Romans 2:26

‘If therefore the uncircumcision keep the ordinances of the law, will not his uncircumcision be reckoned for circumcision?'

This then leads on to a more startling claim by Paul, and that is that if the uncircumcision keep the ordinance of the Law, then his uncircumcision will be reckoned as circumcision. This may have had in mind the God-fearers, those Gentiles who had thrown in their lot with Judaism but did not want to be circumcised. Many of them were more dedicated to the covenant than circumcised Jews. Paul may be saying that if their hearts are right, and they are wholly committed to the covenant, it does not matter whether they are circumcised or not.

This would not be to say that they could be saved in that way once they had truly heard the Gospel, only that during the transitional period when men had not heard the Gospel, salvation in that way was a possibility. It would then make Paul's statement meaningful, and at the same time illustrate the invalidity of circumcision without obedience.

On the other hand we may well see Paul as postulating a theoretical case as he has before, simply on the basis of logic, in order to illustrate the irrelevance of circumcision unless accompanied by full obedience to the covenant. His point would then be that a theoretical Gentile might observe the whole Law (although in practise that was impossible) and thus be reckoned as circumcised even though he was uncircumcised. He is not really demonstrating how an uncircumcised man can be acceptable to God, but simply demonstrating that circumcision of itself means nothing in such a situation. This would have come as a terrible shock to many Jews who placed great reliance on circumcision.