# 10: 10-7-11

Romans 2:25-29
Paul has been laying out his case against the unbelieving Jew to show that they, too, are under the wrath of
God; just like the Gentiles. The way that Paul designs his argument is as if he is talking to a Jew, who is
raising objections to the idea that he and the Gentile will be judged on the same basis. These objections,
which Paul refutes, encompass typical Jewish thinking of the day.
First, the Jews thought that as members of the nation that God made for Himself, Israel was favored above
other nations, and would therefore be spared from Gods judgment or at least, His judgment on them
would be mitigated. But Paul showed that this would violate Gods absolute justice and His impartiality
toward all men intrinsic aspects of the character of God.
Last week, we learned about the second objection that the Jew would tend to raise: that, since God had
distinguished Israel by giving them the Law of Moses, simply intending to keep it, or keeping it to some
extent, would satisfy God concerning the Jew.
But Paul indicated that in fact, the Jew would be judged by the Law: the Law would testify against him in
the day of judgment.
In that day, all of the secrets of his heart would be revealed all of those unrighteous motives, behind his
seeming compliance to the Law. And as the Jew continued to practice his rites and rituals, he was at the
same time practicing sin although in a more subtle fashion than the Gentiles, for he did so under the mask
of a religious faade.
The Jew was no less than a hypocrite, one who did not practice what he preached; and even the Gentiles
knew it to be true, resulting in the tarnishing of Gods reputation among them for the Jew possessed the
Law of God, yet he did not keep it.
Paul will conclude his argument with the final key objection that a Jew would make: that the fact that he is
circumcised means that he is one of Gods covenant people, and on that basis, God will save him.
The fact that many Jews believed this to be true is supported by some expressions of the day, such as No
circumcised Jewish man will see hell and Circumcision saves us from hell. The Midrash, which is a
rabbinic commentary on the OT, includes the statement, God swore to Abraham that no one who was
circumcised would be sent to hell. Abraham sits before the gate of hell and never allows any circumcised
Israelite to enter.
So the Jew believed that circumcision would protect him from Gods judgment, despite his sin. This is the
objection of the Jew which Paul is implying by his answer, which we find begins in verse 25. Lets read it
together.
[Romans 2:25-29]
In a word, Paul, is saying, no; your circumcision will not shield you from Gods righteous judgment.
Lets see how he makes his argument, to the Jew.
In order to understand Pauls argument, it is essential to keep in mind that Paul is speaking theoretically, in
verses 25-27. He is speaking of a man who practices the Law perfectly; who doesnt violate even one of its
righteous requirements; who completely fulfills the Law.

