Romans 2:13 For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

In the same chapter, it is written..

Romans 2:25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

How can Paul make the statement when circumcision itself is a law?

  • 1
    Welcome. Unfortunately, this question, as written, isn't a good fit for this site, because what is clear to some won't be clear to others. Perhaps you are asking for the biblical basis against universal male circumcision, which is a question that has already been asked here: Why is circumcision not a requirement for Christians? When you get a chance, I hope you'll take a minute to take the tour and learn how this site is different from others. Jun 22, 2016 at 11:37
  • What might be the God's plan to give circumcision to the males ? Why on 8th day the child is born ?
    – afelixj
    Jun 22, 2016 at 11:50

1 Answer 1


Circumcision is not just a law, it was a sign of the covenant between the Lord and Abraham and his descendants. Yes, circumcision was reaffirmed and included in the law given to Moses, but this covenant was given to the children of Israel. When you talk about what applies to all males, under the new covenant that is open to all people who put their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, there is no requirement for males to be circumcised. This was made explicit at the Council of Jerusalem where this exact issue was considered - should the Gentiles be required to be circumcised - and it was determined, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, that this should not be a requirement (cf. Acts 15 for the background story in scripture). The key passage that answers your question is:

28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.


It is from the preceding context that we understand that the imposition of circumcision was the issue under consideration.

Around the time of the council (some scholars believe a few years prior, some in the same year, some a few years afterwards), while this was still a live (ie not yet settled) issue, the Apostle Paul wrote an epistle to (the gentile) believers in the province of Galatia where he had helped found the churches there. He was adamant that those who were requiring the new Gentile believers to be circumcised were in error and were leading the new converts astray. Reading the whole epistle is worthwhile to understand the context as this is the primary issue he was seeking to address, but perhaps the clearest verses he gives in opposition to the idea of the (male) gentiles being circumcised are:

1 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love. - Galatians 5:1-6 NIV [emphasis added])

It should be noted that this is applicable to gentiles, and if anything the indication for Jewish believers is the other way - "Each person should remain in the situation they were in when God called them" (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:17-20).


Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .