Chapter 5: The Ceremonial Law as Present Spiritual Benefit for Jews (Romans)
5
The Ceremonial Law as Present Spiritual Benefit for Jews (Romans)
Aquinas’s lectures on Hebrews and Romans provide a rich theological picture of his view of Israel and the Church. Whereas the letter to the Hebrews concerned Paul’s teaching on grace for the “sons of Israel,”306 Aquinas understands the letter to the Romans as Paul’s instruction on grace for the “church of the Gentiles.”307 However, Aquinas’s Romans commentary contains an affirmation of the Jewish observance of circumcision as a spiritual benefit even after the passion that undermines the argument in the Hebrews commentary that Christ’s priesthood completely voided the Law.308 Indeed, the teaching of Aquinas’s Romans commentary represents a premodern precursor to Karl Thieme’s breakthrough idea: that the Jew can be pleasing before God as a Jew, despite unbelief in Christ.
1. The Primary Theme and Division of the Romans Commentary
Although Aquinas understands the letter to the Romans to treat the grace of Christ and grace in the Church,309 themes related to the Jews, the Old Testament, and the ceremonial law appear in each division of the text, the greeting and the body.310 In the greeting, themes related to Israel and the ceremonial law surface in Aquinas’s comment upon the “errors” of the Manicheans and Galatians. Aquinas teaches that Paul’s words in the greeting contradict the Manichean assertion that the God of the Old Testament and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ are not the same. This is “excluded,” when Paul says, “that which God had promised before, through his prophets, in the Holy Scriptures.”311 The Apostle also excludes the Manichean condemnation of the Old Testament when he identifies this testament as the only holy writing before the Gospel.312
The theme of the Law appears in the greeting when Aquinas contrasts the faith of the Romans to the Galatian believers who struggled because of a particular teaching on the ceremonial law.313 The Galatians’ faith “was not yet perfect” due to the same error he understands to have plagued the Hebrews: “some of them had been reached by false apostles, who taught that the rites of the Law must be joined to the Gospel.”314 Aquinas has now mentioned this false teaching in the Hebrews commentary, and the Romans commentary.315 He will also discuss the problem in the commentary on Galatians.
Nevertheless, the great majority of Aquinas’s commentary consists of his interpretation of the body of Paul’s letter, which he divides into two parts.316 The subject of “Jews and Gentiles” is prominently featured throughout the first division, and can be said to function as a secondary theme, alongside the primary theme of the gospel of grace.317 Aquinas explains that chapters 1 through 11 consider three things in relation to the power of Christ’s grace: to what the gospel of grace extends, which is salvation; how the gospel confers salvation, which is through faith; and finally, “the people for whom the gospel works salvation, namely, both Jews and the Gentiles.”318
Throughout these chapters, Aquinas takes care to treat the precepts of the ceremonial law under the category of “prerogative of the Jews” (praerogativa Iudaeorum) in the “era after grace” three different times.319 My examination of the commentary focuses rather narrowly on Aquinas’s view of the ceremonial precepts in the era after grace. A word about this term “prerogative of the Jews” is in order.
My use of “prerogative of the Jews” includes but is not limited to the particular rites of the ceremonial law, namely the practices of circumcision, Passover, and dietary laws.320 In the Romans commentary, Aquinas uses the term frequently and more broadly. In addition to Law and circumcision he includes the term “race” (gens) as a prerogative.321 He uses the term prerogatives of the Jews (in the singular or plural) at least eight times. Each of these occurrences refers to the prerogatives of the Jews in regard to the Law. Aquinas uses “advantage” (amplius) of the Jews several times and interchangeably with prerogative.322 He also refers to the Jew’s “dignity” or “greatness” (dignitas).323 The term “prerogative” is used interchangeably with both “advantage” and “dignity.” The term prerogative always includes the Mosaic Law in general, and the ceremonial law in particular. I therefore use the term “prerogatives of Israel” to refer the matrix of advantages Aquinas ascribes to Judaism. The chapters that contain material directly related to the prerogatives of Israel include 2 through 4, and 9.324
2. The “Shock” of Present Tense Prerogatives
Below I treat five of Aquinas’s extended remarks upon the prerogatives of Israel in the Romans commentary: 1) The first reflection is on the privileged state of the Jews as a light to the nations, and occurs as a comment upon the present tense of the phrase “But if you call yourself a Jew” of Romans 2:17; 2) The second reflection on the prerogatives of Israel occurs as a comment upon Paul’s present tense answer to his own rhetorical question, “What advantage has the Jew?” in Romans 3:2, which is, “Much in everyway!”; 3) The third reflection includes Aquinas’s defense of Jewish prerogatives despite the vice of unbelief. Aquinas considers an objection he understands Paul to raise regarding the advantage of the Jew: The objection is represented by another rhetorical question in Romans 3:3, “What if some of them have not believed? Shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?” and his answer: “God forbid!”325 4) The fourth reflection includes an affirmation of the ceremonial law as “a figure of a spiritual benefit” for Jews, even after Christ, and unfolds as a comment upon Paul’s present tense statement “They are Israel,” in Romans 9:4–5. The fifth reflection includes an affirmation of the prerogatives of the Jews as promises that cannot be revoked in Romans 11:28–9: “They are most dear for the sake of their fathers . . . the gifts and the call of God are without repentance.”326
In each case, a present tense Pauline phrase about the Jews provides Aquinas the opportunity to comment at length on the prerogatives of Israel. Soulen’s work suggests this connection between the prerogatives and the three phrases is not a coincidence.327 For Soulen, Paul’s present tense descriptions of Israel—that they “are Israelites”; that they “are beloved”—problematizes the traditional characterization of carnal Israel as a transitory phenomenon. Soulen writes, “The single most important element of Romans 9–11 for Jewish-Christian relations is its use of the present tense to characterize the Jewish people—Paul’s kinsmen ‘according to the flesh’—as the heirs of God’s covenant promises.”328 Soulen warns that when Paul’s present tense descriptions of the Jews are ignored it leads to a reading of the election of the Jewish people as a phenomenon of the past:
When Christians do not attend in a serious way to “the shock of the present tense” in Romans 9–11, they are prone to read their Scriptures in ways that lead them to conclude that God’s election of the Jewish people was a phenomenon of the ancient past. Perhaps if they pay a little attention to Rom 11, they will also think of Israel’s election as a phenomenon of the eschatological future, when “all Israel will be saved” 11:26. This traditional Christian view of Israel’s election may remind us of the Queen’s attitude toward tea in Alice in Wonderland: “Tea yesterday, and tea tomorrow, but never tea today!” Precisely here, the “shock of the present tense” in Romans 9–11 exerts its enduring, foundational importance for Christian-Jewish relations. To the degree that Christians submit themselves to this shock, they will turn to their Jewish neighbor and see one who is God’s beloved—not only in the primordial past and eschatological future—but also and above all in the abiding now of covenant history.329
Soulen’s “shock of the present tense” helps illuminate Aquinas’s engagement of Paul’s descriptions of the Jewish people in a way that highlights the significance of the question of the theological status of circumcision after the passion of Christ in Aquinas’s thought. Aquinas not only affirms the election of this chosen people but goes in the opposite direction of the standard Christian view by connecting the doctrine of election with a positive affirmation of the theological status of Jewish observance of circumcision after the passion of Christ. Indeed, Aquinas’s positive affirmations are directly related to his encounter with Paul’s present tense language about Israel’s prerogatives in the era after grace.
