Romans 2:25

2:25 For circumcision ¹  has its value if you practice the law, but ²  if you break the law, ³  your circumcision has become uncircumcision.

Romans 7:1-2

The Believer’s Relationship to the Law

7:1 Or do you not know, brothers and sisters ⁴  (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law is lord over a person ⁵  as long as he lives? 7:2 For a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives, but if her ⁶  husband dies, she is released from the law of the marriage. ⁷ 

Romans 8:2

8:2 For the law of the life-giving Spirit ⁸  in Christ Jesus has set you ⁹  free from the law of sin and death.

[2:25]  ¹ sn Circumcision refers to male circumcision as prescribed in the OT, which was given as a covenant to Abraham in Gen 17:10-14. Its importance for Judaism can hardly be overstated: According to J. D. G. Dunn (Romans [WBC], 1:120) it was the “single clearest distinguishing feature of the covenant people.” J. Marcus has suggested that the terms used for circumcision (περιτομή, peritomh) and uncircumcision (ἀκροβυστία, akrobustia) were probably derogatory slogans used by Jews and Gentiles to describe their opponents (“The Circumcision and the Uncircumcision in Rome,” NTS 35 [1989]: 77-80).

[2:25]  ² tn This contrast is clearer and stronger in Greek than can be easily expressed in English.

[2:25]  ³ tn Grk “if you should be a transgressor of the law.”

[7:1]  ⁴ tn Grk “brothers.” See note on the phrase “brothers and sisters” in 1:13.

[7:1]  ⁵ sn Here person refers to a human being.

[7:2]  ⁷ tn Grk “the,” with the article used as a possessive pronoun (ExSyn 215).

[7:2]  ⁸ tn Grk “husband.”

[8:2]  ¹⁰ tn Grk “for the law of the Spirit of life.”

[8:2]  ¹¹ tc Most mss read the first person singular pronoun με (me) here (A D 1739^c 1881 Ï lat sa). The second person singular pronoun σε (se) is superior because of external support (א B {F which reads σαι} G 1506* 1739*) and internal support (it is the harder reading since ch. 7 was narrated in the first person). At the same time, it could have arisen via dittography from the final syllable of the verb preceding it (ἠλευθέρωσεν, hleuqerwsen; “has set free”). But for this to happen in such early and diverse witnesses is unlikely, especially as it depends on various scribes repeatedly overlooking either the nu or the nu-bar at the end of the verb.