the same things unto the servant, forbearing threatening; knowing, says he, that our and their Master is in heaven; and that there is no respect of persons with Him. Now, if we all have one Master, with whom is no respect of persons, since Christ is all and in all, in barbarian, Scythian, bond or free, they ought to consider what they have done, wishing to preserve their own lives. They have drawn their fellow-servants to idolatry who would have been able to escape, had they given to them that which is just and equal, as again says the apostle. — The Canonical Epistle

Romans 2:12

Ambrosiaster: How can someone sin without the law, when Paul says that everyone is subject to the law of nature? By “law” he means the law of Moses, to which the Jews are bound although they do not believe. The Gentiles are also under the judgment of the natural law, but only insofar as they have chosen not to attach themselves to it. Thus the Gentile unbelievers are doubly in trouble, because they have neither assented to the law given through Moses, nor have they received the grace of Christ. Therefore it is quite right that they should perish. So just as the person who sins without the law will perish, so also the one who has kept the law without knowing it will be justified. For the keeper of the law maintains his righteousness by nature. For if the law is given not for the righteous but for the unrighteous, whoever does not sin is a friend of the law. For him faith alone is the way by which he is made perfect. For others mere avoidance of evil will not gain them any advantage with God unless they also believe in God, so that they may be righteous on both counts. For the one righteousness is temporal; the other is eternal.The Gentiles even if they keep the natural law will perish if they do not accept the faith of Christ. For it is a greater thing to confess faith in the one Lord, since God is one, than it is to avoid sinning (for the first of these has to do with God, the second with us). The Jews who live under the law will be accused and judged by the law, insofar as they have not accepted the Christ promised to them in the law. And if you wonder about this, the fate of the Jews will be worse than that of the Gentiles, for it is worse to lose what was promised than not to receive what was not hoped for in the first place. The unbelieving Gentile has not entered the kingdom of God, but the unbelieving Jew has been removed from it. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Apostolic Constitutions: As many as have sinned in law shall be judged according to law, and as many as have sinned without law shall perish without law. — CONSTITUTIONS OF THE HOLY APOSTLES

Augustine of Hippo: It is generally agreed that judgment is the usual expression for eternal damnation. — FAITH AND WORKS 23.43

Augustine of Hippo: The apostle did not mean to say that those who sin in ignorance will suffer worse punishment than those who know the law. It seems that it is worse to perish than to be judged. Rather the apostle here was merely distinguishing between Jews and Gentiles. — GRACE AND FREE WILL 2.5

Cyprian: Paul to the Romans: “As many as have sinned without law, shall perish without law; and as many as have sinned in the law, shall be judged also by the law.” — Treatise XII Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews

Irenaeus: As I have heard from a certain presbyter, who had heard it from those who had seen the apostles, and from those who had been their disciples, the punishment [declared] in Scripture was sufficient for the ancients in regard to what they did without the Spirit’s guidance. For as God is no respecter of persons, He inflicted a proper punishment on deeds displeasing to Him. — Against Heresies Book IV

Jerome: The ungodly without the law shall perish forever. But the sinner under the law who comes to faith in God will not perish. — Against the Pelagians 1.28

John Chrysostom: Those who lived before the giving of the law will not receive the same sentence as those after the law. Those sinning after the giving of the law will undergo heavier penalties. — HOMILIES ON Genesis 18.2

John Chrysostom: “For as many,” he says, “as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law.” For here, as I said before, he shows not only the equality of the Jew and the Gentile, but that the Jew was even much burdened by the gift of the Law. For the Gentile is judged without law. But this “without law” here expresses not the worse plight but the easier, that is, he has not the Law to accuse him. For “without law” (that is, without the condemnation arising from it), is he condemned solely from the reasonings of nature, but the Jew, “in the Law,” that is, with nature and the Law too to accuse him. For the greater the attention he enjoyed, the greater the punishment he will suffer. See how much greater is the necessity which he lays upon the Jews of a speedy recourse to grace! For in that they said, they needed not grace, being justified by the Law, he shows that they need it more than the Gentiles, considering they are liable to be punished more. — Homily on Romans 5

Origen of Alexandria: “For whoever have sinned without the law shall also perish without the law, and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.” Since the Apostle says that those who have sinned without the law will perish without the law, the question arises whether this is to be understood of the law of Moses alone, or also of the law of Christ, or even of any human law whatsoever under which it happens that each mortal lives, so that whoever sins under it may be judged according to it; or whether he who is outside the law of Moses alone, even if he lives under some law, perishes when he has sinned as one placed outside the law. For the apostle Paul himself, when he says that to those who are without the law he became as one without the law, adds: “though I was not without the law, but was in the law of Christ,” and thereby shows that he was indeed not in the law of Moses, yet was under a law. But consider too whether human laws, as we have said, ought to be reckoned for this same purpose. As for the natural law, however, which is present in all men alike, it must be considered whether it makes nearly all men sin within a law, as he says in what follows: “For when the Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature the things that belong to the law, these, not having the law, are a law unto themselves, and they show the work of the law written in their hearts.” Unless perhaps we should say that those are placed outside the law who obey neither written laws, nor conscience, nor their own thoughts rebuking and accusing them. But how does he say, “As many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law”? Surely he who is in the law of Christ shall be judged by the law of Christ, and he who is in the law of Moses shall be judged by the law of Moses; nor is he who is under the law of Christ — although he may also seem to be subject to the law of Moses — to be thought judged according to it as to why he is not circumcised, or why he does not keep the Sabbath. And even if he is to be thought judged according to the law of Moses, he will be judged according to that respect in which the law is spiritual. For this is what it means that not the hearer of the law but the doer is justified. But as to the fact that he who has sinned without the law seems to be struck with the heavier sentence, since he is pronounced destined to perish — whereas surely he might seem worthy of some pity, having had no help from the law — let us see whether here again, as we have shown in other places, some divine goodness lies hidden, which He always hides for those who fear Him. For perhaps it is on this account that the Lord Himself shows in the Gospel that He has a more eager care for those who perish, when He says that “the Son of Man came to seek and to save that which had perished.” And again He says: “I was not sent except to the sheep that have perished of the house of Israel.” And David says: “I have gone astray like a lost sheep; seek Thy servant.” Moreover, in the Gospel the drachma which had been lost is found by the woman when the house has been cleaned; and the father rejoices over the younger son who repents, who “was dead, and is alive again; had perished, and is found,” more than over the one who had not perished nor been found. Which younger son, as I judge, had already fled even from the natural law itself: for this seems to be indicated in his consuming, by living luxuriously, the portion of his father’s substance that fell to him. Moreover, in the prophet Ezekiel it is charged against the shepherds that they did not bind up the weak, and did not seek what had perished; and a little later the Lord Himself says: “And what has perished,” He says, “I will seek out.” Yet it must be observed that in all these passages God is nowhere said to have destroyed anyone, but each one suffers of himself this perishing, as he says in this very place: “They shall also perish without the law”; and, “The Son of Man came to seek that which had perished,” not that which He had destroyed; and “to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” not those which He had destroyed. And when the Lord Himself says, “All,” He says, “whom Thou hast given Me, I have kept, and none of them has perished,” He did not say: I have destroyed none of them. Indeed, wherever God is said to destroy, you will find it said rather in the sense of “reject,” as when He says: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will reject the understanding of the prudent.” But as to His saying that “as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law,” consider whether perhaps, according to those penalties which are written in the Law, by which judgments were carried out — where men are commanded to be stoned, or handed over to the fire, or to go to the city of refuge, or to suffer other such things — the future judgment may also be of this sort: since indeed those who are under the law are said to serve a pattern and shadow of heavenly things; lest perhaps by some similar reasoning the future judgment also be conducted against those who have transgressed the law. Since therefore it has become clear that different laws are spoken of in the Scriptures, if anyone has so far fled from all of these that even the natural law itself, which is lacking to almost no one, seems in him to be blotted out and abolished, whether through hardness or through grossness of heart, of such a one it may seem to be said that he perishes without the law; whereas he is said to be judged by the law who lives under the law, since the Apostle also testifies that everyone who has himself circumcised is a debtor to keep the whole law. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Pelagius: “Will perish” means the same thing as “will be judged,” for the man who perishes perishes by God’s judgment, and the man who is judged a sinner perishes. Paul puts Jews and Gentiles on the same level when he says that doers rather than hearers of the law are righteous and then adds that the Gentiles will be judged on the day of the Lord. For does anyone doubt that those under the law will perish just as those who lived without the law, unless they have believed in Christ? — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Tertullian: If, then, God will judge the secrets of men-both of those who have sinned in the law, and of those who have sinned without law (inasmuch as they who know not the law yet do by nature the things contained in the law) -surely the God who shall judge is He to whom belong both the law, and that nature which is the rule to them who know not the law. — Against Marcion Book V

Theodore of Mopsuestia: So as not to appear to be condemning them out of hatred Paul has repeated himself here, saying that those who have sinned without the law will perish without the law and that those under the law will be judged by the law. — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

Romans 2:13

Ambrosiaster: Paul says this because those who hear the law are not justified unless they believe in Christ, whom the law itself has promised. This is what it means to keep the law. For how does someone who does not believe the law keep it, when he does not receive the One to whom the law bears witness? But the one who appears not to be under the law because he is uncircumcised in his flesh, if he believes in Christ, may be said to have kept the law. And he who says he is in the law, i.e., the Jew, because what is said in the law does not penetrate to his mind, is not a doer of the law but a hearer only, for he does not believe in the Christ who is written about in the law, as Philip said to Nathanael: “We have found him of whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote.” — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Apollinaris of Laodicea: This is not the perfect righteousness according to Christ. About that, Paul says: “By works of the law shall no one be justified.” — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

Cyprian: That we must labour not with words, but with deeds. In Solomon, in Ecclesiasticus: “Be not hasty in thy tongue, and in thy deeds useless and remiss.” And Paul, in the first to the Corinthians: “The kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.” Also to the Romans: “Not the hearers of the law are righteous before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.” Also in the Gospel according to Matthew: “He who shall do and teach so, shall be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” Also in the same place: “Every one who heareth my words, and doeth them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house upon a rock. The rain descended, the floods came, the winds blew, and beat upon that house, and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. And every one who heareth my words, and doeth them not, I will liken him to the foolish man, who built his house upon the sand. The rain descended, the floods came, the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and its ruin became great.” — Treatise XII Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews

Gregory the Dialogist: Therefore, by hearing the precepts of God they were not enlightened; by doing them they were enlightened, because it is written: “Not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.” Whoever therefore wishes to understand what he has heard, let him hasten to fulfill in deed those things which he has already been able to understand. — Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 23

John Chrysostom: What benefit is it if, while listening each day, we neglect to practice what we hear? Hence I beseech you, let us be zealous in practicing those very deeds (by no other way, in fact, is it possible to be saved) so that we may also wash away our sins and be granted the Lord’s lovingkindness at his own hands, thanks to the grace and mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ. — HOMILIES ON Genesis 47.18

John Chrysostom: “For not the hearers of the law are just before God.” Well doth he add “before God;” for haply before men they may be able to appear dignified and to vaunt great things, but before God it is quite otherwise-the doers of the Law alone are justified. You see with what advantage he combats, by turning what they said to an opposite bearing. For if it is by the Law you claim to be saved, in this respect, saith he, the Gentile will stand before you, when seen to be a doer of what is written in the Law. And how is it possible (one may say) for one who hath not heard to be a doer? Not this only, he says, is possible, but what is much more even than this. For not only is it possible without hearing to be a doer, but even with hearing not to be so. Which last thing he makes plainer, and that with a greater advantage over them, when he says, “Thou that teachest another, teachest thou not thyself?” (Rom. ii. 21.) But here he is still making the former point good. — Homily on Romans 5

Philoxenus of Mabbug: For the man who, though listening not, doeth, is better than the man who is constant in listening and empty of works, even as the word of the apostle Paul teacheth us, “For not the hearers of the law are righteous before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified: for if the Gentiles which have no law do by their own nature the things of the law, these, having no law, are a law unto themselves; and they show the work of the law written upon their hearts, and their conscience testifieth concerning them”. The hearing of the law is good, for it bringeth to the works thereof, and reading and meditation in the Scriptures, which purify our secret understanding from thoughts of evil things, are good, but if a man is constant in reading, and in hearing, and in the meditation of the word of God, and yet perfecteth not by his reading the labour of works, against this man hath the Spirit of God spoken by the hand of the blessed David, rebuking and reproving his wickedness. — 13 Ascetic Discourses, Discourse 1 – Prologue

Tertullian: For each individual lives by his own faith, nor is there exception of persons with God; since it is not hearers of the law who are justified by the Lord, but doers, according to what the apostle withal says. Therefore, if you have the right of a priest in your own person, in cases of necessity, it behoves you to have likewise the discipline of a priest whenever it may be necessary to have the fight of a priest. — On Exhortation to Chastity

Romans 2:14

Ambrose of Milan: Therefore, in this, we seem to hear the voice of the Lord, which prohibits some things and commands others. And so, if anyone does not obey those things which we believe have once been commanded by God, he is considered subject to punishment. However, the commandment of God is not written with ink on stone tablets, but is impressed in our hearts by the spirit of the living God. Therefore, our own opinion becomes its own law. For if the Gentiles, who do not have the law, naturally do what the law requires, they themselves are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written on their hearts. Therefore, human opinion is to itself as the law of God. — On Paradise, Chapter 8

Ambrose of Milan: And indeed, according to the tenor of your question, it is certain that the Law, which was given by Moses, was not necessary. For had men been able to keep the natural Law, which our God and Maker implanted in the breast of each, there would have been no need of the Law, which, written on tables of stone, tended rather to entangle and fetter the infirmity of human nature, than to set at large and liberate it. Now that there is a natural Law written in our hearts the Apostle also teaches us, when he writes, that for the most part the Gentiles, which have not the Law, do by nature the things contained in the Law, and, though they have not read the Law, have yet the works of the Law written in their hearts. — Letter 73, To Irenaeus

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

Clement of Alexandria: “For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves; uncircumcision observing the precepts of the law”. — The Stromata Book 1

John Chrysostom: “For when the Gentiles,” he says, “which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves.” I am not, he means, rejecting the Law, but even on this score I justify the Gentiles. You see how when undermining the conceit of Judaism, he giveth no handle against himself as villifying the Law, but on the contrary by extolling it and showing its greatness he so makes good his whole position. But whenever he saith “by nature,” he means by the reasonings of nature. And he shows that others are better than they, and, what is more better for this, that they have not received the Law, and have not that wherein the Jews seem to have an advantage over them. For on this ground he means they are to be admired, because they required not a law, and yet exhibited all the doings of the Law, having the works, not the letters, graven upon their minds. — Homily on Romans 5

Lucius Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius: Who that is acquainted with the mystery of God could so significantly relate the law of God, as a man far removed from the knowledge of the truth has set forth that law? But I consider that they who speak true things unconsciously are to be so regarded as though they prophesied under the influence of some spirit. But if he had known or explained this also, in what precepts the law itself consisted, as he clearly saw the force and purport of the divine law, he would not have discharged the office of a philosopher, but of a prophet. And because he was unable to do this, it must be done by us, to whom the law itself has been delivered by the one great Master and Ruler of all, God. — The Divine Institutes Book 6, Chapter VIII

Origen of Alexandria: “For when the Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature the things that are of the law, these, not having the law, are a law unto themselves: who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts among themselves accusing or even defending one another, in the day when God shall judge the hidden things of men, according to my Gospel, through Jesus Christ.” It is certain that the Gentiles, who do not have the law, are not said to do by nature the things that are of the law with regard to Sabbaths or New Moons, or the sacrifices which are written in the law. For this law is not written in the hearts of the Gentiles; but this is what they can perceive by nature: for example, that they should not commit murder, not commit adultery, not steal, not bear false witness; that they should honor father and mother, and things like these. Perhaps too the fact that God is the one creator of all things is written in the hearts of the Gentiles. Nevertheless, these things which are said to be written in the heart seem to me to accord rather with the laws of the Gospel, where all things are referred back to natural equity. For what is so close to natural perceptions as that men should not do to others what they do not wish to be done to themselves? But the natural law can agree with the law of Moses according to the spirit, not according to the letter. For what natural understanding will there be in this, for instance, that one should circumcise an infant on the eighth day, or that wool should not be woven together with linen, or that no one should eat anything leavened on the day of the New Things? And when we had several times put these objections to the Jews, and demanded that they show what usefulness there might be in them, we know that they were accustomed to reply only this: that so it seemed good to the lawgiver. But we who hold that all these things are to be understood spiritually, for that reason also believe that not the hearers but the doers of the law are to be justified — not of the law according to the letter, which certainly, on account of its impossibility, cannot have a doer, but according to the spirit, through which alone the law can be fulfilled. This, then, is the work of the law which the Apostle says even the Gentiles can fulfill by nature. For when they do the things that are of the law, the law seems to be “written” in their hearts by God, “not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God.” — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

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

Philoxenus of Mabbug: For the man who, though listening not, doeth, is better than the man who is constant in listening and empty of works, even as the word of the apostle Paul teacheth us, “For not the hearers of the law are righteous before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified: for if the Gentiles which have no law do by their own nature the things of the law, these, having no law, are a law unto themselves; and they show the work of the law written upon their hearts, and their conscience testifieth concerning them”. The hearing of the law is good, for it bringeth to the works thereof, and reading and meditation in the Scriptures, which purify our secret understanding from thoughts of evil things, are good, but if a man is constant in reading, and in hearing, and in the meditation of the word of God, and yet perfecteth not by his reading the labour of works, against this man hath the Spirit of God spoken by the hand of the blessed David, rebuking and reproving his wickedness. — 13 Ascetic Discourses, Discourse 1 – Prologue

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

Romans 2:15

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

Augustine of Hippo: Compare this with 1 John [3:20]: “Dearly beloved, if our own hearts condemn us, God is greater than our conscience.” — AUGUSTINE ON Romans 10

John Chrysostom: “Which show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the meanwhile accusing or else excusing one another.” See how he again puts that day before them, and brings it close to them, battering down their conceit, and showing, that those were to be the rather honored who without the Law strove earnestly to fulfil the things of the Law. But what is most to be marvelled at in the discretion of the Apostle, it is worth while to mention now. For having shown, from the grounds given, that the Gentile is greater than the Jew; in the inference, and the conclusion of his reasoning, he does not state it, in order not to exasperate the Jew. For the conscience and reason doth suffice in the Law’s stead. By this he showed, first, that God made man independent, so as to be able to choose virtue and to avoid vice. And be not surprised that he proves this point, not once or twice, but several times. For this topic was very needful for him to prove owing to those who say, Why ever is it, that Christ came but now? And where in times before was the scheme of Providence? Now it is these that he is at present beating off by the way, when he shows that even in former times, and before the Law was given, the human race fully enjoyed the care of Providence. — Homily on Romans 5

Origen of Alexandria: But as for his saying “in the hearts,” it must not be supposed that the law is said to be written in that member of the body which is called the heart. For how could flesh either put forth such perceptions of prudence, or contain such great storehouses of memory? But it must be understood that the rational power of the soul is customarily called the heart. And the Apostle says that those who hold the law inscribed in their hearts make use of the testimony of a sound conscience. Hence it seems necessary to examine what this is that the Apostle calls conscience: whether it is some substance other than the heart or the soul. For this conscience is spoken of elsewhere too, in that it rebukes and is not rebuked, and judges the man and is not itself judged, as John says: “If our conscience,” he says, “does not rebuke us, we have confidence toward God.” And again Paul himself says elsewhere that “this is our glorying, the testimony of our conscience.” Since therefore I see so great a freedom in it, which in good deeds indeed always rejoices and exults, but in evil ones is not itself accused, but rebukes and accuses the very soul to which it clings, I judge that it is that spirit which is said by the Apostle to be with the soul, according to what we have taught above — joined to it as a kind of tutor and guide, so that it may admonish it concerning better things, or chastise and accuse it for its faults; concerning which the Apostle also says that “no man knows the things of a man, except the spirit of the man which is in him”; and that this is the spirit of conscience, of which he says: “The Spirit himself bears witness to our spirit.” And perhaps this is that very spirit which clings to the souls of the just, which have been obedient to it in all things; and therefore it is written: “Praise the Lord, you spirits and souls of the just.” But if the soul has been disobedient and defiant toward it, it will be divided from it after death, and separated. And on this account I think it was said in the Gospel concerning the wicked steward, that “the Lord will divide him, and will set his portion with the unbelievers.” Perhaps this is the spirit of which it is written, that “the spirit in men is incorruptible.” And according to what we said above, that it is divided and separated from the sinful soul, so that the soul may receive its portion with the unbelievers, that saying too can likewise be applied to these matters: “There shall be two in the field, one shall be taken and one shall be left; and two at the mill, one shall be taken and one shall be left.” So much concerning what is written: “Their conscience bearing witness.” — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