The Privileged State of the Jews as a Light for Those in Darkness
In lecture four of chapter 2, Aquinas comments in detail on the idea that the Jews are not justified by hearing the Law, but by doing the Law. When commenting upon Paul’s words in 2:17, “But if you are called a Jew and rest in the law,” he treats the Jews’ present privileged state as it relates to the Law. In doing so, Aquinas does not say that the Jews were privileged before the age of grace. Rather, he speaks of the Jews enjoying a privileged state even now, after the passion of Christ.
The prerogative of the Jews is threefold: they are the people to whom the Law was given,330 and for this reason, the name “Jew” is an honorable name. Second, the Jews enjoy a “prerogative in regard to the law” itself in two senses.331 The reception of the Law brought stability to their knowledge and will,332 especially in their worship and knowledge of one God. Third, the Jews enjoy a privileged state in regard to the “fruit of the law” (fructu legis) or the effect of the Law.333 The Law not only secures worship and knowledge of one God but also the moral capacity “to select not only good from bad things but also better from less good.”334 This is why a Jew asked Christ “Which is the greatest commandment?”335
Additionally, their reception of the Law is a light for others who need the help of the Law.336 These others “find themselves in three different situations, so far as knowledge of the law is concerned.”337 Aquinas then presents three groups that need the fruit or light of the Law. The first group consists of those “entirely ignorant of the Law, because they lack natural talent, just as a man is physically blind, because he lacks visual power.”338 Some persons “cannot be given the light of knowledge enabling them to see by themselves what to do.” “Rather,” explains Aquinas, “they must be led, as the blind are, by commanding them to do this or that, even though they do not understand the reason for the command.” In Aquinas’s view, some lack the capacity to understand the good. Aquinas then introduces a subgroup of the ignorant: “others are ignorant through lack of training or not enlightened by teaching.” However, for these people, “a wise man” can offer “the light of training, so that they will understand what is commanded.” Citing Luke 1:79 (“to give light to those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death”), Aquinas says that those who know the Law and train others are a light in the darkness.339 The second group consists of “those who are on the way to knowledge they have not yet attainted . . . through lack of full instruction.”340 These are “the foolish” that need correction or those who have “not yet received wisdom” but are beyond a stage of ignorance. Another group that requires such instruction are children.341 The third and final group that benefits from the Law is a group that is advanced in knowledge but that still requires instruction from the wise in order to possess authoritative sayings of wisdom “as their rule pattern.”342 Throughout Aquinas’s discussion of the privileged state of the Jews in relation to the Law, there is no indication that any aspect of the Mosaic Law has come to an end or is an offense to the sacrifice of Christ as it is described in the Hebrews commentary. Although it is not explicit, Aquinas seems to imply that the Jewish observation of the Law is a source of moral knowledge for the nations in the era after grace.343
Of course Aquinas also understands Paul to, in a sense, level the playing field among Jews and Gentiles in regard to sanctifying grace. Paul shows that the Jews were not justified by the “things in which they gloried,”344 which included circumcision and Law.345 “Jewish law heard or accepted was not enough for salvation.”346 Consequently, Gentiles and Jews need the power of the gospel’s grace for salvation.347
Near the end of chapter 2, Aquinas encounters a statement by Paul that seems to indicate that the ceremonial aspect of the Law retains theological value for Jews after the passion of Christ. The present tense of the statement from 2:25, “Circumcision profits indeed,” seems to push Aquinas to say more about the positive theological value of the rite, and he explains that circumcision “remits original sin.”348 Prima facie, the comment could be taken to mean that the ceremonial law remits original sin even now, after the passion.
But Aquinas explains that the meaning of Paul’s statement actually refers to the value of circumcision in the past.349 For this interpretation, he appeals to Galatians 5:2, which operates as a marker for the era after grace, a time in which the practice of circumcision no longer has status. “However, the Apostle’s statement that ‘if you receive circumcision, Christ will be no advantage to you’ refers to the era after grace; but now he is referring to the time before the passion of Christ, when circumcision had status.”350
Before the passion of Christ, the value of circumcision was, in addition to enclosing the Jewish people in the worship of the one God, that it removed original sin in so far as it prefigured the coming of Christ. After grace, the value of circumcision is negative: it renders Christ no advantage. It should be noted that here, Aquinas uses the Galatians 5:2 reference to appeal to the shift of time from before the passion to the era after grace. Indeed, Aquinas sees Galatians 5:2 as the most important authority for grounding the teaching that the ceremonial law is now dead and deadly. In the famous question addressing the duration of the ceremonial law in the Summa theologiae, Ia-IIae q. 103.4 (Whether, since Christ’s passion the legal ceremonies can be observed without committing mortal sin?), Aquinas’s response begins with a citation of Galatians 5:2: “The Apostle says (Gal. 5:2): ‘If you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.’ But nothing save mortal sin hinders us from receiving Christ’s fruit. Therefore since Christ’s passion it is a mortal sin to be circumcised, or to observe the other legal ceremonies.”351
However, in the Romans commentary, Aquinas seems to detect a problem. He does not follow the citation of Galatians 5:2 with an explanation of the full consequences of the standard position for the observant Jew as he does in the Summa theologiae: the teaching that observing the ceremonial law becomes dead in the era after grace and brings mortal sin. Although he reads Paul’s statement that “circumcision profits indeed” through the lens of Gal. 5:2, and claims the rite profited only in the past, it is not declared dead and deadly.
As I hope to show, after this first reflection, Aquinas departs from the view that circumcision only had value before Christ. Indeed, later in the commentary, Aquinas will recognize that the claim that circumcision is no longer of value is similar to an objection Aquinas thinks Paul himself raises and then defeats—and this seems to function throughout the rest of the commentary as a sort of “literal Pauline ratio” for the continuing validity of Jewish observation of circumcision. Whereas, the literal meaning of circumcision was, as the Old Testament clearly teaches, it enclosed the Jews in the worship of the one God, now Aquinas begins to see this literal meaning affirmed in Paul’s present tense affirmations of the rite, even after the passion of Christ.
“What is the Value of Circumcision?”
