ACC ~ Romans 2 v25

CIRCUMCISION OF THE HEART. ORIGEN: 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. COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

CIRCUMCISION AND LAW. CHRYSOSTOM: Paul accepts the value of circumcision in theory but abolishes it in practice. For circumcision is only useful if the person circumcised keeps the law.. . . But a circumcised person who breaks the law is really uncircumcised, and Paul condemns him without hesitation. HOMILIES ON ROMANS 6.

THE VALUE OF CIRCUMCISION. AMBROSIASTER: An opponent might say: “If circumcision is of value, why was it stopped?” It is only of value if you keep the law. Circumcision may be retained therefore, but if it is to be of any value the law must be observed. So why did Paul prohibit what he shows to be of value if the law is observed?

Paul answers by saying that if the law is not kept, the Jew effectively becomes a Gentile. … But to keep the law is to believe in Christ, who was promised to Abraham. Those who are justified by faith have their own merit and are included in the honor shown to the patriarchs. For every mention of salvation in the law refers to Christ. Therefore the man who believes in Christ is the man who keeps the law. But if he does not believe then he is a transgressor of the law because he has not accepted Christ … and it is no advantage for him to be called a son of Abraham. COMMENTARY ON PAUL’S EPISTLES.

NEITHER JEW NOR GENTILE FORCED INTO THE PRACTICE OF THE OTHER. AUGUSTINE: The apostle did not say this as if he favored forcing either the Gentiles to remain uncircumcised or the Jews not to adhere to the traditions of their fathers. Rather, he urged that neither group should be forced into the practice of the other but that each person should have the right, not the obligation, to adhere to his own custom. LYING 5.8.

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

Rom