Origen of Alexandria

We must examine carefully what this circumcision is which is of value, and what law this is which is profitable if it is kept, so that when we have understood his meaning we may be circumcised as well.… Paul teaches in the verses which follow that it is not the circumcision of the flesh which he is talking about but the circumcision of the heart, which is made by the Spirit and not according to the letter, and which receives its praise not from men but from God.Someone might raise the objection that, if it is true that the circumcision which the apostle regards as being profitable is nothing other than the cleansing of the soul and the rejection of all vices, why does he add here that it is profitable only if you keep the law, since circumcision does not exist apart from the observance of the law? It must be understood that circumcision is not just a matter of rejecting wickedness and ceasing from evil; it is also a matter of doing good and carrying out what is perfect. That is what keeping the law means. For there is no perfection in someone who merely desists from evil; rather it is found in him who does what is good.
Circumcision becomes uncircumcision if, after abstaining from evil, you fail to do what is good. For then you are considered to be an unbeliever. Obviously it is not possible for one who has been physically circumcised to get his foreskin back again, and so this text must be understood figuratively. For if the containment of evil which circumcision signifies is not matched by the works of faith, it is regarded as a form of wickedness. Even in the church, if someone is “circumcised” by the grace of baptism and then becomes a transgressor of the law of Christ, the circumcision of baptism is reckoned to him as uncircumcision, because “faith without works is dead.”
Consider also whether in this passage the following interpretation may be accepted, that even after the coming of Christ physical circumcision, observed according to the law, might be said to be of some value to those who keep the law on the same principle as that which obtained at the beginning of our faith, when it was still observed by those who believed in Christ.… Now if this (Christian) circumcision were to be turned into uncircumcision, not only would it be of no benefit to anyone, it would call down even greater judgment on the one who by the circumcision of the flesh appeared to be proclaiming the observance of the law but was in fact breaking it. And this judgment would be given by the one who had not submitted to physical circumcision but who nevertheless did the works of the law. Whether this interpretation is to be accepted or not is up to you, the reader, to decide.
Circumcision was of no value to those who thought they could be justified by it, but it was of value to those who thought that they might not come to Christ if they were forbidden to circumcise their children. For in the beginning there were some who thought of circumcision mainly as a recognizable symbol of their nationality and kept it up for that reason. They might have been hindered from coming to faith if they had been forbidden to do something which they could not do without. Therefore the apostle says this to them, so as not to close the door of faith to them.

We must realize that in some people these two things go together while in others they do not. For there are some things which have their beginning inside a man and which proceed from there to the outside, but there are other things which start on the outside and work their way inside. What I mean is this. If chastity begins inside a man, there is no doubt that it will manifest itself on the outside of him as well. For it is hardly possible if someone does not commit adultery in his heart that he should do so in his body. But it does not follow from this that if chastity starts as an outward observance that it will necessarily penetrate to the point of inner continence, so that if someone does not commit adultery in his body it will follow immediately that he does not do so in his heart either. Therefore the circumcision of the inner and the outer man must be understood allegorically as meaning that the inner man should not lust in his heart, nor should the outer man surrender to lust in his body, so that he whom the apostle says is no longer in the flesh but in the Spirit, and who mortifies the deeds of the flesh by the Spirit, may be said to be circumcised in the flesh as well.It is true that he who has been circumcised has given up a part of his flesh to perdition and kept a part of it unharmed. The part that is lost is, I think, what is referred to in the following text: “All flesh is grass, and all its glory is as the flower of the field.” But the flesh which is retained is, I think, a type of that flesh of which it is said: “All flesh shall see the salvation of God.” It is the task of those ears which can hear to determine which is which.

Even though the oracles of God are now entrusted to the Gentiles as well, they were first entrusted to the Jews, as Paul says. Is he speaking here of the letters and the books or of the meaning and the general gist of the law? For we see many Jews who from infancy to old age never stop studying, yet they never come to a knowledge of the truth. How can it be true that they have some advantage in having been entrusted with the oracles of God first, when they do not understand “what they are saying or the things about which they are making assertions?” … It must be understood that these things are being said about Moses, the prophets and others like them, to whom the oracles of God were entrusted, because there can be no doubt that they were Jews and that they had the circumcision. It would also apply to anyone who was wise, an intelligent listener or a gifted counselor. These the Lord is said to have removed from Jerusalem because he was offended by the ungodliness of the people. … Even the apostles of Christ and Paul himself, the vessel of election, came from the Jews and from the circumcision. He had far more in every way than those whom he taught who were of the Gentiles. For the oracles of God were entrusted to the Jews.Note moreover that Paul says that the oracles of God were entrusted to the Jews, not merely the letter of the text. So it is possible for us to understand that those who read but do not understand, as well as those who read but do not believe, have had only the letter entrusted to them, of which the apostle says: “The letter kills.” But the oracles of God are entrusted to those who understand and believe what Moses wrote and who believe in Christ, as the Lord said: “If you believed Moses you would believe me, for he wrote of me.”5
But if the Jew has received more in receiving the letter and something more in the oracles of God, does this mean that those of the Gentiles who have come to Christ are somehow left out? Or is there some way in which they have more than the Jews? Listen to what the Lord says to the Gentile centurion who believed: “Truly I say to you, I have not found such faith even in Israel.” Therefore you see that when it comes to faith, the Gentiles have much more.… When it comes to the letter, the Jews have much more in every way, but when it comes to faith, it is the Gentiles who have much more.