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

Philoxenus of Mabbug: For the man who, though listening not, doeth, is better than the man who is constant in listening and empty of works, even as the word of the apostle Paul teacheth us, “For not the hearers of the law are righteous before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified: for if the Gentiles which have no law do by their own nature the things of the law, these, having no law, are a law unto themselves; and they show the work of the law written upon their hearts, and their conscience testifieth concerning them”. The hearing of the law is good, for it bringeth to the works thereof, and reading and meditation in the Scriptures, which purify our secret understanding from thoughts of evil things, are good, but if a man is constant in reading, and in hearing, and in the meditation of the word of God, and yet perfecteth not by his reading the labour of works, against this man hath the Spirit of God spoken by the hand of the blessed David, rebuking and reproving his wickedness. — 13 Ascetic Discourses, Discourse 1 – Prologue

Romans 2:16

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

Apollinaris of Laodicea: Men sit as judges of the external things only. It is God who judges things hidden. For Scripture says: “Man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks upon the heart.” When Christ judges, then God is the judge. — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

Cyril of Jerusalem: The awe-inspiring countenance of the Judge will compel you to speak the truth. Even if you are silent, it will convict you. You will rise clothed either in your sins or in your just deeds. The Judge himself declared this. — CATECHESIS 15.25

John Chrysostom: “In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my Gospel.” See how he again puts that day before them, and brings it close to them, battering down their conceit, and showing, that those were to be the rather honored who without the Law strove earnestly to fulfil the things of the Law. … For the conscience and reason doth suffice in the Law’s stead. By this he showed, first, that God made man independent, so as to be able to choose virtue and to avoid vice. … And why does he put the words “accusing or else excusing?"-for, if they have a Law written, and show the work of it in them, how comes reason to be able to accuse them still? But he is not any longer speaking of those only who do well, but also of mankind (Gr. the nature) universally. For then our reasonings stand up, some accusing and some excusing. And at that tribunal a man needeth no other accuser. Then to add to their fear, he does not say the sins of men, but the secrets of men. For since he said, “Thinkest thou, that judgest them that do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God;” that thou mayest not expect such a sentence as thou passest thyself, but mayest know, that that of God is far more exact than thine own, he brings in, “the secrets of men,” and adds, “through Jesus Christ according to my Gospel.” For men sit in judgment upon overt acts alone. And above too he spake of the Father alone, but as soon as he had crushed them with fear, he brought in the mention of Christ also. But he does not do barely this, but even here, after having made mention of the Father, he so introduceth Him. And by the same things he raises the dignity of his preaching. For this preaching, he means, openly speaks out what nature taught by anticipation. Do you see with what wisdom he has bound them both to the Gospel and to Christ, and demonstrated that our affairs come not here to a stand, but travel further. And this he made good before also, when he said, “thou treasurest up to thyself wrath against the day of wrath:” and here again, “God shall judge the secrets of men.” — Homily on Romans 5

Origen of Alexandria: Now let us see what follows: “And their thoughts among themselves accusing one another, or even defending them, in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men according to my Gospel, through Jesus Christ.” Who would doubt that the judgment of God is right, where accusers and defenders and witnesses are employed? And indeed from this just judgment of God let us men take an example, and let us never suppose that a judgment can be held just without an accuser, and a defender, and witnesses. Next we must see how, on that day when God shall judge the secrets of men, the thoughts will either accuse the soul or defend it — not, surely, those thoughts which shall then exist, but these which are now in us. For when we think either good things or evil, just as upon wax tablets, so in our heart there are left behind certain marks and impressions of both good and evil thoughts, which, now placed in the hidden part of the breast, are said to be revealed on that day by no other than him who alone can know the secrets of men; and our own conscience too will bear witness that the causes of those signs, or of those marks, are not hidden from God. Yet this judgment, according to Paul’s Gospel (that is, the one which Paul announces), will take place through Jesus Christ, “for the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son.” Marcion, however, and all who by their various fabrications introduce diverse natures of souls, are most plainly refuted from this passage, since Paul says that God judges the secrets of men through Jesus Christ: and it is shown that each one is to be judged not by the privilege of nature, but accused or excused by his own thoughts, by the testimony of his own conscience. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

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

Tertullian: If God will judge the secrets of men … surely the God who will judge is he to whom belong both the law and that nature which is the rule for those who do not know the law. But how will he conduct this judgment? “According to my gospel,” says the apostle, “by Christ Jesus.” The law and nature are vindicated by the gospel and Christ. — AGAINST MARCION 5.13

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

Theodore of Mopsuestia: Paul continually preached that there will be a day of judgment and that it will be necessary to have believed in Christ in order to escape punishment. — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

Romans 2:17

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

Augustine of Hippo: If a Jew boasts in God in the manner called for by grace, which is given not according to the merits of works but freely, his praise would be of God and not of men.… But they thought that they had fulfilled this law of God by their own righteousness, even though they were transgressors of it. And so for them it worked wrath as sin multiplied, committed by those who knew what sin was. Those who did what the law commanded without the help of the Spirit of grace did it through fear of punishment and not out of love for righteousness. — THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER 11.7

Clement of Alexandria: The beneficent action of the law, the apostle showed in the passage relating to the Jews, writing thus: “Behold, thou art called a Jew and restest in the law, and makest thy boast in God, and knowest the will of God, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law, and art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them who are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, who hast the form of knowledge and of truth in the law.” For it is admitted that such is the power of the law, although those whose conduct is not according to the law, make a false pretence, as if they lived in the law. — The Stromata Book 1

John Chrysostom: “Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the Law, and makest thy boast of God, and knowest His will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the Law.” After saying that the Gentile wanteth nothing appertaining to salvation if he be a doer of the Law, and after making that wonderful comparison, he goes on to set down the glories of the Jews, owing to which they thought scorn of the Gentiles: and first the very name itself, which was of great majesty, as the name Christian is now. For even then the distinction which the appellation made was great. And so he begins from this, and see how he takes it down. For he does not say, Behold, thou art a Jew, but “art called” so, “and makest thy boast in God;” that is, as being loved by Him, and honored above all other men. And here he seems to me to be gently mocking their unreasonableness, and great madness after glory, because they misused this gift not to their own salvation, but to set themselves up against the rest of mankind, and to despise them. “And knowest His will, and approvest the things that are more excellent.” Indeed this is a disadvantage, if without working: yet still it seemed to be an advantage, and so he states it with accuracy. For he does not say, thou doest, but knowest; and approvest, not followest and doest. — Homily on Romans 6

