How is it that when you teach another, you do not teach yourself? Preaching not to steal, do you steal? When you say, "Thou shalt not commit adultery," do you commit adultery? Are you sacrileging idols? Do you boast about the law, and dishonor God by transgressing the law? For for your sake, as it is written, the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles.

He expounds his thought in the form of a question, ashaming those who boasted that they were teachers. He calls the theft of one dedicated to idols sacrilege; for though they abhorred idols, yet, possessed of the love of money, they touched him who was consecrated to idols out of shameful gain. After this he sets forth the most grievous guilt, saying: "You boast of the law, as one who is exalted in honor from God through the law, but by the transgression of the law you dishonor God." There are three faults here. The first: the Jews dishonor; the second: they dishonor God, who exalted them in honor; Third, They dishonor the law by breaking it, when it was to their honor. But lest they should think that he himself was accusing the Jews, he brought the prophet Isaiah as their accuser, setting forth two of their faults. For they not only offend God themselves, but also lead others to do so, and not only do they not teach to live according to the law, but they also teach the opposite, they teach to blaspheme God, which is contrary to the law; for those who see their corruption say, "Should God love these people?" Is the God who loves such the true God?

Circumcision is profitable if you keep the law; but if you are a transgressor of the law, then your circumcision has become uncircumcision.

Since circumcision was held in high esteem by the Jews, he did not immediately say of it at the beginning that circumcision is superfluous and useless, but in words it permits, but in deed rejects it, and says: I agree that circumcision is profitable, but only when you fulfill the law. He did not say that it was useless, lest they think that circumcision destroys it; but he proves that the Jew has no circumcision, saying, "Thy circumcision has become uncircumcision." Thus he proves that the Jew is not circumcised after his heart. He means two circumcisions and two uncircumcisions: one external, and the other internal. Namely, external circumcision is carnal circumcision, when one is circumcised according to the flesh, spiritual circumcision consists in the rejection of carnal passions. And carnal uncircumcision occurs when someone remains uncircumcised according to the flesh, and spiritual uncircumcision occurs when someone, having a pagan soul, does not cut off the passions in the least. Paul's thought is this: if you are circumcised in the flesh, but do not fulfill the law, then you are still uncircumcised, uncircumcised in spirit; In the same way, he who is uncircumcised according to the flesh, but fulfills what is lawful, is circumcised to the Spirit, because the passions of the flesh have been taken away from him. This is explained further. Listen to me.

If, therefore, the uncircumcised observes the ordinances of the law, will not his uncircumcision be imputed to him as circumcision?

He does not say that uncircumcision is superior to circumcision, because it is too painful, but says that it will be imputed to him for circumcision. Therefore, true circumcision is a good activity: in the same way, uncircumcision is an evil activity. Notice, he did not say, "If uncircumcision preserves the law; For I have probably assumed the following objection from someone: Is it possible that an uncircumcised man should keep the law, when the very existence of being uncircumcised is a violation of the law? How did he express himself? Provisions of the law, that is, decrees, the implementation of which is thought to be justified. For circumcision was not a deed, but a suffering endured by him who was circumcised, and therefore cannot be called the justification of the law. It is given as a sign not to mix Jews with Gentiles.

And he who is uncircumcised by nature, who keeps the law, will he not condemn you, a transgressor of the law in the Scriptures and circumcision? For he is not a Jew who is outwardly such, nor is circumcision outwardly in the flesh; but the Jew who is inwardly such, and the circumcision that is in the heart, is in the spirit, and not in the letter: to him also the praise is not from men, but from God.

Here he clearly shows that he means two uncircumcisions, one natural, and the other voluntary, which, as has been said, occurs when one does not in the least cut off the passions of the flesh, and two circumcisions, one in the flesh, and the other in the spirit, circumcision of the heart. He who is uncircumcised, he says, by nature, who has the circumcision of the passions through the fulfillment of the law, that is, as said above, the justifications of the law, will condemn, that is, accuse, not circumcision (for it was difficult to speak of it in this way), but you, who are actually circumcised in the flesh outwardly, but uncircumcised in your heart, as a transgressor of the justifications of the law. Thus it is not circumcision (which it seems to respect) that reproaches, but the offender or transgressor of it. Then, having proved this, he clearly defines who the true Jew is, and makes it clear that the Jews did everything out of vanity. For it is not the Jew, he says, who is such outwardly, but who is inwardly so, who does nothing merely sensually, but understands spiritually the Sabbath, and sacrifice, and purification. When he says: circumcision, which is in the heart, according to the Spirit, it paves the way to the Christian way of life and shows the necessity of faith; for faith in heart and spirit has praise from God, who searches the heart, and judges nothing according to the flesh. It follows from everything that life is needed everywhere. By the name of uncircumcised or pagan he means, as stated above, not an idolater, but a pious and virtuous person who does not observe. However, Jewish rites.

CHAPTER THREE

So, what is the advantage of being a Jew, or what is the benefit of circumcision? A great advantage in all respects, and especially in the fact that the word of God has been entrusted to them. For what then? if some were unfaithful, will their unfaithfulness destroy the faithfulness of God? Nohow.

Having rejected all the decrees of the law by saying what is the advantage of being a Jew, he sees the naturally arising objection and prevents it. What objection is this? The following: if there is not the slightest benefit in these decrees, then for what purpose were the Jewish people chosen? This objection is solved with his characteristic wisdom. In words he agrees and says that it is of great benefit to the Jew, and in proof of this he cites not the merits of the Jews, but the gifts of God. He did not say that the Jews were very superior to other nations, because they had done this and that well, but that the word of God had been entrusted to them, and this is God's beneficence, and not their superiority. What does it mean to be entrusted? Given, commissioned; God recognized the Jews as worthy and therefore entrusted them with heavenly revelations. In saying this, he outwardly protects them; but at the same time he makes a new accusation, proving that they did not believe in the words of God, which served to their honor. But this accusation is not presented on his own behalf. As if he were saying: "What profit does it profit the Jews that they have received the revelation of God, when they did not believe it? It seems that this objection also solves by justifying not the Jews, but God. If they did not believe, then is it from God? Will their unfaithfulness destroy the faithfulness of God, that is, the revelations and good deeds entrusted to them? The unfaithfulness of the Jews not only does not cause any harm to God, but, on the contrary, proves His great love for mankind, because He deprives those who subsequently dishonor Him of beneficence. You see how He accused the Jews of the very thing they boasted of, that is, that they had received the law.

God is faithful, but every man is a liar, as it is written, Thou art righteous in thy words, and thou shalt prevail in thy judgment.

I said above that some did not believe. Meanwhile, not some turn out to be unfaithful, but all. Therefore, in order not to upset the Jews, he wisely conducts his speech and sets forth what has been experienced in the form of an assumption. Suppose he says that everyone was unfaithful. What of this? And in this case, God is justified. That is: if we judge and compare what God gave to the Jews and how they behaved before Him, then righteousness remains on the side of God, as David says (Psalm 50:6).

If our unrighteousness reveals the truth of God, then what shall we say? Will not God be unjust when He expresses His wrath? (I speak according to human reasoning). Nohow. For otherwise how can God judge the world?