# 10: 10-7-11

We encountered this last week, in Pauls argument concerning the Law of Moses, back in verse 13. Paul
said there, for not the hearers of the Law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the Law will be
justified.
I just want to remind you of what Pauls meaning is. He is saying that, in theory, a man could be justified
by the Law, IF he could keep it perfectly. After all, the Law is the revealed will of God; the idea is if a man
could do the Law perfectly, and never break it, God could accept him.
Is Paul advocating justification through works? No; as mentioned last week, in the very next chapter, Paul
will say, by the deeds of the Law no flesh will be justified in His [Gods] sight (Rm 3:20). But Paul is
using the theory of justification by works to demonstrate that circumcision does not shield the Jew from
judgment for his sin.
Were going to be learning about circumcision in greater detail when we come to Pauls discussion of
Abraham in chapter 4, so for now, we will just do a little overview, and consider the elements that pertain to
Pauls argument here.
First of all, what is circumcision? It is simply the cutting away of the foreskin of the male reproductive
organ. Circumcision was given by God to Abraham as a sign of His covenant, that He made with Abraham
(Gen 17:10-11) the everlasting covenant the covenant for everlasting Life, based on the Coming Christ
(Is 42:6).
How was circumcision a sign of the everlasting covenant? Because it is a picture of death. The cutting off
of the foreskin, the covering of the male organ, represents that the body of flesh, mankinds covering, must
be cut off in death for it is corrupt. This body is dead; to cut off the foreskin is to show ones agreement
with God concerning that in symbol form.
But circumcision is also a picture of life. It is the covering of the reproductive organ that is cut away the
source of the seed of life. This points to the work of God in Christ, the Seed Grain (Jn 12:24), who through
His death, brought forth Life everlasting for all mankind.
Through faith, the incorruptible seed of His Life (1 Pet 1:23) is planted in a mans heart through the Holy
Spirit, to one day bring forth a body of glory. So circumcision shows the way that a man can live forever;
he must come through death.
Did the Jews understand what circumcision, the sign of the covenant, meant? They could have. How do
we know that? Because it is not Gods way to leave people in the dark. God is light; in Him is no darkness
at all (1 Jn 1:5). What good would a sign be, if no one knew what it meant?
The OT is filled with pictures of the Coming Christ. The Holy Spirit is willing to reveal to any man the
meaning of these pictures, so that he will have understanding. God gave the pattern for the tabernacle, the
priestly service, the sacrifices the ceremonial Law. The book of Hebrews is a testimony to the fact that
the Jews could understand the meaning of their ceremonial Law; it pictured their Messiah to them.
But what about circumcision, specifically? We have the record of a very prominent Jew that shows the
meaning of circumcision could be understood. Turn to Colossians chapter 2.
Paul was writing to this assembly to strengthen their understanding of the person and the work of Christ. In
chapter 2, Paul makes it plain that Christ, who came in a body of flesh, and was raised from death in a body
of glory, is still fully God in Him dwells the fullness of the Godhead bodily (Col 2:9).

# 10: 10-7-11

And those who are in Christ are complete in Him members of His Body, complete in the Head. Paul then
introduces the idea that the one who believes into Christ is circumcised in Him by the circumcision of
Christ.
[Colossians 2:11-12] First, let me mention that in verse 11, the words of the sins are omitted from the
oldest manuscripts. That omission is likely to be correct, as Paul is simply speaking about the body being
dead, buried and raised (v.12).
So verse 11 would read, In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by
putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ.
What does Paul mean by the circumcision made without hands? He means a circumcision that is not
done by men; therefore, this is not the physical act of circumcision. If it isnt done by men, who is it done
by? By God; this is the circumcision of Christ. In physical circumcision, the foreskin is cut off; but in the
circumcision of Christ, it is the body of flesh which is cut off.
In verse 12, we see that Paul equates this circumcision of Christ to baptism; not referring to the physical
acts of circumcision and baptism, but to their spiritual significance. In equating them, we understand that
they both signify the same thing. And what is that? That everlasting Life, in the glorified body, comes out
of the death of the body of flesh.
In believing into Christ, we are baptized into His death, buried with Him, and then raised up as a new
creation, in union with Him; in Christ. This is the same picture as circumcision; the body of flesh must be
put off by faith, in order for the Life of Christ to reproduce in us the glorified body. And, as Paul says at
the end of verse 12, it is all accomplished through faith in the working of God; God does all the doing, in
Christ.
So we see that Paul understood the significance of circumcision. And likewise, Abraham would certainly
have understood it, as the one to whom God gave the sign of circumcision; the LORD would have revealed
the meaning to him, for it was a seal of the righteousness of Abrahams faith (Rm 4:11). And of course,
Abraham would have taught it to his household after him.
But in time, the nation of Israel, collectively, reduced circumcision, as they did all of the ceremonial Law,
to a meaningless ritual.
And they came to view the doing of circumcision as the keeping of Gods covenant instead of believing
into what the sign of circumcision means showing that they must be united to Christ in His death, in order
to be saved.
And since God had given their father, Abraham, this sign of His covenant, they assumed that, by being
physically circumcised, they would come into Gods covenant blessings through which they further
assumed they would automatically be preserved from Gods judgment, and come into Gods kingdom.
Before you think to yourself, How could they possibly believe that? remember that many professing
Christians think the same thing about water baptism.
So now lets return to verse 25 in our passage in Romans.