Origen of Alexandria: “But if you are called a Jew, and rest in the law, and glory in God, and know his will, and approve the more useful things, being instructed by the law, and are confident that you are a guide of the blind, a light of those who are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, having the form of knowledge and of truth in the law. You then who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that a man should not steal, do you steal? You who say that one should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abominate idols, do you commit sacrilege? You who glory in the law, by transgression of the law do you dishonor God. For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.” Just as we have observed in the prophetic Scriptures that not only is the person of the speaker secretly and suddenly changed, but also that of those to whom the discourse is addressed, or concerning whom it is made — for example, that some things are said now in the person of the Father, now of the Son, or of the Holy Spirit, now also in the person of the prophet, or of any others whatever; and that now indeed the discourse is directed to the people of Israel, now to foreign nations, or to kings, and to a thousand others — so it seems to me that this Epistle also was written to the Romans in such a way that at times the person of the speaker is changed, and sometimes indeed the spiritual Paul speaks, as in many places of the Epistle; but sometimes the carnal Paul, as, for example, when he says: “But I am carnal, sold under sin,” as will be shown when, with the Lord’s guidance, we come to that very passage. And at times there occurs also a change of the persons to whom the discourse is addressed, so that now it is said to the whole Church of the Romans: “I give thanks to my God through Jesus Christ for you all, because your faith is announced in the whole world”; but in other places not to the whole Church, but to everyone who judges another and himself does those things which he condemns in others, and is inexcusable. But now this discourse is made neither to the Church nor to him who judges, in which he says: “But if you are called a Jew, and rest in the law, and glory in God, and know his will,” and the rest, as far as that passage: “And the uncircumcision which is by nature, fulfilling the law, shall judge you, who by the letter and circumcision are a transgressor of the law.” Just as in the prophetic Scriptures he who wishes to grasp the understanding of what is written must attend vigilantly to the persons — whether of those speaking, or of those to whom, or of those about whom the discourse is made — so now, it seems to me, must we proceed in the Epistle to the Romans. But let us now see what those things are which the Apostle says to him who is called a Jew. For first this must be observed, that he did not say of him: “But if you” are a Jew; but, “you are called a Jew”: because to be a Jew and to be called a Jew are not the same thing. For Paul himself teaches in what follows that he is truly a Jew who is circumcised “in secret” with the circumcision of the heart, who keeps the law “in the spirit, not the letter,” “whose praise is not from men, but from God.” But he who is circumcised “openly, in the flesh,” observing the law for this purpose, that he may be seen by men — he is not truly a Jew, but is called one. For concerning these the Apostle himself also says: “Behold the circumcision: for we are the circumcision, who serve God in the spirit.” But John too in the Apocalypse speaks thus of certain ones: “Who say that they are Jews, and are not”: whom he also declares to be “of the synagogue of Satan.” Yet it must be known that he who is “in secret” and truly a Jew draws his name from that Judah of whom it is written: “Judah, your brothers shall praise you: your hands shall be upon the back of your enemies. Judah is a lion’s whelp,” and the rest, which were prophesied concerning the Lord and Savior. Therefore, if it has become clear about the distinctions of persons, and who is truly a Jew, but who is called so by name alone, let us see what the apostolic discourse says to this man who boasts that he is a Jew, and is not. You, he says, who are called a Jew, and place all your rest in the letter of the law, and glory in God as one who is his portion, and to whom it has been granted to know the will of God, and as one skilled in testing boast that you can know and discern what things are more useful, and their differences, so that you not only know what things are good, but also discern what are better and more useful, you are also confident that you can be a guide of the blind: doubtless you are of those guides of whom the Lord said: “They are blind guides of the blind. But if a blind man leads a blind man, both fall into the pit.” He is confident, then, that he is a guide of the blind, and a light also of those who are in darkness. But to these too the Lord nonetheless says: “But if the light that is in you is darkness, how great is that darkness itself!” Yet they are confident that they are instructors of the foolish, and teachers of infants, as those who have received from the letter of the law the form of knowledge and of truth. And because they indeed profess these things, yet do not truly hold them, the Apostle says to them: “You therefore who teach another, do you not teach yourself? And you who preach that a man should not steal,” you steal the coming and presence of Christ, which has shone forth upon the whole world; “you who say that one should not commit adultery,” you commit adultery against the synagogue of the people of God, bringing upon it a depraved and adulterous word of doctrine; and you unite it with the letter of the law which is outside, though you read what is written of her, that “all the glory of the king’s daughter is within”; and to whom you read it likewise said through the prophet: “Unless you hear in secret, your soul shall weep.” You therefore who deny that one should commit adultery, commit so grave an adultery as to introduce an adulterous meaning to her of whom you read it said by God: “I will betroth you to myself in faithfulness and mercy.” You who abominate idols, commit sacrilege, violating the true temple of God, which is Christ Jesus. For you destroy the temple of God which was raised up in three days for those who believe. But he too who steals and conceals the word from the law and the prophets which proclaims Christ, lest the people hear and believe, commits sacrilege, and truly violates the temple of God. Likewise also this man who is called a Jew, and glories in the letter of the Law of Moses, is convicted as a transgressor of the Law when he does not believe Christ. For if he believed Moses, he would surely believe him of whom Moses wrote. Because of such men, therefore, who are called Jews and are not, the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles, not only for their most wicked works, but also because of the low and debased understanding which they have in the law and the prophets. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Origen of Alexandria: For they become ridiculous even to the Gentiles themselves when, following the letter of the Law, they say: “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle: all of which things are unto corruption according to the commandments and doctrines of men.” But these things the Apostle indeed says to him who is a Jew in name, not in deed; yet they can pertain also to every man in whom there is only the name of religion and piety, while works, and knowledge, and faith are lacking. And therefore we ought to examine these matters with greater care in ourselves than in those who do not come to faith in Christ, lest any of us who through faith in Christ and through the circumcision given in baptism has been made a true Jew, and rests in the law of Christ, and boasts also that, having driven off the error of idols, he has come to know God and that His will has become known to him (for he knows how to prove what is good, and well-pleasing, and perfect, and has advanced so far that he is even a leader and teacher of the Church for enlightening those who are blind in knowledge, and for instructing the little ones in Christ) — lest, I say, such a man be willing indeed to teach others quite strictly, and to demand from those whom he instructs the highest discipline of chastity, while he himself is driven by the vice of intemperance and of covetousness, and sometimes even burns with the flames of hidden lust. To a man of this sort, then, this apostolic word is fittingly applied, saying to him: “You who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that a man should not steal, do you steal? You who say that a man should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery?” But if also, as sometimes is wont to happen, he has turned to his own gains the offerings taken up for God, and the alms given for the use of the poor, it is rightly said to him: “You who abhor idols, do you commit sacrilege?” But if he even runs into open disgrace, and by his avarice, and unjust judgments, and drunkenness he already bears a public mark of infamy, God is dishonored in his deeds; and when a teacher of the Church has become known to the peoples as being such, “the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles.” For it is certain that disciples are like their master. Yet these same things can, in a third place, be applied also to heretics. For they too are called Christians, and some of them have even held to the Law, and, instructed by it, profess themselves to be guides of the blind and teachers of infants, approving as more useful the things which they say lie hidden from the men of the Church. But since these men steal the words of God, and by a perverse exposition filch away their meaning, and bring an adulterous understanding of the faith into the royal bridal chambers, to the Church, the Bride of Christ, it is rightly said to them: “You who preach that a man should not steal, do you steal? You who say that a man should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery?” — and those who “abhor idols” commit “sacrilege,” stealing the precious vessels from the temple of God, that is, the pearls of the true faith from the holy Scriptures: through whom also “the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles,” while they stain the chaste and honorable teachings of the Church with the corrupt and shameful errors of heretical depravity. For from them have arisen, to the discredit of the holy religion, the reproaches of infanticide and incest and of other like crimes. It must be known, however, that the Apostle says these things to the Jews by way of irony. For he who truly rests in the Law, and boasts in God, and approves the more useful things, is not to be believed to do the things that have been enumerated. Now the testimony which he set down, that is, “For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you,” is taken from Isaiah. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Pelagius: At this point Paul turns to the Jews and says that a man should be a Jew in deed and not merely in name. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Theodore of Mopsuestia: This is not to be read as a question, as some people think, but rather as a statement, as if to say: “Not as a true Jew, albeit in secret, but merely claiming to be one and making false pretenses.” — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

Romans 2:18

Ambrosiaster: It is hardly surprising that a Jew should believe, since he has been taught to do so by the law. It is indeed dangerous for him not to believe if he has the law as his guide. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Pelagius: The Jew boasts that he alone understands God and knows his will. He approves what is excellent, because what is beneficial by nature is made much more so by the law. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Romans 2:19

John Chrysostom: “And art confident that thou thyself.” Here again he does not say that thou art “a guide of the blind,” but “thou art confident,” so thou boastest, he says. So great was the unreasonableness of the Jews. Wherefore he also repeats nearly the very words, which they used in their boastings. See for instance what they say in the Gospels. “Thou wast altogether born in sin, and dost thou teach us?” (John ix. 34.) And all men they utterly looked down upon, to convince them of which, Paul keeps extolling them and lowering the others, that so he may get more hold on them, and make his accusation the weightier. Wherefore he goes on adding the like things, and making more of them by different ways of relating them. For “Thou art confident,” he saith, “that thou thyself art a leader of the blind, An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and truth, which is in the Law.” Here again he says not, in the conscience and in actions and in well-doings, but “in the Law;” and after saying so, he does here also what he did with regard to the Gentiles. For as there he says, “for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself,” so saith he here also. — Homily on Romans 6

Pelagius: The blind are those who have been deprived of the light of knowledge. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Romans 2:20

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

Pelagius: One who continually keeps the law in view does not stumble. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Theodore of Mopsuestia: By “embodiment” is meant not the form but the substance and the knowledge and the truth, like the one “who was in the form of God.” — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH

Romans 2:21

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

Desert Fathers: Poemen also said, ‘Teach your heart to follow what your tongue is saying to others.’ He also said, ‘Men try to appear excellent in preaching but they are less excellent in practising what they preach.’ — The Desert Fathers, Sayings of the Early Christian Monks

John Chrysostom: “Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself?” But there he frames his speech with more of sharpness, here with more of gentleness. For he does not say, However on this score thou deservest greater punishment, because though entrusted with so great things thou hast not made a good use of any of them, but he carries his discourse on by way of question, turning them on themselves, and saying, “Thou that teachest another, teachest thou not thyself?” And here I would have you look at the discretion of Paul in another case. For he sets down such advantages of the Jews, as came not of their own earnestness, but by a gift from above, and he shows not only that they are worthless to them if neglectful, but that they even bring with them increase of punishment. For neither is the being called a Jew any well doing of theirs, nor yet is the receiving of the Law, nor the other things he has just enumerated, but of the grace from above. And towards the beginning he had said, that the hearing of the Law is valueless unless the doing be thereto added (“for not the hearers of the Law,” he says, “are just before God,”) but now he shows further still, that not only the hearing, but, what is more than the hearing, the teaching of the Law itself will not be able to screen the teacher, unless he do what he says; and not only will it not screen him, but will even punish him the more. — Homily on Romans 6

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

Shepherd of Hermas: How is it that ye wish to instruct the elect of the Lord, while ye yourselves have no instruction? Instruct one another therefore, and be at peace among yourselves, that I also may stand joyful before your Father, and give an account of you all to the Lord. — Shepherd of Hermas, Vision 3

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

Theodoret of Cyrus: Paul shows here and in the next two verses that the Jews had learned little from the law even if they gloried in the letter of it. When they tried to teach others, their deeds contradicted their words, and their pride in the law was pointless. — INTERPRETATION OF THE LETTER TO THE ROMANS

Romans 2:22

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

Pelagius: There is not just one kind of adultery, for you commit adultery if you give anyone other than God what the soul owes exclusively to him. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Romans 2:23

Ambrosiaster: The breaker of the law is the one who overlooks the meaning of the law, which speaks of the incarnation and divinity of Christ, and dishonors God by not accepting the testimony which he gave concerning his Son. For the Father said: “This is my beloved Son.” — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

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

John Chrysostom: “Thou that makest a boast in the Law through breaking the Law dishonorest thou God?” There are two accusations which he makes, or rather three. Both that they dishonor, and dishonor that whereby they were honored; and that they dishonor Him that honored them, which was the utmost extreme of unfeelingness. And then, not to seem to be accusing them of his own mind, he brings in the Prophet as their accuser, here briefly and concisely as it were in a summary, but afterwards more in detail, and here Isaiah, and after that David, when he had shown the grounds of reproof to be more than one. For to show, he means, that it is not I who speak these things to your reproach, hear what Isaiah saith. — Homily on Romans 6

Pelagius: Sacrilege is something committed only against God, because it is a violation of the sacred. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Romans 2:24

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

Clement of Alexandria: “Woe to that man,” the Lord says, “it were well for him if he had never been born, than that he should cause one of my little ones to stumble. It were better for him that a millstone were hung about him and he cast into the sea than that he should pervert one of my elect.” “For the name of God is blasphemed because of them.” Therefore the apostle nobly says, “I wrote to you in my letter to have no company with fornicators,” as far as the words “but the body is not for fornication but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.” — The Stromata Book 3

Cyprian: For as the Jews were alienated from God, as those on whose account “the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles,” so on the other hand those are dear to God through whose conformity to discipline the name of God is declared with a testimony of praise, as it is written, the Lord Himself forewarning and saying, “Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify your Father which is in heaven.” And Paul the apostle says, “Shine as lights in the world.” And similarly Peter exhorts: “As strangers,” says he, “and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul, having your conversation honest among the Gentiles; that whereas they speak against you as evil-doers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify the Lord.” — Epistle VI.3

John Chrysostom: “For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you.” (Is. lii. 5; Ez. xxxvi. 20, Ez xxxvi. 23.) See again another double accusation. For they not only commit insolence themselves, but even induce others to do so. And what is far worse-ye not only teach not the things of the Law, but ye even teach the opposite, viz. to blaspheme God, which is opposite to the Law. But the circumcision, one will say, is a great thing. Yea, I also confess it, but when? when it hath the inward circumcision. And observe his judgment, in bringing in what he says about it so opportunely. For he did not begin straightway with it, since the conceit men had of it was great. But after he had shown them to have offended in that which was greater and to be responsible for the blasphemy against God, then having henceforth possession of the reader’s judgment against them, and having stripped them of their pre-eminence, he introduces the discussion about circumcision, feeling sure that no one will any more advocate it. — Homily on Romans 6

