Romans 2:25Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

Circumcision could certainly have been rejected in another way. For example, one might ask: what is circumcision? Is it a merit of the one circumcised? Does it constitute proof of his good will? Yet it is performed at an immature age. Then many who lived in the wilderness remained uncircumcised. From many other examples also one can see that circumcision was not especially necessary. Yet the Apostle does not reject circumcision by these arguments. He does so by the example of Abraham, as was especially fitting. For this was the triumph of victory: to prove the slight importance of circumcision by the very thing for which the Jews honored it.

Although Paul could have said that the prophets also call the Jews uncircumcised, that was a fault not of circumcision itself, but of those who misused it. What was required was to prove that circumcision has no power even with a virtuous life. This is what the Apostle finally explains. Yet here he does not yet bring forward the patriarch as an example. First he refutes circumcision by other arguments, and leaves the patriarch for what follows, when he speaks about faith, saying: “How then was Abraham’s faith reckoned to him? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised?” (Rom 4:10).

For now the Apostle sets circumcision against Gentile uncircumcision. He does not wish to say anything more, lest it be too offensive to the Jew. But when he considers circumcision in relation to faith, then he attacks it more strongly. Certainly, while the contrast of circumcision with uncircumcision is being proposed, the Apostle speaks mildly and says: “For circumcision is profitable if you keep the law. But if you are a transgressor of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.”

Here the Apostle speaks of two circumcisions and two uncircumcisions, just as he also admits two laws. There is a natural law, and there is a written law. Yet there is also a middle law between the two, the law from works. See how the Apostle shows and reveals all three laws. He says: “For when the Gentiles, who do not have the law.” What law, tell me? The written law. “Do by nature the things of the law.” According to what law? According to the law shown in deeds. “These, not having the law.” What law? The written law. “Are a law to themselves.” How so? By using the natural law. “They show the work of the law.” What law? The law of works (Rom 2:14-15).

One law, the law in letters, is external. Another, given by nature, is internal. The third is revealed in deeds. Letters communicate the first; nature communicates the second; deeds communicate the third. This third law is precisely what is needed. For its sake the first two were given, both the natural and the written. If it does not exist, there is no benefit from the others; indeed, from them comes the greatest harm. This is exactly what the Apostle proves when he speaks about the natural law: “For in whatever you judge another, you condemn yourself” (Rom 2:1). He also proves it concerning the written law: “You who preach that one should not steal, do you steal?” (Rom 2:21).

Likewise there are two uncircumcisions, one natural and the other moral. One circumcision is performed upon the flesh, while the other depends on the will. For example, I say that someone was circumcised on the eighth day. This is fleshly circumcision. But when I say that someone has fulfilled all that is ordained, this is circumcision of the heart, which Paul especially requires, or rather the law itself requires it.

Therefore you see how the Apostle, having admitted circumcision in words, abolishes it in deed. He did not say that circumcision is superfluous, useless, or unfit. What exactly does he say? “For circumcision is profitable if you keep the law.” For the moment he has accepted circumcision, saying: I agree, I do not dispute that circumcision is a good thing. But when? When you also keep the law. “But if you are a transgressor of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.” Here too he did not say, “It no longer brings benefit,” lest they think he is abolishing circumcision. Rather, after first freeing the Jew from circumcision, he then strikes him. Now the reproach falls not on circumcision, but on the one who has lost it through negligence. Judges first deprive of their official distinction those who hold ranks and are then convicted of the gravest crimes. Only afterward do they punish them. So also Paul acted with the Jew.

Bodily uncircumcision is when someone remains uncircumcised in the flesh. Spiritual uncircumcision is when someone has a pagan soul and does not cut off the passions at all.

Paul's thought is this. If you are circumcised in the flesh but do not fulfill the ordinances, you are still uncircumcised, uncircumcised in spirit.

Likewise, he who is uncircumcised in the flesh but fulfills the ordinances is circumcised in spirit, because the passions of the flesh have been removed from him.

He explains this further. Listen.

Here, however, he means circumcision within Judaism itself.

The Apostle wants to say that, if even in Judaism circumcision had meaning only with fulfillment of the law, then in Christianity it has no meaning at all.

For in Christianity justification is attained by other means.

So also an uncircumcised pagan may be better in life than a Jew. Therefore he may deserve praise from God, like good Jews who correspond to their calling and election.

