How then was it credited to him? Was he circumcised at the time, or not? No, he was not circumcised but uncircumcised!

For circumcision has its value if you practice the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.

And he is also the father of the circumcised, who are not only circumcised, but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham possessed when he was still uncircumcised.

Therefore what advantage does the Jew have, or what is the value of circumcision?

Therefore if the uncircumcised man obeys the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?

And will not the physically uncircumcised man who keeps the law judge you who, despite the written code and circumcision, transgress the law?

For a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision something that is outward in the flesh,

Since God is one, he will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.

For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the circumcised on behalf of God’s truth to confirm the promises made to the fathers,

but someone is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is of the heart by the Spirit and not by the written code. This person’s praise is not from people but from God.

Is this blessedness then for the circumcision or also for the uncircumcision? For we say, “faith was credited to Abraham as righteousness.”

And he received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised, so that he would become the father of all those who believe but have never been circumcised, that they too could have righteousness credited to them.