# 10: 10-7-11

v. 25 Now, what do you think Paul means when he says that circumcision is indeed profitable? You may
think, Circumcision would be profitable, if you knew what it meant, and believed into Christ, based on
that. But this is not what Paul is saying.
Notice how he finishes the thought: IF you keep the Law. Paul is not talking about the meaning of
circumcision here, but physical circumcision, which a Jew thought would be profitable for him.
How did the Jew think physical circumcision would help him? He thought it would save him; he thought
circumcision would shield him from judgment. But Paul says, ONLY if you keep the Law.
Now, on what basis does Paul make this statement? On the basis that physical circumcision became
incorporated into the Law of Moses, when it was given some 430 years later (Lev 12:3). And circumcision
came to be regarded as an induction ceremony into Judaism and the keeping of the Law, by the religious
Jews.
Paul had already written to the beguiled Galatian assemblies, And I testify again to every man who
becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole Law (Gal 5:3).
Pauls point is that if a man is attempting to justify himself before God through circumcision, he must keep
every additional aspect of the Law of Moses. That is the standard the raised bar that must be cleared if
a man is to vault himself into heaven through his own good works. And that bar is impossibly high!
Paul is saying that circumcision is profitable to keep the Jew from judgment, if he keeps the whole Law.
Here is Pauls theoretical justification by the works of the Law. So, the Jew must ask; what happens then if
a circumcised man doesnt keep the whole Law? Hes wondering if circumcision might at least spare him
from the fullness of Gods wrath. But Paul indicates it will not. Anyone who doesnt keep the Law is a
lawbreaker.
When Paul says that the Jews circumcision has become uncircumcision, he means that God views him as
no different than an uncircumcised Gentile. In other words, the Jew who breaks the Law will be judged
just as severely as a Gentile sinner would. God will render his unmitigated judgment to both.
This would have been most disturbing for Pauls Jewish readers. Yet they could not deny what Paul said;
circumcision was part of the Law; and how could a perfectly righteous and holy God accept anyone who
didnt keep His Law perfectly? Instead of circumcision allowing the Jew to enter into the covenant
blessings of God, he found himself incurring the condemnation of God.
In chapter 3, Paul will show that there is profit in being a Jew and in circumcision because the Jews were
given the truth through circumcision and through the Law; and if they believed the truth, they would be
saved. In that passage, we will see that Paul is pointing to the meaning behind the sign of circumcision and
the ceremonial Law, which would lead them to Christ (Gal 3:24).
Now if the Jew listening to Pauls letter found what he said disturbing, they would be completely shocked
by what he says next.
v. 26-27 Paul is continuing with his theoretical argument, of a man who perfectly keeps the Law. From
verse 25, if a Jew breaks the Law, he will be judged no differently than a Gentile. But now Paul speaks of a
man who is physically uncircumcised. Who would that be? A Gentile.

