Romans 2:26,27 - Circumcision

2:26

So the circumcised Jew who did not obey the Law might as well not be circumcised. The converse was also true. If a Gentile obeyed the Law, followed its requirements, then he would be treated as if he was circumcised. So we see the difference in thought between that of the “Jew” and that of Paul. The Jew regarded circumcision as valuable in its own right, Paul saw it as a reflection of what was in a man’s heart, so it was only of value if the person was good. Which is the more Biblical? The answer is clearly Paul. From a very early stage God made “circumcision of the heart” the crucial matter (Deut 10:16, 30:6; Lev 26:41; Jer 4:4). There is a human tendency, to which we are all subject, to focus on the outward rather than the inner man. Even as Christians we need to be very careful of this.

2:27

So Paul goes on to say that the Gentile who keeps the Law will condemn the circumcised law-breaker. Now he is not implying that this would actually happen, for no one keeps the Law perfectly, rather he is emphasising that actual obedience is the crucial matter. Note how offensive this would be to the Jew. They considered themselves superior to the Gentiles, so being told the Gentile would condemn them as morally inferior would be a shock to them. Yet, Jesus said the same sort of thing on a number of occasions in the gospels (Matt 11:22-24, 8:5-13).