Pelagius: Paul realized that what he was saying was also to be found in the prophets, which is why he quotes them here. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

Tertullian: There is a blasphemy which we must avoid completely, viz., that any of us should give a pagan good cause for blasphemy by deceit or injury or insult or some other matter justifying complaint. It is that blasphemy in which the Name is deservedly blamed, so that the Lord is deservedly angry. But the words “Because of you my Name is blasphemed” seem to cover every blasphemy. So then, are we all lost, since the whole Roman circus assails the Name, for no fault of ours, with its wicked outcries? Shall we stop being Christians in order for there to be less blasphemy? No! If the blasphemy continues, we will observe our discipline, not abandoning it, as long as we are being approved and not condemned. The blasphemy which affirms our Christian faith by detesting us because of it is in close proximity to martyrdom. To curse us for keeping our discipline is to bless our Name. — ON IDOLATRY 14

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

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

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

Romans 2:25

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

Augustine of Hippo: The apostle did not say this as if he favored forcing either the Gentiles to remain uncircumcised or the Jews not to adhere to the traditions of their fathers. Rather, he urged that neither group should be forced into the practice of the other but that each person should have the right, not the obligation, to adhere to his own custom. — On Lying 5.8

John Chrysostom: “For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the Law.” And yet, were this not so, a man might have rejected it and said, What is circumcision? for is it any good deed on his part that hath it? is it any manifestation of a right choice? For it takes place at an unripe age, and those in the wilderness too remained uncircumcised for a long time. And from many other points of view also, one might look at it as not necessary. And yet it is not on this foot that he rejects it, but upon the most proper ground, from the case of Abraham. For this is the most exceeding victory,-to take the very reason for showing it to be of small regard, whence it was held by them in reverence. “For circumcision verily profiteth if thou keepest the Law; but if thou be a breaker of the Law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.” For here he speaks of two uncircumcisions, and two circumcisions, as also two laws. For there is a natural law and there is a written law. But there is one also between these, that by works. For he that hath not the Law written, and doeth by nature the things of the Law, is a law unto himself. See how he points these three out, and brings them before you. — Homily on Romans 6

Origen of Alexandria: “Circumcision indeed profits, if you keep the law; but if you are a transgressor of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. If therefore the uncircumcision keep the righteous requirements of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be reckoned as circumcision? And shall not that which by nature is uncircumcision, fulfilling the law, judge you, who by the letter and circumcision are a transgressor of the law? For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men, but from God.” What that circumcision may be which the Apostle says profits, or what law it is that profits if it be kept, seems to require a rather careful inquiry, so that when we have understood these things we too may be able to be circumcised. For indeed, if circumcision profits, according to the word of the Apostle saying that “circumcision profits, if you keep the law,” the Apostle himself in what follows teaches that it is not “that circumcision which is outward in the flesh,” but “the circumcision of the heart,” made through the spirit, not through the letter, that has praise not from men but from God. And elsewhere he says: “Behold the circumcision: for we are the circumcision, who serve God in the spirit, and put no confidence in the flesh.” This, as I think, is the circumcision which the Apostle says profits, if you keep the law: not the law of the letter, whose circumcision in the flesh you certainly do not receive, but the law of the spirit, according to which you are circumcised in heart. “For the letter kills, but the spirit gives life,” since the law of God also is reported to be “written not with ink,” but with the finger of God, which is His Spirit, “and not on tablets of stone, but on the tablets of the heart.” But it can be objected to us that, if the Apostle says that circumcision profits — which surely is understood to be nothing else than the purging of the soul and the casting off of vices — how does he still add that a circumcision of this kind profits only then if you keep the law, when this very circumcision seems to come about from nothing else than the observance of the law? But consider whether perhaps to cut away vices and to cease from evils signifies circumcision, while to do the things that are good and to accomplish the things that are perfect is to keep the law. For perfection does not consist in this, that one cease from evils, but in this, that one do good things, as we are more plainly taught in the Psalm, when it says: “Turn away from evil” — and it did not stop there, but added: “and do good.” Similarly, therefore, the Apostle also, as one steeped in these things, says that circumcision and the casting off of evils profits only then, if you keep the law of good things. For no one can be perfect if he has done nothing evil, but only if he has done something good. Whence that very circumcision also which was performed in the flesh will be signified not apart from the image of this understanding which we are now expounding. Indeed, it was given to little ones on the eighth day, who assuredly had as yet done no work at all. But if anyone should bring forward to us that passage which is set down at the beginning of the book of Job concerning his praise, where it is said: “And Job was a man truthful, blameless, just, a worshipper of God, abstaining from every evil thing” — as to why, when the praise of good work comes first, abstinence from evil is reckoned last: I think indeed that this indicates what often is wont to happen, namely that very many men do indeed the things that are good, yet mix in also something of evil work; but few are such as Job, who are so truthful and irreproachable, so just and worshippers of God, that while doing all these things they abstain from every evil thing. “If therefore,” he says, “you are a transgressor of the law” — as we expounded above, by not doing the things that are good — “your circumcision has become uncircumcision,” since even this, that you have seemed to abstain from evil, is reckoned to you, who do not do the works of faith and of righteousness, unto unbelief. For it is not possible for anyone’s fleshly circumcision to be turned back again into uncircumcision, since assuredly the flesh of the foreskin once cut off cannot return again. More worthily, therefore, and more plainly is it understood that abstinence from evil work, which is signified by circumcision, is reckoned unto uncleanness if it does not have the works of faith. But also in the Church, he who is circumcised through the grace of baptism, if after this he is a transgressor of the law of Christ, the circumcision of baptism will be reckoned to him as the uncircumcision of unbelief: since “faith without works” is said to be “dead,” and the portion of the wicked steward is placed with the unbelievers. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

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

Romans 2:26

Ambrosiaster: Faith in Christ is the righteousness of the law.… From this it is clear that if a Gentile believes in Christ he becomes a son of Abraham, who is the father of faith. — COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES

Augustine of Hippo: Gentiles become members of the house of Israel when their uncircumcision is counted for circumcision, inasmuch as they do not display the righteousness of the law by the cutting of the flesh but keep it in charity of heart. — THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER 46

John Chrysostom: “Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the Law, shall not his uncircumcision be turned into circumcision?” See how he acts. He does not say that the uncircumcision overcomes circumcision (for this was highly grating to those who then heard him), but that the uncircumcision hath become circumcision. And he next enquires what circumcision is, and what uncircumcision and he says that circumcision is well doing and uncircumcision is evil doing. And having first transferred into the circumcision the uncircumcised, who has good deeds, and having thrust out the circumcised man that lived a corrupt life into the uncircumcision, he so gives the preference to the uncircumcised. And he does not say, To the uncircumcised, but goes on to the thing itself, speaking as follows: “Shall not his uncircumcision be turned into circumcision?” And he does not say “reckoned,” but “turned to,” which was more expressive. As also above he does not say thy circumcision is reckoned uncircumcision, but has been made so. — Homily on Romans 6