Such men are true Israelites in the spirit of faith and life.

Having shown earlier what the Hebrews were like, the Apostle Paul now indicates what they ought to be like in order to be worthy of the Kingdom of God.

They must acquire "circumcision in the heart." According to Bishop Theophan, "a circumcised heart is a pure and blameless heart, free from everything sinful and filled with holy feelings and dispositions."

But who can have such a heart outside Christianity?

Thus the Apostle Paul disposes both pagans and Jews alike to accept the Gospel teaching. He first shows the insufficiency of their moral and religious state.

Then he shows their great responsibility for it before God.

Circumcision, he says as it were, certainly has value, but not absolutely. It is profitable if you fulfill the law. But if you transgress the law, then regard it as though circumcision had never been. You have destroyed its meaning by transgressing the law and have become as one uncircumcised. What law is meant here by the holy Apostle? In the Apostle two sides are set forth here. One is circumcision, and we must suppose all that is joined with it: Sabbaths, feasts, sacrifices, washings, the whole external religious order, and the whole external rite of the pious Jew. The other is fulfillment of the law. Therefore one must acknowledge that by law here is meant the inner moral and religious order of the pious Jew that corresponds to the external order. This means the fear of God, and under it all the feelings, dispositions, and deeds required by righteousness and love.

For the Jew the whole external rite was also law, but it was not the chief thing. The religious order among the Jews was such as to lead from the external to the internal. The external had value, but if the internal was not being formed beneath it, it lost its value. Circumcision also had value. Yet if the circumcised man did not see in it the obligation to circumcise his own heart also, and did not circumcise it, then circumcision lost its value.

Blessed Theophylact writes: “The Apostle understands two circumcisions and two uncircumcisions, one outward and the other inward. The outward circumcision is circumcision of the flesh, when someone is circumcised according to the flesh. Spiritual circumcision consists in the rejection of fleshly passions. Fleshly uncircumcision occurs when someone remains uncircumcised according to the flesh. Spiritual uncircumcision occurs when someone has a pagan soul and in no way cuts off the passions. Paul’s meaning is this: if you are circumcised according to the flesh but do not fulfill what has been ordained, you are still uncircumcised, uncircumcised in spirit. Likewise, he who is not circumcised according to the flesh but fulfills what has been ordained is circumcised in spirit, because the fleshly passions have been taken away from him.”

Blessed Theodoret writes the same: “The Apostle here proves that circumcision of the flesh is superfluous when there is no circumcision of the soul, because the former was given for the sake of the latter. If the latter is absent, the former is useless, because it has the meaning of a seal. Where we keep gold, silver, precious stones, or costly garments, there we usually apply seals. But when nothing is placed inside, the application of seals is superfluous.”

For the Jew, hearing a reproach about uncircumcision of the heart was nothing new. He had often heard it before from the Prophets. Thus the prophet Jeremiah says: “All the nations are uncircumcised in the flesh, but the whole house of Israel is uncircumcised in heart.” He then adds: “Circumcise the hardness of your heart” (cf. Jer 9:26; Jer 4:4). The Apostle is plainly imitating the prophetic word; see blessed Theodoret.

Observe the skill of Saint Paul. He did not begin by attacking circumcision at once. He placed its significance under a condition. By showing that the Jew did not fulfill this condition, he thereby disposed him to confess that his circumcision served no purpose. “Thus you see how the Apostle, while admitting circumcision in words, abolishes it in deed. He did not say that it is superfluous, useless, or serves no purpose. What does he say? ‘Circumcision is profitable.’ I agree, I do not dispute that circumcision is a good thing. But when? When you keep the law. ‘But if you are a transgressor of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.’ Here too he did not say that it is useless, lest they think he is disparaging circumcision. On the contrary, he first proved that the Jew does not have spiritual circumcision, and only then strikes at his fleshly circumcision. Now the reproach falls not on circumcision, but on the one who has lost it through negligence. When an official is convicted of serious crimes, the judges first remove the marks of office, and only then punish him. So Paul acts with the Jew. Having said, ‘But if you are a transgressor of the law,’ he added, ‘your circumcision has become uncircumcision.’ Once he has proved that he is uncircumcised, he fearlessly pronounces judgment on him” (Chrysostom).