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

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

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

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.

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.