Near the end of the second chapter of his commentary on Romans, Aquinas contrasts “inward and outward Judaism,” based on Paul’s words that circumcision in one who breaks the Law becomes “uncircumcision.”352 Aquinas understands Paul to argue that inward Judaism amounts to keeping the moral precepts, while an “outward Jew” is one who only keeps the ceremonial law and neglects the moral law. Based on Paul’s language of “uncircumcision” it seems that circumcision profits only if the Law, i.e., the moral precepts, are also observed. “He is truly a Jew,” explains Aquinas, “who is one inwardly, i.e., whose heart is possessed by the precepts of the Law, which the Jews professed.”353
In chapter 3, Aquinas presents what he refers to as Paul’s objection to his own teaching on outward Judaism. After Paul has argued that the Gentile, just like a Jew, can obtain the status of being a “true Jew,” by observing the moral precepts, Aquinas says Paul “objects to his own doctrine.”354
According to Aquinas, the objection is represented by Paul’s rhetorical question, “Then what advantage has the Jew?” Aquinas then summarizes Paul’s rhetorical question in his own terms in order to further clarify his view of Paul’s objection to outward Judaism: “If what I say is so, i.e., that the true Jew and true circumcision are not something outward but inward in the heart, ‘Then what advantage has the Jew,’ i.e., what has been given to him more than others? It seems to be nothing.”355 He then puts the question in even more precise terms and asks: “Or what is the value of circumcision, i.e., outward?” and states, “it seems from his previous teaching [on outward Judaism] that there is no value.”356 Videtur quod non is a formula used to introduce a scholastic objection. That Aquinas uses the phrase to introduce the latter part of the objection (i.e. that circumcision has no value) shows he thinks there is a difficulty regarding the value of circumcision in the era after grace.
In his response to the objection that it seems circumcision has no value, Aquinas seems to shifts away from the traditional position that the Jewish observances become dead after the passion of Christ.357 Aquinas appeals directly to Paul’s answer to his own rhetorical question in order to reject the idea that circumcision in the era after grace is superfluous. Aquinas understands Paul to answer his own objection, “What is the value of circumcision, i.e., outward?” with Paul’s own emphatic and immediate reply in Romans 3:2: “Much in every way!” Aquinas writes, “when [Paul] says ‘Much in every way’ he answers the objection [that circumcision has no value].”358
This Pauline affirmation of the theological status of the ceremonial law after Christ’s passion then compels Aquinas to embark on a lengthy defense of the advantage of outward Judaism. Aquinas explains that “when [Paul] says ‘Much in every way!’ he answers the objection: first, in regard to Judaism’s prerogative; secondly, in regard to the value of circumcision.” While Aquinas does not think the rites provide justifying grace, he appears to hold that circumcision remains valuable as a prerogative of the Jewish people. Indeed, in his extended reply to the objection that circumcision is superfluous, Aquinas is concerned to state, in four ways, the positive theological status of this Jewish rite in the present tense.
First, Aquinas attempts to elaborate on why circumcision is of value in the era after grace by linking the rite to the election of Israel—that the Jewish people are God’s special possession. Aquinas writes, “[the idea that there is no advantage to the Jew] is not fitting, since the Lord had said: ‘The Lord, your God, has chosen you to be a people for his own possession’ Dt 7:6.”359 For Aquinas, the election of Israel is the ground of the ongoing value of circumcision and the first thing that comes to mind upon consideration of the meaning of Paul’s “Much in every way!” The advantage is grounded in the theological claim that God has chosen this people.
Second, Aquinas states that another reason that the idea of circumcision is superfluous is not fitting in the era after grace is because God imposed it upon this chosen people. It is “not fitting” to say there is no value in circumcision because, Aquinas writes, “[circumcision] was imposed by God, Who says: ‘I am the Lord, your God, who teaches you unto profit.’ Is 48:17.”360
Aquinas then adds a third theological defense against the idea that there is “no value” to this significant Jewish rite after Christ. That he understands Paul’s “Much in every way!” to solidly defeat the objection that there is no advantage to the Jew and no longer a theological value in circumcision becomes clear as he elaborates upon the advantage of the prerogatives of the Jews in the present by listing a series of advantages. Aquinas argues that Judaism’s “advantage is both quantitative, which is indicated when [the Apostle] says, ‘much,’ and numerical, which is indicated when he says, ‘in every way.’”361 He then outlines several advantages including, “contemplating divine matters,” by which he means their being given revealed knowledge of God, and “the provision of temporal things,” by which he means deliverance from Egypt. The third advantage is “advantages relating to their ancestors” which he explains are “the promises to their offspring.” In reference to these “promises” he cites Romans 9:4, which states, “They are Israelites, and to them belong the sonship, the glory, the covenant.”362 Each advantage of the Jews is described in the present, not in the past, which indicates that Aquinas understands these advantages of the election of Israel as an ongoing reality.
Fourth, Aquinas adds that, “In each of these there is no small advantage, but great and important ones, which are summed up when [the Apostle] says, ‘much.’”363 The great and important Jewish advantage that Aquinas specifies as a chief advantage (praecipue amplius), is that “[the Jews] are entrusted the oracles of God, being His friends: ‘I have called you friends’ Jn 15:15.”364 Their chief advantage is expressed in their closeness to God. This is because man’s “greatest good lies in knowing and clinging to God and being instructed by God.”365 Here, Aquinas’s remarkably positive and present tense affirmation of the Jews as the friends of God now is reminiscent of Pope John Paul II’s positive language about the Jews as “elder brothers.”366 To cite John 15:15 to support the idea that the Jews are entrusted with knowledge of God and enjoy a closeness to God seems to raise the theological status of Israel after the era of grace to a level not commonly affirmed in the history of Christian theology. Such a status is usually viewed as a feature of Israelite history that has passed away.
Advantages of the Jews Despite Unbelief in Christ
Next, Aquinas considers the challenge of unbelief in Christ to this doctrine. He makes the argument that God’s faithfulness would actually be compromised if the prerogatives of Israel were annulled due to unbelief in Christ. He does this when he considers an objection he understands Paul to raise regarding the advantage of the Jew.