Here it must be understood that the reference is to all men, whether they are under the written law [of Moses] or the natural law. For we understand that this applies to the Gentiles in the same way as we have already said above. When they begin to do the works of the law by nature and become a law for themselves, then they are reproached by their conscience for the things they do which are contrary to that law. For this reason it seems to me that those who have thought that the law of nature is the law of God and that the law of Moses is merely the written law are correct. If Paul was speaking of the written law, the law of Moses, when he said: “Sin is not imputed when there is no law,” neither Cain nor those who perished in the flood nor those who were burnt with fire at Sodom would have had their sins imputed to them. But since we see that not only did they have their sins imputed to them, they also suffered retribution for them, it is clear that Paul was speaking here of the natural law, which with the exception of the early years of childhood, is present in all men. For this reason he was quite right to say that all are under the power of sin. Whence it seems to me that the philosophers were right when they said that every mortal being on coming to the age of discretion, when by the entry of the natural law it might distinguish between good and evil, first of all discovers what is evil and afterward combats it by means of instructions, precepts and warnings, so as to move on to virtue. I think that Paul was agreeing with them when he said: “But when the commandment came, sin sprang to life.” … It must not be thought that everyone is guilty of all the sins which are listed below. Rather, some are guilty of some of them, and others are guilty of others but in such a way that taken together the whole range of sinfulness is found in the human race.

That no one has done good, not even one, is a hard saying and difficult to understand. How is it possible that no one, Jew or Greek, has ever done anything good? Are we supposed to believe that nobody has ever shown hospitality, fed the hungry, clothed the naked, delivered the innocent from the hands of the powerful or done anything similar? It does not seem possible to me that Paul was intending to assert anything as incredible as that. I think that what he meant must be understood as follows. If someone lays the foundation for a house and puts up one or two walls or transports some building materials to the site, can he be said to have built the house, just because he has set to work on it? The man who will be said to have built the house is the one who has finished off each and every part of it. So I think that here the apostle is saying that no one has done good in the sense that no one has brought goodness to perfection and completion. If we ask ourselves who is truly good and who has done good perfectly, we shall find only him who said: “I am the good shepherd,” and again: “The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.”

This comes from Psalm 5[:10]. It seems to me that Paul is using this text to describe different types of human sin. The analogy: Every grave contains the uncleanness of the dead body inside. This is why our Lord said in the Gospel that the scribes and Pharisees were whited sepulchres. On the outside they appear to be beautiful, but on the inside they are full of all sorts of uncleanness. But in this passage Paul seems to be revealing something more than this about the sins of those whom he is talking about, because he says that they are an “open” grave, not one which is shut and covered up. Those who were called a closed sepulchre had enough sense of shame not to reveal their sins to the public. But these people are called an open grave because they have their uncleanness and impurity on display, and they are so accustomed to evil that … whenever they open their mouth, instead of speaking the Word of God, the word of life, they open their throat and speak the word of death, the word of the devil, not from the heart but from the grave. Whenever you see a man cursing and swearing, you may be sure that he is one of this type.“They use their tongues to deceive.” “To deceive” means to say one thing and think another. I am not certain that even the justified and the elect are entirely free of this sin. Some commit it more and others less. The only one who is perfect in this respect is the one of whom it is written: “He had committed no sin, and there was no deceit in his mouth.” There may be someone who is careful and cautious enough to avoid major failings in this respect, but who is there who does not fall into this trap either from a sense of shame or from neglect? Occasionally things which should be done are overlooked because of forgetfulness, and in order for no blame to appear they are excused in a way which does not correspond to the facts. This is why Peter, realizing that these are all different types of deception, wrote this in his epistle: “Put away all malice and all guile and insincerity and envy and all slander. Like newborn babes, long for pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up to salvation.”35
The bite of the serpent kills the body with its poison. Even a bite of a poisonous word may kill the soul by deception. This may be applied both to those who surround others with slanderous remarks and of those who, by heretical teaching tainted with the poison of the devil, deceive the souls of the simple.

Here we must consider carefully what this law is that speaks to those who are under the law. By what it says to them it deprives them of every excuse, so that they can find no hiding place for their sins. It is this which stops every mouth and makes the whole world accountable to God. Now if we want to take this as referring to the law of Moses, which without doubt spoke only to those who had been circumcised from their mother’s womb and had learned what the law was, how is it possible that by that law, which applies to only one nation, every mouth should be stopped and the whole world should be held accountable to God? What have the other nations to do with that law, and why does it affect the entire world? And how is it that a knowledge of sin is said to have originated with the law of Moses, when there were many before his time who were well aware of their sins?From this it appears that the apostle Paul is not speaking here about the law of Moses but about the natural law which is written on the hearts of men.… This natural law speaks to all men who are under that law with the sole exception, it seems to me, of those children who are not yet able to distinguish good from evil.…
When Paul says “the whole world” he is not talking about trees and rocks and so on but about the rational animal, i.e., the human being. Anything which is not rational is excluded from consideration in this context.