# 10: 10-7-11

Remember back in verse 14 we learned that all men have a knowledge of Gods righteous requirements,
written in their hearts; they are a law to themselves. Theoretically, if some Gentile was able to keep that
law, God would count him as circumcised.
The word counted in the Greek is also translated imputed or reckoned. We will see this word several
times, in Romans. It refers to the action of putting something to someones account. Here God is putting
circumcision on the Gentiles account, based on his obedience to the law.
So what is Paul saying here? Remember that circumcision became the distinguishing mark of those who
were members of the nation of Israel; that was the nation that God had made for Himself; His people.
The idea, then, is that if a Gentile were to perfectly keep the law, he would be regarded by God as one of
His own people; God would accept him. Of course, this is all in theory; the Gentile couldnt keep the law
written in his heart any more than the Jew could keep the Law of Moses.
But what an upsetting theory to the Jew! That the uncircumcised Gentiles would be regarded as one of
Gods people? The Jews had the mark of circumcision in their flesh; the very sign of Gods covenant.
Based on that, they thought themselves to be superior to the Gentiles; the favorites of God; and certainly,
the recipients of His covenant blessings. That the uncircumcised Gentiles could partake of that, if they kept
the law? Unthinkable!
But Paul goes even further. Not only would God consider the Gentile as one of His people; the
uncircumcised Gentile, if he could keep the law, would stand in judgment over the circumcised Jew, who
breaks the Law. Thats what written code is referring to, in verse 27 another way of saying the Law of
Moses. It is literally letter the Law, written down.
The idea here is that the Gentiles righteousness would be used as accusatory evidence against the
unrighteousness Jew, in his judgment. This is just the opposite of what a Jew would think. Jewish tradition
naturally cast Jews in the role of the righteous and the Gentiles in that of the unrighteous. Pauls reversal of
these roles would stun his Jewish listeners.
And yet, Jesus had established just this, with His own words. Turn to Matthew chapter 12. The Pharisees
were attempting to disparage Jesus before the people, to paint Him as a lawbreaker, and even as an agent of
the devil. But Jesus showed Himself to be blameless of their charges, and warns them of the condemnation
that they are heading for.
Meanwhile, they ask Jesus to show them a sign to prove that He is from God. Now, Jesus has done sign
after sign all of the wonderful works, that His Father gave Him to do. This is how Jesus responds to
them.
[Matthew 12:38-42]
v. 38-40 Jesus calls this generation of the nation Israel evil that of which God cannot approve, and
therefore cannot accept. And He says they are adulterous; that is, they are faithless to Jehovah. Only one
sign more will be given them for they would not receive the signs that Jesus was already doing.
And what was that sign? The sign of Jonah. The death, burial and resurrection of Jesus will be the final,
and ultimate sign that He is the Anointed Son of God; His resurrection will demonstrate the Fathers
approval of Him.

# 10: 10-7-11

v. 41-42 Jesus is saying that this generation of Israel will be condemned by others. Who will condemn
them? First, He mentions the men of Nineveh thats the capital city of Assyria, an enemy of Israel. When
Jonah preached to them, they repented, and turned to the LORD God and He spared them.
And then Jesus names the queen of the South. That was the queen of Sheba, which was in southwestern
Arabia. She came to visit Solomon, and when she saw how the LORD God had blessed him with wisdom
and prosperity, she glorified the LORD for it (1 Ki 10, 2 Chr 9).
Why did Jesus choose these two? Because both the Assyrians and the Shebans were Gentile nations.
These Gentiles gave God the glory He was due; but this generation of Israel would not give Jesus the glory
He was due, as their Messiah, their God. And no generation of Israel has ever given Jesus the glory He is
due; but the remnant will do so, in the regeneration.
So Jesus was showing the Pharisees that the righteous deeds of the Gentiles would bear witness against the
unbelieving Jews, in the judgment just as Paul is saying, in our passage. Lets return there.
[Return to Romans 2]
To sum up Pauls point in his argument, physical circumcision is just a symbol. A symbol has no
significance apart from its meaning.
A good analogy is this wedding ring. It is a symbol of marriage; the union between one man and one
woman. The man and the woman exchange rings, when they get married; a symbol of their faithfulness to
one another.
But if the man or the woman practices adultery, they have violated their marriage. Does their ring mean
anything, for them? No. But that doesnt mean wedding rings cease to have a meaning; their wedding ring
just has no meaning for them.
Sometimes, a man and a woman might wed, without exchanging rings perhaps if theyre poor. But if
theyre faithful to one another, do they have a true marriage, or not? They have a true marriage. Even if
they dont have rings? Of course. Its the reality that counts; not the symbol.
The ring is like physical circumcision. The Jews had it, but if they didnt keep the Law, it meant nothing;
they showed themselves to be unfaithful to Jehovah. They had a ring, but no marriage; thats a disgrace.
But if, in theory, the Gentiles kept the law, they would be counted as the people of God as if they were
circumcised. Like no wedding ring; but married. Its not the symbol, but the reality that counts.
Of course, no one can really keep the Law in practice which is why it is the meaning of circumcision that
matters. It is a sign that points the way to the Father through Christ. But this is not part of Pauls
argument here. This is not about justification by faith; it is about the lack of justification by works.
Now Paul concludes his argument.
v. 28-29 Were going to look first at the parallel ideas in these two verses. You can follow on the back of
your word sheet.
First, we have he is not a Jew who is one outwardly in contrast to he is a Jew who is one inwardly.