The objection is represented by Paul’s question, “What if some were unfaithful?”367 Aquinas then restates the objection in his own terms: the unfaithfulness of Israel seems manifest in their ingratitude and lack of belief in God. Would not such unbelief mean the annulment of their prerogatives?368 Aquinas then builds the strength of the objection by explaining that someone could belittle the Jews’ prerogative on the basis that they were ungrateful to God’s message and lack belief. He writes, “Someone could belittle the Jews’ prerogative by citing their ingratitude, through which they would seem to have set aside the value of God’s message.” He then explains that this is exactly why the [the Apostle] takes the time to suggest the objection, “What if some were unfaithful?” and Aquinas once more explains the objection, in his own terms: “Does this show that the Jew has no advantage?”369 Aquinas then sharpens the objection by pointing out the difficult nature of the unbelief he thinks is assumed by the question. Jewish unbelief is not only lack of belief in God’s message, but also lack of belief in the mediators of the message: the Lawgiver himself, the prophets, and even the Son of God.370Aquinas then lends biblical support to the objection by stringing together witnesses from the Old and New Testaments concerning unbelief: “For they did not believe the Lawgiver: ‘They had no faith in his promises’ Ps 106:24 or the prophets: they are a rebellious house Ez 2:6.” The objection even becomes more pointed with the last citation of the words of Christ to the Jews: “. . . Or the Son of God: ‘If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me?’”371
In his reply to this sharp objection to Jewish prerogatives Aquinas unpacks a robust theology of God’s promise to Israel. He bases his reply to the objection that the prerogatives of Israel are threatened by Jewish unbelief on Paul’s answer to the rhetorical question “Does their unfaithfulness nullify the faithfulness of God?” which is, “Let it not be!” Aquinas explains Paul’s “Let it not be!” by appealing to the idea of the faithfulness of God. He cites Hebrews 10:23: “God is faithful in keeping His promises: ‘He who promised is faithful.’”372 Here, Aquinas recognizes that God’s faithfulness is the foundation of the election of Israel and it is a foundation that remains steadfast in the face of the vice of unbelief in the Son of God: “[God’s] faithfulness would be nullified, if it happened that the Jews had no advantage, just because some have not believed.” Aquinas goes on, “For God promised to multiply that people and make it great,” and then cites Genesis 22:16: “I will multiply your descendants.”373 God’s faithfulness cannot be nullified, explains Aquinas, because “it is unfitting for God’s faithfulness to be nullified on account of men’s belief.”374
Aquinas then goes on to state how the prerogatives of Israel relate to God’s promise to the Jewish people. He argues that the prerogatives cannot be taken away without compromising God’s faithfulness. Aquinas understands Paul to exclude the objection that there is now, after Christ, no longer an advantage to the Jew by arguing against “the unsuitable conclusion it engenders.” Aquinas states: “For if the Jews’ prerogative were abrogated (praerogativa Iudaeorum tolleretur) on account of the unbelief of some, it would follow that man’s unbelief would nullify God’s faithfulness—which is an unacceptable conclusion.”375
The perpetuity attributed to the prerogatives of Israel, which includes the ceremonial law, is wrapped up with the very faithfulness of God. To claim that the prerogatives of Israel are annulled is “an unacceptable conclusion” because it calls into question the faithfulness of God. “God’s justice, which involves keeping His promises,” writes Aquinas, “is not changed on account of sin.”376 He then cites Proverbs 8:8: “All the words of my mouth are righteous.” And Psalm 145:13: “The Lord is faithful in all his words . . . .”377 For Aquinas, the perpetuity of the value of the prerogatives is connected to God’s promise to this people, which he will keep because God is “faithful in all [God’s] words” and does not lie.
Aquinas’s defense of the prerogatives expands the notion of God’s promise to Israel well beyond the temporal definition afforded it in the Hebrews commentary. In the Hebrews commentary, the promise to carnal Israel is described as limited to the physical and temporal. In the Romans commentary, the promise is understood as a promise that Israel be a people that will be multiplied and made great. Aquinas attributes to the Jews’ advantage a perpetual quality that was absent from the Hebrews commentary. The promise, of course, includes the Davidic promise for an eternal kingdom, which Aquinas understands as fulfilled in Christ.378 But the fulfillment of the promise through the eternal priesthood of Christ does not also entail the rendering void of the prerogatives of Israel.
Indeed, Aquinas articulates a rather succinct argument that problematizes the logic behind punitive and economic supersessionist views of the prerogatives of Israel. First, recall that punitive supersessionism is the idea that Israel’s prerogatives are taken away or revoked due to the sin of unbelief and God then replaces Israel with the Church as the new elect people. Aquinas clearly refutes punitive supersessionist thinking since this view holds that God abolishes the prerogatives of Israel as punishment for the rejection of Christ. Aquinas says this is an unacceptable conclusion because it nullifies God’s faithfulness.
Second, recall that economic supersessionism assumes that with the advent of Christ, the old sacraments are both fulfilled and obsolete and God replaces Israel with the Church, the people of the new sacraments. The unspoken premise of Aquinas’s above argument is that the prerogatives of Israel, which include circumcision and Law, remain a present benefit to the Jewish people in the era after grace.379 This premise contradicts the “double sense of fulfillment” identified by both Isaac and Soulen, that claims the Law is rendered void or obsolete.
Therefore, while Aquinas’s argument here in 3.1.253 explicitly denies the logic of punitive supersessionism, which would annul the prerogatives as punishment for Jewish unbelief in Christ, it also implicitly denies the logic of economic supersessionism, which demands the annulment of the prerogatives due to the advent of Christ. Both punitive and economic forms of supersessionist logic require the evacuation of Israel’s prerogatives. But according to Aquinas, such an abrogation would actually annul (evacuo) God’s faithfulness.
Aquinas’s argument against the abrogation of the praerogativa Iudaeorum calls the traditional Christian teaching on Christ’s fulfillment of the Law into question. The sort of fulfillment theology that entails the voiding of the prerogatives, such as the type found in the Hebrews commentary, seems to be in tension with this part of the Romans commentary.380 God’s promise to carnal Israel cannot be transferred to a new regime without calling into question God’s justice.