Origen of Alexandria: “But if the uncircumcision keeps the righteous requirements of the law, shall not that which is by nature uncircumcision, fulfilling the law, judge you, who by the letter and circumcision are a transgressor of the law?” We said above that the Apostle is discussing two Jews and two circumcisions, and that he mentions now the carnal, now the spiritual. In the present passage, therefore, he seems to call “uncircumcision” the Gentiles, who came to faith in Christ while in the uncircumcision of the flesh: these, as keepers of the spiritual law, he sets alongside and compares with the Jews, who by the letter and the circumcision of the flesh are transgressors of the law, and whom he says are to be judged by those in whom there is not circumcision of the flesh but observance of the law. And from this comparison we can also admonish our own people in the Church; for example, if we were to say that catechumens, or even the heathen, are still in uncircumcision, and that the faithful have been circumcised through the grace of baptism. If, then, a catechumen who has not yet been circumcised through the grace of the laver keeps the law of Christ, and guards its righteous requirements and commandments, does he not by this comparison judge the man who is called faithful and does not keep the precepts, but despises the law of Christ and his commandments? Indeed, the Lord himself said: “The queen of the South shall rise up in the judgment with the men of this generation and shall condemn them, because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon.” Let this much, then, be said by us for the instruction of the Church. But consider whether that other understanding also can be admitted in this passage: that it may be said that even after the coming of Christ the circumcision of the flesh, which is observed from the law, is of some profit to those who keep the law — according to the fact that in the beginning of our faith it was still observed by believers, as is taught in the Acts of the Apostles that Peter did in the distinguishing of foods, or Paul in the sacrifices of purification; whether perhaps here too the Apostle may seem to have set forth a circumcision of this sort, which he says profits only if the law is also kept; and if not, this circumcision is to be turned into uncircumcision, that is, it will profit nothing — indeed, that he even incurs the greater judgment who by circumcision of the flesh appears to profess observance of the law, and by transgressing the law is judged by him who has not indeed received the circumcision of the flesh, yet has kept the righteous requirements of the law. If, then, this sense too ought to be accepted, do you also who read observe that, since the Apostle himself professes that to the Jews he becomes a Jew, and to those who are without the law as one without the law, and becomes all things to all, that he may gain all — whether perhaps for this reason he seems here to concede to the Jews what, writing to the Galatians, he does not concede to those who had believed from among the Gentiles. For he says: “Because if you are circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing.” Circumcision, then, profited nothing to those who supposed that something of justification was received from it; but it did profit those who thought that they must not come to Christ if they were forbidden to circumcise their sons. For there were some in the beginnings who kept circumcision with excessive love, as it were the native badge of their nation; and they seemed to be hindered from the faith if that were forbidden them which they could not do without. Therefore the Apostle seems to speak to men of this sort, lest he shut the door of faith against them, saying: “Circumcision profits, if you keep the law; but if you are a transgressor of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.” On the contrary, however, if believers from among the Gentiles were compelled to circumcision, injury would seem to be done to the faith of Christ and to the preaching of the word. But this too must be observed, that when he had said, “Circumcision indeed profits, 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.” In which he shows that it is one thing not to keep the law, and another to transgress the law. For even Paul himself does not always keep the law, yet he is never a transgressor of the law. Therefore in what follows he says: “But if the uncircumcision keeps the righteousness of the law, shall not that which is by nature uncircumcision, fulfilling the law, judge you, who by 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 meaning. But the righteousness of the law is its moral part. For “law” is a general term, whereas righteousness is a part of the law. For the law contains righteous requirements, and judgments, and commandments, and justifications, and very many other kinds. If, then, uncircumcision — he does not say the law itself, but if it keeps the righteous requirements of the law — is so far preferred to the circumcision that transgresses the law that it even judges it. And he well added, “fulfilling the law.” For he who lives according to the letter is said to keep the law; but he who lives according to the spirit, to fulfill it: and the fulfillment of the law is in Christ, who said: “I came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it.” And to fulfill the law is to bring the law to perfection. The carnal Jew, therefore, keeps the law, but the spiritual Jew fulfills it — he who is a Jew in secret. In which the one becomes a transgressor of the law, but the other becomes the judge of the transgressor. And 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 mortified the deeds of the flesh shall not only live, but shall be judges not only of men but also of angels: because the praise of the one is from men, but of the other from God. Let this much, then, be said by us toward the explanation of the apostolic discourse which we set out to expound. Yet it will not seem out of place also to examine the general rationale of circumcision itself, since the passage itself has prompted us concerning it. Let us therefore go back and bring forward into the open whatever is contained about it in the law or in the rest of the Scriptures. We find in Genesis the first commandment written concerning circumcision, when the responses were given to Abraham in this manner: “And God said to Abraham: But you shall keep my covenant, and all your seed after you in their generations. And this is the covenant which I have appointed between me and you, and between me and the midst of your seed after you in their generations: every male of you shall be circumcised, and you shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be for a sign of the covenant between me and you: and the child among you shall be circumcised on the eighth day, every male in your generations: the homeborn, and the one bought with money from all the sons of strangers, who is not of your seed — with circumcision shall be circumcised the homeborn of your house and he who was purchased by you with money: and my covenant shall be upon your flesh an everlasting covenant: and the uncircumcised male who shall not have been circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin on the eighth day, that soul shall be exterminated from his kindred, because he has broken my covenant.” Yet it ought not to escape us that in other copies the phrase “on the eighth day” is not found placed there — in this passage at least. Likewise it is written in Leviticus: “And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to the children of Israel, and you shall say to them: Whatever woman shall have received seed and shall have borne a male, she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of her purification she shall be unclean, and on the eighth day he shall circumcise the flesh of his foreskin, and for thirty-three days she shall sit in her blood, unclean.” These testimonies indeed we have set down from the law of Moses. But the Savior in the Gospel says 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, certain persons even after the coming of Jesus were persuaded to be circumcised, though they were of the Gentiles. But others, shuddering at the burden of the precept, fled away utterly even from those very laws in which these things appeared to be written, so that they supposed these were not the commandments of the good God, nor of him whom our Lord and Savior had come to proclaim. And therefore it seems to me that in such passages a more diligent examination must be brought to bear: whether there is anything of usefulness in a commandment of this kind even according to the letter; and if there are those for whom it is useful, or toward what end its usefulness tends; or whether something more useful is indicated figuratively. Therefore, taking up again those testimonies which we have brought forward from the law, let us examine more attentively whether a commandment of this sort seems to press upon the Jewish people alone, or whether it binds by equal lot all those also who have believed from among the Gentiles. Let us look, then, at that oracle which is delivered to Abraham, by which he is commanded to keep the covenants of circumcision. “You,” he says, “shall keep my covenant, and all your seed after you throughout their generations. And this is the covenant which I have appointed between me, and you, and them: that every male of them be circumcised, and that they circumcise the flesh of their foreskin, that it may be for a sign of the covenant between me and them; and every male shall be circumcised on the eighth day.” And which persons even from among the foreigners — that is, those who are by no means said to be of the stock of Abraham — he wishes to be circumcised, he plainly declares. For he says: “Your home-born slave, and the one bought with money from all the sons of foreigners, 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 commands the home-born slave — surely one of that nation, born in the house — or even one purchased at a price, to be circumcised; he does not bind the free man, nor the guest, nor the newcomer. Let us now also search out the law of Leviticus, how God likewise commands Moses: “Speak,” he says, “to the children of Israel, and you shall say to them: If a woman shall have received seed and shall have borne a male.” And after a little: “On the eighth day,” he says, “he shall circumcise the flesh of his foreskin.” Observe here too how concerning the law of circumcision Moses is commanded to speak only to the children of Israel, and no mention is made of foreigners. For if we believe that the things which are brought into the law were written through the divine Spirit, surely it must not be thought that anything is either added or passed over in silence to no purpose; and therefore, since in certain commandments it is said, “Speak to the children of Israel, and you shall say to them,” while in certain others it is added that he should speak not only to the children of Israel but also to the proselytes, that is, to newcomers, the distinction must necessarily be observed. For just as in those places where it is said, “Speak to Aaron,” and elsewhere, “Speak to the sons of Aaron,” and elsewhere, “Speak to the Levites, and you shall say to them,” it is certain that the rest of the children of Israel are not subject to those laws which were promulgated either to the sons of Aaron, or to the Levites, or to Aaron himself: so also, in those things which are commanded to the children of Israel, where no mention at all is made of the foreigner, it must not be thought that the commandment in these matters is common, or that a common law is made, where there is an exception in the designation. Let us nevertheless bring forward, out of many, a few testimonies for the proof of these things, by which we may establish that the addition or exception of names of this kind is necessary. In the first parts of Leviticus a law of this sort is delivered to the children of Israel alone: “Speak,” says the Lord, “to the children of Israel, and you shall say to them: If a man from among you offer gifts to God from the cattle,” and the rest; and again: “And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to the children of Israel: If a soul shall have sinned not willingly,” and the rest. Who would doubt that these things, and things of this kind, are commanded to the children of Israel alone? But others are commanded not to them, but to Aaron, or to his sons, as he says in what follows: “And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: Command Aaron and his sons, saying: This is the law of the holocausts,” etc.; and again: “The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to Aaron and to his sons, saying: This is the law of sin: In the place where they shall have slain the holocaust, there shall they slay the sin offering in the sight of the Lord”; and again to Aaron: “Wine,” he says, “and strong drink you shall not drink, you and your sons with you, when you enter into the tabernacle of testimony.” But other things are commanded neither to Aaron nor to the children of Israel, but to the elders of Israel, in this manner: “Speak,” he says, “to the elders of Israel, saying: Take a he-goat from the goats for sin,” etc. Is it doubted at all that this law is prescribed to the elders of the children of Israel alone? Moreover, concerning clean and unclean animals, a special law is nonetheless seen to be given to the children of Israel. For thus it is written: “And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying: Speak to the children of Israel, saying to them: These are the animals which you shall eat,” and the rest. So therefore also concerning circumcision, whether in those things which were answered to Abraham, or in those which are contained in Leviticus, no one else is bound by the law of circumcision, unless he either draws his origin from Abraham, or is their home-born slave, or one bought at a price. But do you wish 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,” he says, “to Moses, saying: Speak to Aaron, and to his sons, and to all the children of Israel, and you shall say to them: A man of the children of Israel, or of the newcomers who shall be among you, whoever shall eat any blood, I will set my soul against that soul which shall have eaten blood, and I will destroy it from among its people; for the soul of all flesh is its blood; and I have given it to you, that from it propitiation may be made upon the altar for your souls, because the blood shall make expiation for the soul. Therefore I said to the children of Israel: Every soul among you shall not eat blood, and whatever newcomer shall be among you shall not eat blood.” You see, then, that this law concerning the observance of blood, which was given in common both to the children of Israel and to the newcomers, is observed also by us who from among the Gentiles believe in God through Jesus Christ.

For Scripture is accustomed to call us proselytes and sojourners, when it says: “The sojourner who is among you shall ascend above you upward; but you shall descend downward. He shall be your head, and you shall be his tail.” For this reason, then, the Church gathered from the Gentiles has also received the law concerning the observance of blood in common with the sons of Israel. For it was understanding in this way the things written in the law that the blessed council of the apostles then made its decree, writing ordinances and decisions for the Gentiles, that they should abstain not only from the things sacrificed to idols and from fornication, but also from blood and from what is strangled. But perhaps you will inquire whether, just as the matter has become clear concerning the observance of blood, so also concerning what is strangled it may be shown that the law was given in common to the sons of Israel together with the sojourners, since the apostles’ decrees ordain that the Gentiles observe this too. Hear how carefully provision has been made in the laws of God on this point as well: “A man, a man,” it says, “of the sons of Israel, and of the sojourners who are among you, whoever hunts a wild beast or a bird that may be eaten, let him pour out its blood, and let the earth cover it, because the soul of all flesh is its blood.” See, then, how carefully the lawgiver, where he wishes the commandment to be common, joins the sojourners to the sons of Israel; but where he gives special precepts, he has distinguished by whom he wishes them to be observed.

But since among those things which we quoted above from Leviticus this too is set down in writing: “A man, a man of the sons of Israel, or of the sojourners who are among them, whoever offers a whole burnt offering or a sacrifice, and does not bring it to the door of the tabernacle of witness to make it to the Lord, that man shall be cut off from his people” — and through this it seems that the matter of sacrifices is enjoined upon the sojourner also, and that the Church gathered from the Gentiles becomes liable to the offering of whole burnt offerings — here too the words, and, so to speak, the syllables of the law must be observed more diligently. For it says, if he “offers a whole burnt offering or a sacrifice,” that he should bring it “to the door of the tabernacle of witness.” The law does not command that he offer, but if perchance he does offer, it teaches how he ought to do so. For it is certain, and it cannot be doubted, that while the temple stood at Jerusalem and the religion handed down from the fathers flourished, very many even of the Gentiles used to come to worship and to offer sacrifices. But since this was commanded to be done in one place only — concerning which he also here enjoins that the victim be brought to the door of the tabernacle to be slaughtered — it could lawfully be done only so long as the standing of that place remained unimpaired. Indeed, the Savior too said to those ten lepers whom he had cleansed: “Go and show yourselves to the priest, and offer for yourselves the sacrifices which Moses commanded”; and when one of them had returned to the Savior giving thanks, the Lord said: “Were not ten cleansed? Where are those nine? None was found to return and give thanks to God except this foreigner.” So then, while the standing of the temple endured, it was the custom for foreigners also to offer sacrifices; but now, why is that demanded of the sojourners which not even its own worshippers are permitted to perform?

