To what does the term “spirit” refer?

Explanation:

In Romans 2:29, Paul says true circumcision is by the Spirit, not by the letter. He says something similar in two other passages where the context clearly indicates that spirit refers to the Holy Spirit.⁵ First, in Romans 7:6, Paul explains that by dying to sin, we are released from the law that bound us, so we can serve in the new way of the Spirit, not the old way of the written code. Similarly, in 2 Corinthians 3:5–6, Paul writes that our competence comes from God, who has made us competent minsters, not by the letter but by the Spirit that gives life. Clearly, in both Romans 7:6 and 2 Corinthians 3:6, when Paul refers to the spirit he has in mind the Holy Spirit. Given that in all three passages Paul contrasts the letter and the Spirit, we can detect that in Romans 2:29, spirit refers to the Holy Spirit. 

Counterargument:

It is not totally clear that Paul refers to the Holy Spirit in either Romans 7:6 or 2 Corinthians 3:6. It is also possible that in both passages he refers to one’s attitude toward the law. That is, in Romans 7:6 when Paul says we die to sin so that we can serve in the new way of the spirit rather than the old way of the law, he seems to have in mind that when we die to sin, our attitude toward the law changes. That is, while we used to consider the literal letter of the law, such an attitude merely results in external acts of obedience. But when we put away sin, we treat the law with a new spiritual attitude, which has to do with love for God from the heart. Likewise, in 2 Corinthians 3:6, Paul says that we are competent ministers, not by the letter but by the spirit. In other words, by treating the law from a spiritual perspective, we are competent ministers before God.

Now, when we apply this understanding of Paul to Romans 2:29, we can see that Paul says something similar. That is, he says that true circumcision has to do with one’s spiritual attitude toward the law, not concerns over external signs such as circumcision.

Response to counterargument:

The problem here is that this argument does not consider the broad context of Romans 7:6, or the immediate context of 2 Corinthians 3:5–6. First, the broad context of Romans 7:6 reveals that indeed, Paul contrasts the Mosaic law with the power of the Holy Spirit. For after contrasting the law with the Spirit, Paul explains that although the law is good, he is bound by his sinful nature to sin (Romans 7:14–25). Still, he explains, those who are in Christ are not subject to condemnation, for through Christ the law of the Spirit who gives life has set us free from the law of death (Romans 8:1–2). Of course, if the Spirit gives life, then the Spirit is not one’s attitude toward the law but the Holy Spirit.

Likewise, from the immediate context of 2 Corinthians 3:5–6 we can see that Paul has a similar idea in mind. In 2 Corinthians 3:5 he says that our competence comes from God. In other words, it is not our attitude but God himself who is the source of our competence. Then in 2 Corinthians 3:6 he writes that the Spirit gives life. In other words, it is not our attitude toward the law, but the Holy Spirit who gives life, as the one who makes us competent ministers.

If Paul has in mind the contrast between the Mosaic law and the Holy Spirit in Romans 7:6 and 2 Corinthians 3:6, given the similarities between these and Romans 2:29, then in Romans 2:29 Paul also has the Mosaic law and the Holy Spirit in mind.

Explanation:

We know from the Old Testament that although the Israelites often fell short of God’s commands, he promised a new era where he would empower his people by the Holy Spirit. For example, Leviticus 26:40–42 says that the Israelites rebelled against God, so God sent them to their enemies. Still, if they turn from their uncircumcised hearts, God would again accept them. Likewise, in Deuteronomy 10:16, God commands the Israelites to circumcise their hearts. And in Jeremiah 4:4 Israel is told to circumcise their hearts.⁶

Now, we notice that in Romans 2:29, when Paul refers to the spirit, the context has to do with circumcising the heart. In particular, Paul writes that circumcision is of the heart by the Spirit, not the written code. Given the similarities between this statement from Paul, and the Old Testament command to circumcise the heart, we can detect what Paul means. He means that true circumcision is of the heart by the power of the Holy Spirit, just as was taught in the Old Testament. ⁷

Counterargument:

The Old Testament passages used to support this argument do not say anything about the Holy Spirit. Rather, they emphasize the fact that God desires people with a circumcised heart. In other words, God desires people whose attitude toward him is not one of wooden literalism concerning the outward realities of the law, but he desires people with a spiritual attitude of affection and love for God. Of course, if the Old Testament passages have to do with a person’s attitude toward God and not the Holy Spirit, then these passages do not support the notion that Paul has the Holy Spirit in mind.