At the close of chapter 3 and throughout chapter 4, Aquinas returns to the theme that the ceremonial law could not confer grace and justify, but his discussion seems to reflect the above strong affirmation of circumcision in the era after grace. Aquinas discusses circumcision in greater detail, emphasizing both its literal and prefiguring functions, and states the rite was instituted for four purposes that had to do with divine worship. The first reason for the institution of circumcision was to signify the faith and obedience by which Abraham submitted to God “so that those who accepted the circumcision of Abraham should observe his faith and obedience.”381 The second reason was to express in bodily sign “something that was to occur spiritually, namely, just as superfluous skin was removed from the organ of reproduction, which is the chief servant of concupiscence, so every superfluous desire should be removed from man’s heart . . . .”382 The third reason, according to Aquinas, was to distinguish the children of Israel from all the other nations.383
Aquinas then lists a fourth purpose: these rites prefigured Christ.384 It is from this relation to Christ that the rite was able to remove original sin. “But through faith in Christ, of which circumcision was a sign, it removed original sin and conferred the help of grace to act righteously.”385 Aquinas then explains why baptism is more fitting than circumcision and refers again to the figurative reason for the rite:
It is clear from what has been said, why circumcision had to be changed. For it was a sign of something to come. But the same sign does not suit the present, past and future. Therefore, baptism, as the sign of present grace, produces a more copious and more beneficial effect of grace, because the closer the agent is in time and place, the more effectively it works.386
However, it seems significant that Aquinas does not say that the fulfillment of the sign also entails that its literal meaning in relation to the faith of Abraham, and its distinguishing the Jews from the nations, is rendered void for Jews. The concept of fulfillment surfaces again when Aquinas comments upon Paul’s rhetorical question “Do we therefore overthrow the Law?” Aquinas explains that “someone might claim that he is overthrowing the aforementioned law . . . in as much as we say that men are justified without the works of the law?”387 Yet Aquinas argues that the Apostle Paul cannot be opposed to Christ’s words in Matthew 5:18, which he then cites: “Not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law.” “On the contrary,” writes Aquinas, “we uphold the law, i.e., by faith we complete and fulfill the Law, as Matt 5:17 says, ‘I have come not to abolish the law but to fulfill it.’”388 Aquinas then explains how the faith of Christ “upheld and fulfilled” both the ceremonial and moral precepts of the Law:
This is true as regards the ceremonial precepts because, being figures, they were upheld and fulfilled [statuuntur et adimplentur] by the fact that the truth signified by them is shown forth in the faith of Christ [in fide Christi exhibetur]. This is also true as regards the moral precepts, because the faith of Christ confers the help of grace to fulfill the moral precepts of the Law and even adds special counsels, through which moral precepts are more safely and securely kept.389
What Aquinas does not say here speaks volumes when considered against the backdrop of the position as stated in the Hebrews commentary. Although the ceremonial precepts are fulfilled, Aquinas does not say they are destroyed, as he does in the Hebrews commentary. Rather, Aquinas states that the ceremonial precepts are “fulfilled and upheld” by the faith of Christ. Where the prefiguring function is affirmed in the Romans commentary, the hard consequences for the observant Jew in the era after grace do not surface. Aquinas does not take the time to argue for the distinction between how the moral precepts remain and the ceremonial become void, and then dead and deadly in the era after grace. Nowhere in the Romans commentary does Aquinas argue that the Law is dead, nor does he state the more negative conclusion that the observances are deadly.390 Indeed, Aquinas seems to link the fulfillment of the ceremonial law not only to the passion but also to the faith of Christ.
Aquinas’s vigorous theological defense of the prerogatives of Israel becomes more pronounced in chapter 9 of the commentary, where he comments upon the prerogatives of Israel for the third time and explicitly argues that the ceremonial law is a present spiritual benefit.
The Spiritual Benefits of the Jewish People in the Era of Grace
Aquinas discusses the prerogatives of Israel once more in chapter 9. In the context of explaining Paul’s sadness concerning Jewish unbelief in Christ, Aquinas describes the Jews as a “deteriorating people.”391 However, he does not say Jewish dignity is a thing of the past but goes on to speak of the dignity of the Jews in the present tense. Aquinas explains that the greatness of the Jews is demonstrated in several ways:
First, their dignity is from their being Israelites according to the flesh. Aquinas states: “‘They are Israelites,’ i.e., descending from the stock of Jacob who was called Israel Gen 32:28. This pertains to their greatness, for it says in Dt 4:7: ‘Neither is there any nation so great as to have their gods coming to them.’”392 Aquinas once again acknowledges God’s election of this particular people and names it as a benefit in the present.393
Second, the Jews enjoy a dignity from “God’s blessings,” which include a number of “spiritual blessings” or “benefits” which we may identify as benefits 1–5.
1. The first spiritual benefit is Israel’s sonship, as opposed to other nations: “to them belongs the sonship: hence it says in Ex (4:22): Israel is my son, my firstborn.”394 The blessing seems to concern the idea that this particular people is considered the firstborn son of God.395 Aquinas seems to attribute Jewish distinction from the nations as possessing an ongoing theological significance.
2. The second blessing from God is explicitly described as a future spiritual benefit. Aquinas explains that this “spiritual blessing refers to the future when he says: the glory, namely, of the sons of God promised to them.”396 Next, Aquinas introduces another classification of spiritual benefits from God, referred to as figures of present spiritual benefit. Aquinas frequently uses the term figura throughout his works to refer to the symbolic meaning of the ceremonial law as foreshadowing Christ. However, this is the only place in his work where he employs the phrase “figure of present spiritual benefit” (figura praesentis spiritualis beneficii) to refer to these rites and this novelty seems to indicate something important.397
3. Circumcision. The first “figure of present spiritual benefit” is identified as the covenant mentioned in Romans 9:4, which Aquinas says refers to “the pact of circumcision given to Abraham, as is recorded in Gen 17.” Here, Aquinas explicitly states that circumcision is a present spiritual benefit (praesentis spiritualis beneficii). That circumcision is described as a present figure that remains connected in any way to a spiritual benefit after the passion of Christ is incredibly significant given Aquinas’s standard teaching, as represented in Ia-IIae q. 103 a. 4, and the commentary on Hebrews, that the rites were figures. In identifying the covenant of Romans 9:4 as the pact of circumcision Aquinas also diverges from the standard biblical commentary of his day, the Glossa ordinaria, which is careful to state that the covenant mentioned in Romans 9:4 refers to “the New Testament” covenant, not the old.398
4. Law. The fourth blessing from God is the second figure of present spiritual benefit: the Law given through Moses.
5. Divine Worship. The fifth blessing from God is the third figure of present spiritual benefit: divine worship. All these spiritual benefits of Jewish worship confer dignity on the Jews after the passion of Christ.
Aquinas’s affirmation of the spiritual benefits of Judaism sits in tension with the negative idea of an ongoing deterioration of the Jews as the cause of Paul’s sadness. Nevertheless, circumcision, law, and worship are described as blessings from God despite Jewish unbelief in Christ. Jewish observances are referred to as rites that are connected to a present spiritual benefit and that somehow retain a figural meaning.
The Certainty of God’s Promise to Israel
The final reflection in the Romans commentary that I want to highlight is when Aquinas comments on Paul’s famous words in Romans 11:29, “For the gifts and the call of God are without repentance.” Here, Aquinas once again secures the perpetuity of the election of Israel by grounding it in God’s unchanging promise.399 In particular, he does this when he responds to an objection he raises to the idea that God’s call can change.400 Indeed, Aquinas explains the objection as follows: “God’s call seems to be changed sometimes, since it is written ‘Many are called but few are chosen’ Mt 22:14.”
In his reply, Aquinas explains that the ongoing election of Israel is secured by the nature of God’s promise, which is a promise that is, because of God’s predestination, “as good as given.” Commenting upon Romans 11:29, “For the gifts and the call of God are without repentance,” Aquinas says that: “it should be noted that ‘gift’ is taken here for a promise made according to God’s foreknowledge or predestination, and ‘call’ is taken for election.” “Because both are so certain,” explains Aquinas, “whatever God promises is as good as given and whomever [God] elects is somehow already called.”401
3. The Emerging Tension in the Pauline Commentaries
At several places in his commentary on Romans, Aquinas seems to allow present tense, positive descriptions of Israel to shape his views of the goodness of Jewish worship even in the face of unbelief. Aquinas affirms the ongoing Jewish election and advantage of circumcision and argues that abrogating the prerogatives of Israel would compromise God’s faithfulness, which is “an unacceptable conclusion.” When Aquinas discusses God’s covenant with Israel, which he links to the rite of circumcision, he even affirms this observance as a blessing from God and a present spiritual benefit.402
And yet, it is not clear how exactly the spiritual blessings of the Law and circumcision can be said to remain figures not to mention spiritually beneficial if the exact relationship of the rites to the Christian faith is not specified. In the Romans commentary, Aquinas does not explain how the rites can be said to remain figures in relationship to Christ’s passion.
If one reads Aquinas’s commentary on Romans 9–11, especially chapter 9:1–5, in isolation from the rest of the lecture, not to mention the organic unity Aquinas understood Paul’s letters to possess, this positive role might seem as if it is representative of his view. However, when read in context, the picture seems more complex.
When read against the background of Aquinas’s words about the ceremonial law in the Hebrews commentary, major portions of the Romans commentary contradict the more negative view. When read in the context of the Hebrews commentary, it becomes clear that Aquinas shifts away from the standard view that the ceremonial law no longer has status and argues at length that circumcision possesses theological significance for the Jewish people in the era after grace. Reading Aquinas in context of these two lectures highlights a tension in the commentaries: How can Aquinas hold that the ceremonial law is a present spiritual benefit to Jews in the era after grace and at the same time that which causes spiritual death of observant Jews? How can the rites by which the Jews are made the friends of God also serve to cut them off from God?
In the Romans commentary, Aquinas’s defense of the prerogatives of Israel undermines the teaching that the observance of the ceremonial law is superfluous and a mortal sin after the passion of Christ. In fact, he says the opposite. Aquinas states that circumcision possesses a theological value; that law, and cult are a present spiritual benefit to the Jewish people; and that these cannot be abolished without compromising God’s faithfulness. Aquinas’s extended reflections on Israel’s present tense prerogatives may even have pushed him to leave out the negative conclusion of the traditional teaching: that observance of the ceremonial law is now a mortal sin. Despite frequent references to the Old Law in the age of grace, nowhere does Aquinas say that its observance brings spiritual death. Aquinas’s view represents a departure from the claim, based in Galatians 5:2, that circumcision no longer has a status after the passion of Christ.
Aquinas’s sensitivity to the multifaceted literal sense of Scripture allows him to respond to the present tense of Paul’s words about Israel. These positive descriptions afford Aquinas with multiple opportunities to step away from the position that the ceremonial law is simply dead after the passion of Christ. The first step away is when Aquinas affirms the prerogative of the Jewish people as a light to the nations. The second is Aquinas’s defense of the great value of Jewish election and circumcision against the claim based in Galatians 5:2 that circumcision no longer has value. The third is when Aquinas presents the argument that to abrogate the prerogatives of Israel would nullify God’s promise and undermine God’s justice, which is “an unacceptable conclusion.” The fourth is where the covenant with Israel, which is said to include rite of circumcision, is described as a blessing from God and a present spiritual benefit. The last is Aquinas’s claim that the election and call of Israel is a promise from God that is “as good as given.” In each case Aquinas allows what Soulen has referred to as the “priority of the present tense” descriptions of Israel to shape his interpretation of prerogatives of the Jewish people in a way that allows for a more benevolent view of the ceremonial law in era after grace that might be referred to as “fulfilled and upheld.”
Although the emerging tension in the commentaries presents difficulties for making sense of Aquinas’s thought, the positive view in the Romans commentary is a robust theological defense of Judaism after the passion of Christ. Aquinas’s view provides premodern support for Karl Thieme’s defense of Jews against the Nazis: that the Jew can remain pleasing to God despite unbelief in Christ.
306. Prologus 9.
307. Prologus 11.
308. I am not the first to point out Aquinas’s positive view of the Jews in the Romans commentary. Steven Boguslawski and Bruce Marshall have both treated the topic. See Boguslawski, Thomas Aquinas on the Jews; Bruce Marshall, “Quasi in Figura.” I view this chapter as building on Marshall and Boguslawski’s work by drawing upon Soulen’s reading of the significance of Paul’s present tense descriptions of Israel, especially as these relate to the ceremonial law.
309. Ad Rom. 1.1.15.
310. Ad Rom. 1.1.15.
311. Ad Rom. 1.2.41.
312. Ad Rom. 1.2.41. I do not mean to imply that in the greeting Aquinas is solely concerned with the errors of the Manicheans. Aquinas also understands Paul to exclude errors of Arius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, and Sabellius.
313. Ad Rom. 1.5.77.
314. Ad Rom. 1.5.77.
315. Ad Rom. 1.5.77; Ad Hebraeos 1.1.6. As I show in the next chapter, Aquinas discusses this problem directly and at length in his Super Epistolam ad Galatas. The theme of the observance of the ceremonial law along with the gospel as a teaching of pseudo apostles runs through the commentaries. See Ad Galatas, Prologus 1; and lectio 1: “The Apostle therefore writes the Galatians this epistle in which he shows that with the coming of the grace of the New Testament, the Old Testament should be cast out, so that with the fulfillment of the truth, the figure may be abandoned, and with the attainment of these two, namely, grace and truth, one may arrive at the truth of justice and glory. And these two are acquired, if, abandoning the observance of the legalia [i.e. the ceremonial precepts of the Old Law], we concentrate fervently on observing the Gospel of Christ.”
316. Ad Rom. 1.6.97.
317. Ad Rom. 1.5.74; 1.5.97.
318. Ad Rom. 1.6.98–101.
319. Aquinas refers to the ceremonial precepts nine times. In one place he refers to these as ceremonial works. Jews’ prerogative or Judaism’s prerogative appears six times. Boguslawski points out that Aquinas uses Israel and Jews interchangeably throughout his commentary. I therefore refer to the Jews’ prerogatives or Israel’s prerogatives interchangeably. The phrase “era after grace” appears in the commentary in 2.4.238; 4.2.357.
320. Therefore, my use of the term here is similar to the usage in chapter 4, on the Hebrews commentary, as well as my view of Aquinas’s handling of the term in the Summa theologiae. See the footnote on the term “prerogatives of Israel” in chapter 4 of this study for a brief treatment of how this term relates to the ceremonial law in the Summa theologiae.