Now all these things have been said by us in order that we might show how great a distinction of commandments there is in the law, and especially that we might teach concerning the precept of circumcision that it was enjoined upon none other than those who trace their descent from Abraham, and upon their home-born slaves, or those purchased with a price; but that those who through Christ believe in God from among the Gentiles are free from laws of this kind. These matters, however, we have for the present discussed without the addition of any allegory, lest, as commonly happens, there should remain to those who are of the circumcision any occasion for clamoring against the truth. But they may still be able to raise a strong weapon against us, maintaining that proselytes too are made subject to circumcision by the law, on the basis of what is written in Exodus in this manner: “But if any proselyte comes to you and keeps the Passover to the Lord, you shall circumcise every male of his, and then he shall come near to keep it, and he shall be as one native-born. No uncircumcised person shall eat of it. There shall be one law for the native-born and for the sojourner who has come to you.” Although this objection may seem shrewd, nevertheless the admirable caution of the lawgiver everywhere comes to our aid. For consider that here too he did not say that the sojourner who comes to you should keep the Passover to the Lord and be circumcised; rather, with the most careful restraint he decrees, saying: “If he comes to you and keeps the Passover.” For it cannot be doubted that if anyone keeps the Jewish Passover with the Jews, he ought also to be circumcised; and the lawgiver’s caution has, for the present, made provision for this one point, by which the gainsayers may be blunted. There is, besides, that against which they will not be able to mutter a word. The Passover which the law commands to be kept, it commands to be kept in that place which the Lord God has chosen, that is, at Jerusalem. For it is decreed that sacrifices be offered in that temple only. Let them therefore first recover the standing of the temple, and then let them contend about circumcision; but if, according to the Savior’s sentence, there has not remained there one stone upon another that has not been thrown down, the pleading about circumcision is superfluous.

And circumcision is so far the native mark of that people itself, and of no other nation, that nowhere in the histories of the ancients is any other reported to have been punished on account of it, save the son of Moses, whose mother Zipporah restrained by circumcision the violence of the angel that threatened her son’s death. From all these things, then, it is shown that Israel, which is according to the flesh, is alone subject to the circumcision of the flesh; but the proselyte people that comes to it is free and a stranger from it — the people that has ascended and been set on high, while the other has descended and been set below; 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 on this account the uncircumcision which is 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 performed openly in the flesh that purifies the soul; rather, that circumcision of the heart which is in secret — that is what purifies the mind and cuts away the stains of the vices. Thus far let what we have said about fleshly circumcision suffice, according to our strength. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

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

Romans 2:27

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

Irenaeus: And that the Lord did not abrogate the natural [precepts] of the law, by which man is justified, which also those who were justified by faith, and who pleased God, did observe previous to the giving of the law, but that He extended and fulfilled them, is shown from His words. “For,” He remarks, “it has been said to them of old time, Do not commit adultery. But I say unto you, That every one who hath looked upon a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” And again: “It has been said, Thou shalt not kill. But I say unto you, Every one who is angry with his brother without a cause, shall be in danger of the judgment.” And, “It hath been said, Thou shalt not forswear thyself. But I say unto you, Swear not at all; but let your conversation be, Yea, yea, and Nay, nay.” And other statements of a like nature. For all these do not contain or imply an opposition to and an overturning of the [precepts] of the past, as Marcion’s followers do strenuously maintain; but [they exhibit] a fulfilling and an extension of them, as He does Himself declare: “Unless your righteousness shall exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” For what meant the excess referred to? In the first place, [we must] believe not only in the Father, but also in His Son now revealed; for He it is who leads man into fellowship and unity with God. In the next place, [we must] not only say, but we must do; for they said, but did not. And [we must] not only abstain from evil deeds, but even from the desires after them. Now He did not teach us these things as being opposed to the law, but as fulfilling the law, and implanting in us the varied righteousness of the law. That would have been contrary to the law, if He had commanded His disciples to do anything which the law had prohibited. But this which He did command-namely, not only to abstain from things forbidden by the law, but even from longing after them-is not contrary to [the law], as I have remarked, neither is it the utterance of one destroying the law, but of one fulfilling, extending, and affording greater scope to it. — Irenaeus Against Heresies Book 4

John Chrysostom: “And shall not the uncircumcision which is by nature judge?” You see, he recognizes two uncircumcisions, one from nature, and the other from the will. Here, however, he speaks of that from nature, but does not pause here, but goes on, “if it fulfil the Law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the Law?” See his exquisite judgment. He does not say, that the uncircumcision which is from nature shall judge the circumcision, but while where the victory had been, he brings in the uncircumcision, yet where the defeat is, he does not expose the circumcision as defeated; but the Jew himself who had it, and so by the wording spares offending his hearer. And he does not say, “thee that hast the Law and the circumcision,” but yet more mildly, “thee who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the Law.” That is, such uncircumcision even stands up for the circumcision, for it has been wronged and comes to the Law’s assistance, for it has been insulted, and obtains a notable triumph. For then is the victory decided, when it is not by Jew that Jew is judged, but by the uncircumcised; as when he says, “The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment against this generation, and shall condemn it.” (Matt. xii. 41.) — Homily on Romans 6

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

Romans 2:28

John Chrysostom: “For he is not a Jew which is one outwardly.” Here he attacks them as doing all things for show. — Homily on Romans 6

Origen of Alexandria: Come now, following him who said “that the law is spiritual,” and who says of the things related in the law that they were spoken by way of allegory, let us see also what is to be thought about circumcision according to the allegorical laws. I know that many have delivered sayings or writings on this subject; but we too shall add what the Lord may grant to those things which seem to have been fittingly composed by others. To circumcise is to cut away some part from the generative member, through which the succession of the human race and the propagation of the flesh is administered. By this, therefore, I think it is figuratively indicated that there must be cut away from the soul any impurity that has clung to it from its association with the flesh, if any sense of ill-persuading lust has covered it over.

Therefore this cutting is inflicted not upon other members but upon the genital members, so that it may be made clear that vices of this kind come to the soul not from its own substance, but from the innate motion and incitement of the flesh. But as to the circumcision being given on the eighth day, I judge that this is signified: that to the present age the week of seven days has been assigned, while the eighth day holds the mystery of the age to come. Theirs, then, is the spiritual circumcision who serve as soldiers of the age to come, in which “they shall neither marry nor be given in marriage, but shall be as the angels of God”; and theirs “who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of God,” and whose “conversation is in heaven” though they walk upon earth, and who look not at the things “which are seen, but at the things which are not seen,” and who know that “the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal.”

But, as we mentioned above, it has also been said by others that spiritual circumcision is to cut away and cast off from the heart every unclean thought and impure perception. Yet against explanations of this sort there stands what is reported as written in Ezekiel, where the Lord says: “Every son of a stranger, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, shall not enter into my sanctuary, among all the sons of strangers who are in the midst of the house of Israel.” For plainly the prophetic word in this place points to two circumcisions when it says: “Uncircumcised in heart, and uncircumcised in flesh.” Hence we are compelled, according to the laws of allegory, to assign the forms and kinds of each circumcision — although this same objection might also be brought against us in the interpretations we set forth above. But for the present let us pursue what figure of the two circumcisions may be maintained according to allegory; and let us see whether perhaps it may be referred to two general classes of sin, in which it is not expedient 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 from works without faith no one is justified before God. Thus then, as I judge, the prophetic saying will be fittingly applied to the people of the faithful, to whom it is said: “Every stranger who is among you in the midst of the house of Israel, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, shall not enter into my sanctuary” — which is doubtless the same thing that the Lord also says in the Gospel: “He who believes in me keeps my commandments”; and again: “He who hears these my words, and does them”; and again: “But why do you say to me, Lord, Lord, and do not do the things I say?” You see, then, that everywhere faith is joined with works, and works are associated with faith. And so it is circumcision of the heart to think nothing sordid, nothing unworthy concerning the faith. Circumcision of the flesh is to commit nothing unclean, nothing defiled in deed and action. For whoever is uncircumcised and unclean in either one of these is by the words of God forbidden to enter into the sanctuary. Yet even the stranger enters into the sanctuary, into which, according to the letter of the law, none but the priests alone were permitted to enter. But now it is granted even to strangers that they should enter, provided they have been purified by the circumcision of faith and of deeds.

But if anyone should strive to call us back to the earlier questions, and should again lay before us what is written concerning the stranger — that from him who wishes to enter into the sanctuary not only circumcision of the heart but also of the flesh is required — to such a one, persisting so troublesomely, we for our part set over against him that which the prophet Jeremiah says: “Behold, your ears are uncircumcised.” Let this exactor of a fleshly circumcision show us a circumcision of the ears that is perceptible and bodily, if he can: but it is certain that he can in no way do so. He will therefore be driven by necessity back to allegories, and will say that the ears are circumcised when, according to Solomon’s admonitions, they do not receive an empty report, and when they are stopped up so as not to hear the judgment of blood, and when they are hedged about with thorns so as not to receive detraction, but so that they lie open to the word of God alone, and to those things which are spoken for edification. Let that circumcision of the heart, then, be of the same sort as this circumcision of the ears, which is seen to be expounded in the common way. And in this manner one is also said to be uncircumcised in lips who has not circumcised blasphemy, scurrility, and filthy speech from his mouth, who has not set a guard upon his mouth and a door of restraint about his lips, who has not circumcised his mouth even from an idle word. Finally, where Moses says to the Lord: “Provide, Lord, another whom you may send, for I am slow of tongue and of feeble voice” — they say that in the Hebrew copies they themselves have: “But I am uncircumcised in lips.” And if in the manner we have described above one can be seen to be uncircumcised in ears and uncircumcised in lips, why should not one likewise be said to be uncircumcised in the foreskin of his flesh who pours himself out too immoderately and intemperately toward the natural motion of intercourse — while he is held to be circumcised who in a matter of this kind employs only such acts as are lawful and as suffice for posterity?

But since we are treating of the meaning of circumcision, it does not seem out of place to add to these things also that Jesus the son of Nave is recorded, at the Lord’s command, to have circumcised the children of Israel a second time with knives of stone: which, so far as the letter is concerned, seems to have been an impossible thing to do. For once they had been circumcised in the flesh of the foreskin, what could a second circumcision find to take away? But our Jesus, who truly after Moses leads the children of Israel into the holy land flowing with milk and honey, into the land of promise, plainly circumcises the believing people 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 fabrications of philosophical persuasion. But he applies 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 Jesus son of Nave: “This day I have taken away from you the reproaches of Egypt.” For a man carries the reproaches of Egypt about with him if, though placed within the Church and serving as a soldier under Jesus his captain, he keeps Egyptian manners and barbarous motions of the mind.