Response to counterargument:

This counterargument is relevant and fair. For we ought to combine the fact that God desires a circumcised heart with the fact that, in the Old Testament, God also promised to send his Spirit to circumcise the heart. For example, in Joel 2:28–29 we read that God would pour out his Spirit on all people. And the New Testament authors tell us that this prophecy is fulfilled after the ascension of Christ (Acts 2:16–18). Likewise, Isaiah 44:4 notes that God would pour his Spirit on Israel. Finally, in Ezekiel 36:26–27, God promises that he would his people a new heart by putting his Spirit in them.⁸ So we can detect both that God desires a circumcised heart and that he promises the give his Spirit to enable this circumcised heart.

The weakness of this view is that Paul seems to be discussing generalities in this introductory section of his letter. That is, later he will broach topics such as the Holy Spirit, but for now he seems to be working toward such topics through introductory remarks. As such, an appropriate introductory remark based on the context is that God desires a circumcised heart. That God desires a circumcised heart is clear from the text. But whether Paul also means to point out at this point that the circumcised heart is caused by the Holy Spirit is not as clear.

Explanation:

To understand what spirit refers to, we need to consider the immediate context of Romans 2:29. Paul is explaining that the outward sign of circumcision is not what makes one Jewish (Romans 2:28). Rather, he explains that a Jew is one inwardly (Romans 2:29a) and that circumcision is a matter of the heart by the spirit. Given that Paul says Jewishness is an inward matter, we can detect what he means. For we know that the spirit of a human has to do with a human’s inward life. So, likely Paul is saying that circumcision is a matter of the heart, in spirit. That is, the important aspect of the law is not one’s strict adherence to external regulations, but one’s inward attitude toward the spirit of the law.⁹

Counterargument:

While it is important to consider the immediate context, we must also understand an author in the broader context. When we do so, it is hard to see why Paul would say that true circumcision is a matter of one’s inner spirit. He says in Romans 2:25 that circumcision is of value if one obeys the law, and in Romans 3:23 he will say all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. So while circumcision is valuable if one can obey the law, no one can obey the law. Of course, by the time we reach Romans 7:6, Paul will explain that through faith in Christ we are no longer bound by the law but live a new life by the Spirit. Putting these points together, we can see that Paul would not emphasize the point that circumcision has to do with one’s inner attitude toward the law, for no one is able to keep the law. Further, we are no longer bound to the law through faith in Jesus Christ. Thus, with consideration of Paul’s other writings, he would not encourage a new attitude toward the law, but would encourage the new life in the Spirit.

Explanation:

Paul says that circumcision is a matter of the heart in spirit. The grammar suggests that in spirit refers to the Holy Spirit. We can deduce this because the only alternative is that Paul refers to the Holy Spirit, but it does make sense to say that circumcision is a matter of the heart by the Holy Spirit. For what does it mean that circumcision is by the Holy Spirit? Such a phrase does not carry any obvious meaning. Still, a sensible way to take Romans 2:29 is that in spirit refers to the human spirit. In that case, Paul is saying circumcision is a matter of the heart, in spirit, not the letter. That is, circumcision has to do with one’s inner attitude. That makes good grammatical sense.

Counterargument:

According to this argument, since it does not make grammatical sense for Paul to say that circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Holy Spirit, he must have in mind the human spirit. The problem is that it does make grammatical sense for Paul to say that circumcision is a matter of the heart by the Holy Spirit. In particular, Paul is saying that circumcision has to do with a circumcision of the heart, brought about by the power of the Holy Spirit.

The weakness of this view is that it overlooks that Paul is making important theological assertions throughout Romans. That is, he is articulating the fulfillment of time in Jesus Christ, which has to do with the ushering in of the new covenant era. The new covenant era has to do with a circumcised heart by the power of the Holy Spirit, as Paul will explain in more detail. Since Paul will explain these doctrines in more detail, it makes sense that he would introduce themes such as a circumcised heart by the Holy Spirit in this section.