# 10: 10-7-11

Second, we have circumcision is not that which is outward in the flesh, in contrast to circumcision is of
the heart.
And last, we have not in the letter in contrast to in the Spirit. Remember that Paul uses the Greek word
letter to mean the written Law; the Law of Moses.
Just as a side note here, this is where our common expression, not the letter of the law, but the spirit of the
law comes from. That expression means that as opposed to obeying exactly what the law says, word for
word, one should obey what it means; it is the intent of the law.
Now, that expression, which has come into contemporary usage, is NEVER what Paul means, when he
speaks of the letter and the Spirit. The letter IS the Law; and the Spirit is the Holy Spirit. Paul is speaking
of the contrast between the written Law, and the inner leading of the Holy Spirit.
So looking back over these two verses, we can see that this is a description of two men. The first might win
the praise of men particularly men like himself. The word outwardly or outward here refers to
appearance or outward show. This is one who shows himself to others to be a Jew; who is concerned with
appearances. This is the religious Jew.
We can find an example of what Paul means in the gospels. Turn to Matthew chapter 23. Jesus gave this
description of the scribes and the Pharisees, just before He pronounced His woes on them.
[Matthew 23:1-7]
v. 1-2 That is to say, they sit in judgment on all the other people.
v. 3 They say, but dont do; theyre hypocrites. This is what it is to be a Jew outwardly, but not inwardly.
It is one who is religious, without being obedient in his heart to God.
v. 4 Jesus is referring to the Law here, a heavy yoke that the Pharisees put on the people, but do not bear at
all themselves.
v. 5-7 Its all for show; what they do, what they wear, where they go, to be seen. And the goal is the praise,
not of God, but of men.
[Return to Romans 2]
The religious Jew takes his stand before God on a three-legged stool; his birth, his circumcision, and his
knowledge of the Law. And on that stool, he thinks he can reach God.
But Pauls argument has knocked that stool out from under the Jew. Paul says that a true Jew is one who is
a Jew, not outwardly, but inwardly; in the inner man.
This is the man who has chosen in his very spirit being to become one of Gods people. He is Abrahams
seed (Gal 3:29), not according to the flesh, but because of his faith (Gal 3:7).
And he has the true circumcision, not of the flesh, but of the heart again, the emphasis is on the inner
man. Physical circumcision is in the letter; it is in accordance with the Law of Moses. But the
circumcision of the heart is in the Spirit; the Holy Spirit. Again, the idea is in the inner man.

# 10: 10-7-11

The LORD does not see as man sees; for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the
heart (1 Sam 16:7). The heart shows the real man; the reality.
The Jews listening to Pauls letter would be completely familiar with the term, circumcision of heart. It is
found in the Pentateuch, as well as the Prophets. Well go back to the book of Deuteronomy to explore its
meaning.
Turn to Deuteronomy chapter 10. Moses has been recounting the history of Israel from their birth as a
nation. It shows the consistent faithfulness of God to that first generation of Israel, but their obstinate
rebellion against Him.
Moses is relating this to the second generation of Israel their children just before they are to enter into
the land of Canaan. He is doing so for their admonition as a warning, that they do not do what their
parents do.
[Deuteronomy 10:11-16]
v. 11-15 The idea in verse 15 is that the LORD chose Israel; He made them, a nation for himself. He loved
their fathers, but they would not submit to Him.
The author to the Hebrews said that the gospel was preached to them this was done through types and
pictures but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard
it (Heb 4:2). And therefore, they could not enter into Gods rest, because of their unbelief (Heb 3:19); their
corpses were scattered in the wilderness (Heb 3:17).
So the LORD chose their children after them, offering to them to be His people, and to enter the land.
v. 16 Therefore, says Moses based on the example of your parents, and what the LORD is now offering
you circumcise the foreskin of your heart, and be stiff-necked no longer.
It is interesting to note that this generation of Israel was not physically circumcised; their parents never
obeyed the LORDs command to do this (Gen 17:12-14) a poignant picture of their rebellion, in general.
But we see that physical circumcision is not the LORDs concern, here.
Instead, the LORD calls this generation to be circumcised of heart; to stop being stiff-necked, as their parents
were. The term stiff-necked comes from agricultural usage for oxen that rebelliously resisted the yoke.
What is it that their parents resisted? They resisted the witness of the Holy Spirit; they refused to believe
His testimony of the Coming One, the Christ.
Their Savior was pictured to them time and again, through the tabernacle and offerings; through the manna,
the water from the rock, to name just a few. The Holy Spirit bore witness to their spirit being as to the
truth; but they refused to see Christ with the eyes of their understanding.
Why? Because they didnt want to; that would mean that they must be yoked up to Him (Mt 11:28-30); to
submit to Him; and they rebelliously resisted that. They remained stiff-necked to the end, until they were
finally broken in death.