Marcion indeed, who is pleased to have nothing understood by way of allegory, will find no way at all to explain what the Apostle says, that circumcision profits. But neither will he be able in any degree to give an account of the several things that follow. To oppose, and with a certain mockery to brand, the God of the law who gave circumcision, is the custom not of him alone, but of all the heretics who repudiate the Old Testament, together with the pagans, who all heap up such things against the God of the law as though in a confederacy of disparagement. The Stoics say: Granted that circumcision indicates something mystical and holds an allegorical figure; was it then fitting that the kinds of figures and the riddles of the law should be established with the punishment and peril of little children, with tortures inflicted on tender and still innocent infancy? Had the lawgiver no place to put his mystical forms except in the dishonoring of the parts of shame; and could the law of Almighty God, the seal of the eternal covenant, be placed nowhere but in the obscene parts of the members? Is that God good, then, who commanded a newborn human being to be wounded at once, in the very first auspices of the new light? And if, as it seems to you, he himself is the creator both of the soul and of the body, then either he brands himself as having formed superfluously that part of the body which he afterwards orders to be cut away — so that through the torments of wretched people he might correct his own mistake — or else he wrongly commands to be taken away what he made of necessity and to good purpose. And then besides, if God is concerned that very many be brought to the worship of his religion, the greatest obstacle arises from circumcision. For both because every man shrinks from pain, and also because he flees the derision attaching to what is shameful, this ought to be reckoned rather an impediment to religion than a badge of it.

These things and many like them the Gentiles clamor against the lawgiver, or the heretics do; and I think it necessary to answer them, but first the Gentiles. No wise man censures in others what he holds honorable and great in his own house; for circumcision among you, O Gentiles, is held to be so great a thing that it is not entrusted indiscriminately to the ignoble crowd, but only to priests, and to those among them who have been devoted to the more select studies. For among the Egyptians, who are reckoned in your superstitions both the most ancient and the most learned, and from whom nearly all the rest have borrowed the rite of their sacred things and their ceremonies — among these, I say, no one used to study geometry or astronomy, which among them are held to be the foremost disciplines; certainly no one searched out the secrets of astrology and of the casting of nativities, than which they think nothing more divine, unless he had first received circumcision. Among them the priest, the diviner, or the minister of any sacred rites whatever, or, as they call him, every prophet, is circumcised. The priestly letters, too, of the ancient Egyptians, which they call hieroglyphic, no one learned unless he were circumcised. Every hierophant, every seer, every initiate and knower of heaven and, as they suppose, of the underworld, is not believed among them to be such unless he has been circumcised. Do you then judge that shameful and obscene among us which among you is held so honorable and great that you believe the secrets of things heavenly and infernal cannot be declared to you except through marks of this kind? But if among you, for the sake of so many and such great secrets of yours which are performed with circumcision as their handmaid, it will be necessary that a reason be sought — and such a reason as ought not to be despised, lest along with it all your ceremonies alike be undermined — why do you not expect that this same thing can hold among us as well? Indeed, if you unroll your own histories, you will find that not only the priests and hierophants of the Egyptians made use of circumcision, but also the Arabs and the Ethiopians and the Phoenicians, and others among whom zeal for superstitions of this kind flourished more nobly. Let this suffice as said against the Gentiles, to whom it was not fitting to speak more openly about the mysteries of our Law.

Now let our discourse be directed to those who do indeed believe in Christ, but do not receive 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 therefore we have been “bought with a price,” as Paul also confirms, we have without doubt been bought from someone whose slaves we were, who also demanded the price he wished in order to release from his power those whom he held. Now the devil held us, to whom we had been sold off by our sins. He demanded, then, as our price the blood of Christ. But until the blood of Jesus should be given, which was so precious that it alone sufficed for the redemption of all, it was necessary that those who were being trained under the Law should each one for himself, as it were in a certain imitation of the redemption to come, give his own blood; and therefore we, for whom the price of Christ’s blood has been paid in full, have no need to pay 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, then you also blame what was done in Christ, who both was circumcised on the eighth day and received the wounds of the passion and poured out his blood in the punishment of the cross. And as to your view that, because of the horror of circumcision, access to religion seems difficult, far more difficult does the entrance to the Gospel appear, where one is bidden to lay down not a tiny part of the body, but the soul itself. But, according to you, the examples of the martyrs will keep people from coming to the faith. Or is a religion rather believed to be firm precisely because it promises nothing lax, nothing dainty or soft? And even if circumcision held figuratively no other sacred meaning, what would be absurd in it, if for distinction from the other nations the people that was being trained under the law of God should bear some badge of its own? And if the amputation of some part seemed necessary, what was so fitting as to find that part which seemed shameful, and to take away those things whose diminution would in no way hinder the body’s function? But as to what they say — 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 of necessity, it ought not to be taken away — let us too question them, whether they call the procreation of children necessary. Without doubt they will answer that it is necessary. Blameworthy, then, will be those who, under the pretext of continence and virginity, do not serve the necessary functions of nature; and all will have to be compelled to marriage who, according to the laws of the Gospel, “have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of God,” having as the author of this example both many others of the saints and also the Lord Jesus himself. But 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 came about, and many victims before Christ, the one victim, the spotless Lamb, offered himself as a victim to the Father — so also there was need of many circumcisions, until the one circumcision in Christ should be handed down to all; and the shedding of the blood of many went before, until through the blood of one the redemption of all should be accomplished. These things indeed are what could occur to us at present concerning the rationale of circumcision; yet let them be said by us under this rule, that if anyone shall have spoken better and more reasonably, his views rather than these of ours should be held.

But after a digression perhaps more ample than is fair, let us return to the conclusion of the Apostle’s chapter. Since, therefore, this treatment is frequent with the Apostle, whereby he indicates that in each single person there are two men — of whom he is accustomed to name the one outer, the other inner, and says that the one is according to the flesh, the other according to the spirit (instructed, I suppose, from those things which are written in Genesis, where one is reported to have been made to the image of God, the other formed from the mud of the earth) — and these same he now calls the one a Jew in the open, the other a Jew in secret: it must be known that each of these two makes use of practices that are in some respects discordant, but in some cases shared. For there are certain things which take their beginning from the inner man and reach as far as the outer; while others, begun from the outer man, reach as far as the inner. What I mean is this. If chastity takes its beginning from the inner man, it reaches without doubt as far as the outer. For it cannot happen that a man who does not first commit adultery in his heart should be able to commit adultery in his body. But it does not follow at once that if someone begins from the chastity of the outer man, he also arrives at inner continence, so that if he does not commit adultery in the body, he does not commit adultery in the heart either. According to these things, then, let the circumcision of the inner and of the outer man be understood by allegorical rules, when that inner man no longer lusts in the heart, and this outer one no longer serves lust in the body: so that he is said to be circumcised in the flesh whom the Apostle declares to be no longer in the flesh, but in the spirit, and who mortifies the deeds of the flesh through the spirit.

But since he who is circumcised has given up some flesh to destruction and preserved some unharmed, in that which he gave up to destruction I think that flesh is signified of which it is written: “All flesh is grass, and all its glory as the flower of grass.” But the flesh which is preserved and remains unharmed, I think, holds the form of that flesh of which it is said that “all flesh shall see the salvation of God.” But there is need of ears able to hear what that flesh is which perishes, and what that flesh is which shall see the salvation of God — which after the laying aside of the flesh of the foreskin remains safe, when the other has fallen away like the flower of grass. And whoever understands this will find that the forms of immense mysteries have been set forth beforehand in the rationale of circumcision, and will find that he who is a Jew in secret, and who is circumcised in the inner man, so far surpasses and is more eminent than him who is a Jew according to the flesh, as that Judah surpasses and is eminent — whom his brothers praise together, and who slept as a lion and was raised up as a lion’s whelp — over that Judah who was born from the loins of Jacob according to the flesh. — COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

Pelagius: This is the true Jew, for everything which was previously done externally was but an image of what was meant to happen internally. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

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

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

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

Romans 2:29

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

Augustine of Hippo: This means that the law should be understood according to the Spirit, and not according to what the letter says. This pertains especially to those who have interpreted circumcision more according to the flesh than according to the Spirit. — AUGUSTINE ON Romans 11

Clement of Alexandria: He impoverishes himself, in order that he may never overlook a brother who has been brought into affliction, through the perfection that is in love, especially if he know that he will bear want himself easier than his brother. He considers, accordingly, the other’s pain his own grief; and if, by contributing from his own indigence in order to do good, he suffer any hardship, he does not fret at this, but augments his beneficence still more. For he possesses in its sincerity the faith which is exercised in reference to the affairs of life, and praises the Gospel in practice and contemplation. And, in truth, he wins his praise “not from men, but from God,” by the performance of what the Lord has taught. — The Stromata Book 7

Hilary of Poitiers: The apostle testifies without any hesitation that those who walk according to the teaching of Christ—in the spirit, not in the letter—are the Israel of God. — THE TRINITY 5.28

John Chrysostom: “But he is a Jew which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter.” By saying this he sets aside all things bodily. For the circumcision is outwardly, and the sabbaths and the sacrifices and purifications: all of which he hints in a single word, when he says, “For he is not a Jew which is one outwardly.” But since much was made of the circumcision, inasmuch as even the sabbath gave way to it (John vii. 22), he has good reason for aiming more especially against it. But when he has said “in the spirit” he thereafter paves the way for the conversation of the Church, and introduces the faith. For it too is in the heart and spirit and hath its praise of God. And how cometh he not to show that the Gentile which doeth aright is not inferior to the Jew which doeth aright, but that the Gentile which doeth aright is better than the Jew which breaketh the Law? It was that he might make the victory an undoubted one. For when this is agreed upon, of necessity the circumcision of the flesh is set aside, and the need of a good life is everywhere demonstrated. For the Greek is saved without these, but the Jew with these is yet punished, Judaism stands by doing nothing. And by Greek he again means not the idolatrous Greek, but the religous and virtuous, and free from all legal observances. — Homily on Romans 6

Pelagius: This is foretold in the law: “And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the Lord your God,” and again: “Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, and remove the foreskin of your heart,” not according to the letter of the law but according to the New Testament, which examines the inner secrets which only God can see. — PELAGIUS’S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS

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

Theodore of Mopsuestia: “Spiritual” here does not refer to the Holy Spirit. For Paul is not talking about those who have been put right by grace but is referring above all to those outside the faith who do the works of the law and who show themselves to be better than those transgressors who are under the law. — PAULINE COMMENTARY FROM THE GREEK CHURCH