321. Gentis can also be interpreted as “tribe” or “people.”
322. Ad Rom. 3.1.249.
323. Ad Rom. 9.1.743–47.
324. Although the content of the chapters overlaps at points, especially on the subject of circumcision, my examination of the prerogatives is organized thematically in order to include relevant but isolated texts from chapters that discuss the prerogatives of Israel indirectly.
325. Ad Rom. 3.1.251.
326. Ad Rom. 11.4.912–26.
327. Soulen, “‘They are Israelites.”
328. Ibid., 2–3.
329. Ibid.
330. Ad Rom. 2.4.224.
331. Ad Rom. 2.4.226.
332. Ad Rom. 2.4.226.
333. Ad Rom. 2.4.227.
334. Ad Rom. 2.4.228.
335. Aquinas understands the effect of the Old Law to equip its doers with a sophisticated level of practical reasoning about the good that seems lacking in those who only have the natural law as guide because conclusions about the natural inclinations are so obscured by habitual sin.
336. Ad Rom. 2.4.227.
337. Ad Rom. 2.4.229.
338. Ad Rom. 2.4.229.
339. Ad Rom. 2.4.229.
340. Ad Rom. 2.4.230.
341. Ad Rom. 2.4.230.
342. Ad Rom. 2.4.231.
343. After discussing the privileged state of the Jews in regard to the Law and its fruit, Aquinas also discusses their failures. He presents somewhat of a catalogue of errors of the Jews in order to make the more general point that though “observance of the Law by good works is an occasion for others to honor God, so its transgression by evil works is an occasion to blaspheme: ‘That they may see your good deeds and glorify God’” Ad Rom. 2.4.235 .
344. Ad Rom. 2.1.169.
345. However, Aquinas does understand the Law to justify in a qualified sense. Justification can be taken in regard to “doing what is just” because, for example, “the publican performed a work of justice by confessing his sin.” In this way, also, doers of the Law will also be justified “by performing the justice of the law.” Third, justification can be considered in regard to the cause of justice, so that a person is said to be justified, when he newly receives justice, as in Romans 5:1: Since we are justified by faith, we are at peace with God.’” This is the sense in which doers of the Law are not justified. Aquinas explains that both the ceremonial works of the Jews and what he calls “moral works” cannot confer justifying grace. 2.3.212
346. Ad Rom. 2.3.210.
347. Ad Rom. 2.1.169.
348. Ad Rom. 2.4.238.
349. Later, Aquinas will clarify how circumcision removed original sin for Jews who had faith in Christ. Aquinas also adds a third condition for the way in which the ceremonial law can be observed which might be called the Christological and apostolic form of observance of the ceremonial law. Aquinas actually discusses two ways of being under the ceremonial law. 1) The first way did not sanctify because it was observed out of fear and not faith. Those who observe out of fear lack faith and thus they also lack grace. 2) The second way the ceremonial law is observed is “voluntarily” through faith and love and this is how Christ and the apostles observed the ceremonial and moral aspects of the Law. Grace is obtained through this voluntary form of observance of the Law. Aquinas mentions Christ’s observation of the ceremonial law in Ad Rom. 6.3.497–8. Aquinas also makes this distinction in the commentary on Galatians. This distinction between those who observe the Old Law out of fear and those who observe it voluntarily is not mentioned in the Hebrews commentary which posits that the Old Law was only observed out of fear, whereas, the new is observed in charity.
350. Ad Rom. 2.4.238.
351. Ia-IIae q. 103.4. I return to this connection chapter 9.
352. Ad Rom. 2.4.243.
353. Ad Rom. 2.4.244.
354. Ad Rom. 3.1.246.
355. Ad Rom. 3.1.247. [Emphasis added]
356. Ad Rom. 3.1.247.
357. Ia-IIae q. 103.4
358. Ad Rom. 3.1.248.
359. Ad Rom. 3.1.247.
360. Ibid.
361. Ad Rom. 3.1.249.
362. Ad Rom. 3.1.249. I show below that Aquinas thinks the covenant mentioned here, in 9:4, is the old covenant.
363. Ibid.
364. Ad Rom. 3.1.250.
365. Ad Rom. 3.1.249.
366. Bruce Marshall, “Elder Brothers,” 113–29.
367. Ad Rom. 3.1.251.
368. Ad Rom. 2.4.253.
369. Ad Rom. 3.1.252.
370. Ad Rom. 2.4.253. Aquinas’s description of this objection seems rather reminiscent of the punitive supersessionism of the adversus Iudaeos tradition. Again, Soulen defines punitive supersessionism as follows: “According to punitive supersessionism, God abrogates God’s covenant with Israel on account of Israel’s rejection of Christ and the gospel.” See Soulen, The God of Israel, 30. Paula Fredriksen’s summary of Tertullian’s view of the Jews reveals a sharp contrast between the punitive supersessionism of the adversus Iudaeos tradition and Aquinas’s argument here: “By continuing in their fleshly observances—even after the resurrection of Christ, whom their own prophets had said they would murder; even after the punitive destruction of their city and their Temple, the only place where they could enact most of their wrong-headed ancestral practices; even after being driven out of their native land in punishment for their rejection of God’s son—the Jews confirmed all the reasons why God had given them the Law to begin with. They were stiff-necked, stubborn, belligerent, utterly unrepentant. Accordingly, concluded Tertullian, Israel was punished forever with exile. Indeed, their permanent displacement had been instigated by Christ himself, who in the Psalms had demanded of his Father, ‘Scatter them in your might.’ (Psalm 59:12; Against Marcion 3.23, 1–4).” Fredriksen, Augustine and the Jews, 226. For a summary of the view see A. Lukyn Williams, Adversus Iudaeos. Aquinas’s rejection of ideas similar to punitive supersessionism in Ad Rom. 2.4.253 seem to sit in tension with statements he will make later in the commentary when discussing the fall or trespass of the Jews in Ad Rom. 11.2.881.
371. Ad Rom. 3.1.252.
372. Ad Rom. 3.1.254.
373. Ad Rom. 3.1.253.
374. Ad Rom. 3.1.254.
375. Ad Rom. 3.1.253. [Emended]: “Deinde cum dicit Numquid incredulitas, excludit dictam obiectionem ducendo ad inconveniens, quia si propter incredulitatem aliquorum praerogativa Iudaeorum tolleretur, sequeretur quod incredulitas hominis fidem Dei evacuaret, quod est inconveniens.” Larcher translates tolleretur as “taken away” but it can also mean abrogate. For Aquinas, tolleretur can mean “to take off, carry off, make away with, kill, destroy, to abolish, annul, abrogate, cancel.” Deferrari, Latin-English Dictionary, 1043.
376. Ad Rom. 3.1.257.
377. Ad Rom. 3.1.257.
378. Ad Rom. 3.1.256; 258.
379. As I shall demonstrate below, Aquinas explicitly states in his comments upon Romans 9:4–5 that the ceremonial law is a present spiritual benefit.