# 10: 10-7-11

To this generation, the LORD through Moses was appealing to circumcise their hearts; that is, their inner
man; to receive the witness of the Holy Spirit concerning Christ, so that they can be freed from this
corruption, and put on incorruption (1 Cor 15:42); to submit to God, so that they can truly be His people,
and He can be their God. To believe, and become a son of God.
But generation after generation, the LORD continued to wait for a people who would do this. Then Israels
Messiah came, but the nation would not receive the witness of Jesus, and that of the Holy Spirit (Jn 3:11);
instead, they put Jesus to death.
It was Stephen who later issued Gods indictment against His nation. Turn to Acts chapter 7. As Stephen
was recounting the history of the nation at his defense before the Sanhedrin, he touched upon the subject of
the Jews temple, indicating that the Most High does not dwell in temples made with hands a very touchy
subject, indeed. This set off a violent reaction on the part of the rulers listening to Stephen. This was his
response.
[Acts 7:51-53]
So they continued to resist the witness of the Holy Spirit, as He spoke through Stephen. Their hearts and
ears were uncircumcised; they were unwilling to receive the Spirits testimony of Christ.
Since His nation would not receive Him, the Lord had to set them aside for a time as we will see later in
Pauls letter to the Romans. And meanwhile, the witness of the Holy Spirit went out to the ends of the
earth.
[Return to Romans 2]
So we see that the first man Paul describes in verses 28-29 is the one who is a Jew outwardly; the religious
Jew.
But who is the second man? He is a Jew inwardly; that is, he is the seed of Abraham, through faith; he is
circumcised of heart; he has hearkened to the testimony of the Spirit, and received Christ.
Who is he? He is a Christ One. So here Paul is beginning to introduce the one who does not seek to be
justified through his works, but through faith in Christ. And for his faith, that one is commended by God
God praises him.
Here Paul is playing off of the word Jew remember Jew comes form the word Judah, which means
praise. The true Jew; the one who is a Jew inwardly is to the praise of God.
Turn to Titus chapter 2. Paul wrote this letter to his son in the faith, Titus, who was pastoring an assembly
on the island of Crete.
[Titus 2:11-14] In this age, the true church are the people of God; His own special people having
received the circumcision of heart, to believe. Notice Pauls emphasis on being saved by grace, not by
works it is the grace of God that brings salvation.
But then Paul shows that good works come out of Gods saved people Gods good works, done in
submission to Him. One must first become righteous in the inner man, by being circumcised in the heart,
through faith; then out of that righteous character, righteous works will flow.

# 10: 10-7-11

10

Paul will later write to the church in Philippi, For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit,
rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh (Phil 3:3).
As we continue next week, we will see Paul begin to answer the Jew who would like to suggest that Gods
judgment on him is unfair. No whining!
Next week: Chapter 3; Deut 4:5-8; Psalm 51.