380. Ironically, in 3.1.253, Aquinas uses the same verb, evacuo (in the imperfect active subjunctive form, evacuaret) to describe the unacceptable effect that the nullification of the prerogatives would have on God’s faithfulness that he uses to describe the nullification of the imperfect Priesthood and ceremonial law in the Hebrews commentary: the perfect renders the imperfect evacuo: Secunda ratio probat quod etiam ipsum evacuat, quia perfectum evacuate imperfectum. Ad Hebraeos 7.3.349. In the Romans commentary, however, to annul (evacuo) the ceremonial law is to annul the faithfulness of God.
381. Ad Rom. 4.2.347.
382. Ad Rom. 4.2.347.
383. Ad Rom. 4.2.347.
384. Ad Rom. 4.2.348. In 5.6.463, Aquinas also states that the ceremonial precepts were multiplied to prevent the Jews from cultivating alien gods. The Law operated at two levels: for the proficient, who are called mediocres, or ordinary people; and for the perfect. The ceremonial law had the affect of restraining the people in divine worship, and with respect to moral precepts, they were advanced toward justice. For the perfect, on the other hand, the ceremonies functioned as a sign.
385. Ad Rom. 4.2.349. Regarding the power of circumcision to confer grace and remove original sin, Aquinas explains the multiple views on the question. He lists the positions and explains problems with each one. It should be noted that Aquinas does not always hold that circumcision did not have effective power to remove guilt as he does here. Andrew Hofer, O.P., has shown that in the Scriptum super Sententiis Aquinas holds that circumcision removed original sin. Andrew Hofer, “The Circumcision of the Lord,” 63. I am grateful to Fr. Hofer for sharing with me his unpublished dissertation. See also Schenk, “Covenant Initiation.”
386. Ad Rom. 4.2.350. Brian Davies offers one of the most succinct summaries of Aquinas’s view of the importance of the new sacraments: “For Aquinas, however, the important sacraments are ‘the sacraments of the New Law,’ by which he means the Christian sacraments. Why? Because, so he thinks, these cause grace while the sacraments of the Old Law did not. The sacraments of the Old Law, he argues, predated the death of Christ by which justifying grace comes, and they were signs representing faith in Christ only in the sense that they anticipated what was to come. They looked forward to something which was not yet. The sacraments of the New Law, on the other hand, signify something actually present. The sacraments of the Old Law ‘fulfilled the function of prefiguring grace’ while those of the New Law ‘are appropriate as manifestations of a grace that is already present.’” Davies, The Thought of Thomas Aquinas, 354.
387. Ad Rom. 3.4.321.
388. Ad Rom. 3.4.321.
389. Ad Rom. 3.4.321. [Emphasis added]
390. Another telling example of this is Aquinas’s treatment of the Pauline statement “For the end of the Law is Christ,” in Romans 10:4. When commenting upon this verse in the Romans commentary Aquinas only comments upon how the Law could not bring to perfection (i.e. it could not bring sanctifying grace) and its prefigurative function. Ad Rom. 10.1.819.
391. Ad Rom. 9.1.744.
392. Ad Rom. 9.1.743.
393. Ad Rom. 9.1.745.
394. Ad Rom. 9.1.744.
395. In particular, it is their sonship as opposed to the other nations: “the spiritual men who arose among that people: but as to worldly men he stated above (8:15) that they received the spirit of slavery in fear.” The sonship therefore refers to the distinction of these “spiritual men” (Israel) from what Aquinas sees as “worldly men” or nations that were in slavery and in fear.
396. Ad Rom. 9.1.744.
397. Ad Rom. 9.1.744: “. . . beneficia figuralia, quorum tria sunt figura praesentis spiritualis beneficii . . . .” Larcher’s original translation of these benefits reads, “were figures of present spiritual benefit” rather than “are figures of present spiritual benefit.” The Italian Dominican Study Edition of the Romans commentary translates these benefits in the present tense. See Tommaso d’Aquino (san), Commento al Corpus Paulinum (expositio et lectura super epistolas Pauli apostoli) vol. 1–3—Seconda Lettera ai corinzi-Lettera ai galati (ESD-Edizioni Studio Domenicano, 2006), 601. I am indebted to my colleague, James Stroud, for pointing this out to me. Additionally, the Aquinas Institute editors (2012) of the commentary emended Larcher’s translation of the spiritual benefits to the present tense.
398. Ad Rom. 9.1.744. Aquinas considers the possibility that Paul might be referring not to the covenant with Israel but to the new covenant: “although this could be referred to the new covenant preached first to the Jews. Hence, the Lord Himself said: I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Mt 15:24); and Jer (31:31): I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel.” Despite the alternative interpretation Aquinas offers regarding the reference to the covenant—that it “could be” the new covenant—he thinks the “pact of circumcision” is the literal meaning. That he mentions the possibility of it being the new testament seems to be a nod to the standard medieval interpretation, the Glossa ordinaria on Romans, which explicitly states that this reference to the covenant means the new covenant and not the old: “the glory—because they are a peculiar people, or because of what they do through miracles. The testament—the New Testament. The legislation—which the Old Testament presented through figures . . . .” Nevertheless, by listing circumcision first he seems to deliberately move away from this interpretation. See Michael Scott Woodward, trans., The Glossa Ordinaria on Romans, 138–39.
399. Ad Rom. 11.4.926.
400. In the Hebrews commentary, Aquinas actually argues for the opposite position when drawing upon Augustine. He argues that God’s providence is different than God and that while God does not change, his providence can. The difference between these two texts is that in the Romans commentary, Aquinas is more aware of the robust depth and perpetuity of the promise to carnal Israel while in the Hebrews commentary the promise is defined narrowly, as a temporal and physical phenomenon.
401. Ad Rom. 11.4.926. Aquinas adds an eternal/temporal distinction regarding God’s promise in order to explain that a promise from God can “change” in the sense that human persons can cast off God’s grace. Aquinas says this change is not because God’s eternal acts change, but because man changes when he throws off God’s grace. Nevertheless, what Aquinas says concerning God’s promise to Israel seems secured by his argument that the unbelief of the Jews cannot nullify God’s justice in Ad Rom. 3.1.257. As Aquinas states in 3.1.257, if the election of the Jews was abrogated on account of their unbelief in God in Christ (i.e. “change in man”), this would be unacceptable because it calls into question God’s faithfulness. In other words, when Aquinas does address Jewish unbelief in light of God’s promise in Ad Rom. 3.1.257, the conclusion he draws seems to employ a notion of promise that is not dislocated from the idea of God’s justice regarding the promise to the particular people, the Jews.
402. Ad Rom. 11.4.926.