ἐὰν οὖν ἡ ἀκροβυστία τὰ δικαιώματα τοῦ νόμου φυλάσσῃ, ⸀οὐχ ἡ ἀκροβυστία αὐτοῦ εἰς περιτομὴν λογισθήσεται;

ean oun e akrobustia ta dikaiomata tou nomou phulasse, roukh e akrobustia autou eis peritomen logisthesetai;

si igitur praeputium iustitias legis custodiat nonne praeputium illius in circumcisionem reputabitur

Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?

Therefore if the uncircumcision keeps the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?

Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?

Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?

Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision?

Therefore if the Uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?

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

But if he of the uncircumcision will observe the commandments of The Written Law, behold, is not the uncircumcision accounted for circumcision?

If therefore the uncircumcision keep the requirements of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be reckoned for circumcision,

If, then, the uncircumcised keep the justices of the law, shall not this uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?

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

So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?

So if a man does what Moses' Teachings demand, won't he be considered circumcised even if he is uncircumcised?

Therefore if an uncircumcised man keeps the law's requirements, will his uncircumcision not be counted as circumcision?

So if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the requirements of the Law, his uncircumcision will be regarded as circumcision, won't it?

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

So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?

So then, if those who are not circumcised keep the law's requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised?

And if the Gentiles obey God's law, won't God declare them to be his own people?

Therefore, if the uncircumcision keepeth the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?

In the same way if an uncircumcised man pays attention to the just requirements of the Law, shall not his lack of circumcision be overlooked, and,

If therefore the uncircumcised keep the ordinances of the law, won't his uncircumcision be accounted as circumcision?

But a Gentile may obey what God's Law teaches. Then he has shown that he belongs to God even though nobody has circumcised him.

If, therefore the uncircumcision the righteousness of the law may keep, shall not his uncircumcision for circumcision be reckoned?

If a person who is not a Jew and has not gone through the act of becoming a Jew, obeys the Law, God will think of him as a Jew.

Therefore, if the uncircumcised keep the ordinances of the Law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision?

So if an uncircumcised man abides by God’s just precepts, doesn’t that make his standing before God the same as one who is circumcised?

And if the heathen obey God’s laws, won’t God give them all the rights and honors he planned to give the Jews?

In the same way, if one who is not circumcised keeps the precepts of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?

So if the uncircumcised man observes the righteous requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision?

Therefore if the uncircumcised keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his foreskin be counted for circumcision?

So if an uncircumcised man keeps the law’s requirements, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision?

So if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be credited to him as [equivalent to] circumcision?

People who are not Jews are not circumcised, but if they do what the law says, it is as if they were circumcised.

Circumcision, the surgical ritual that marks you as a Jew, is great if you live in accord with God’s law. But if you don’t, it’s worse than not being circumcised. The reverse is also true: The uncircumcised who keep God’s ways are as good as the circumcised—in fact, better. Better to keep God’s law uncircumcised than break it circumcised. Don’t you see: It’s not the cut of a knife that makes a Jew. You become a Jew by who you are. It’s the mark of God on your heart, not of a knife on your skin, that makes a Jew. And recognition comes from God, not legalistic critics. * * *

So, if an uncircumcised person keeps the righteous requirements of the law, won’t his uncircumcision be credited to him as circumcision?

Therefore if the uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not · his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision?

So, if those who are uncircumcised keep the requirements of the law, will not their uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?

Therefore if the uncircumcised man keeps the righteous things contained in the law, shall his uncircumcision not be counted for circumcision?

If the Gentile, who is not circumcised, obeys the commands of the Law, will not God regard him as though he were circumcised?

Therefore if prepuce keep the rightwiseness of the law, whether his prepuce shall not be areckoned [shall not be reckoned] into circumcision?

Meanwhile, if uncircumcised people keep the law’s requirements, their uncircumcision will be regarded as circumcision, won’t it?

In fact, if they obey the Law, they are as good as anyone who is circumcised.

So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?

That most intimate sign of belonging to God that we call circumcision does indeed mean something if you keep the Law. But if you flout the Law you are to all intents and purposes uncircumcising yourself! Conversely, if an uncircumcised man keeps the Law’s commandments, does he not thereby “circumcise” himself? Moreover, is it not plain to you that those who are physically uncircumcised, and yet keep the Law, are a continual judgment upon you who, for all your circumcision and knowledge of the Law, break it?

So, if the uncircumcised keep the requirements of the law, will not their uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?

So, if those who are uncircumcised keep the requirements of the law, will not their uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?

So if the person who isn’t circumcised keeps the Law, won’t his status of not being circumcised be counted as if he were circumcised?

So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded [by God] as circumcision?

So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?

Again, if an uncircumcised man keeps the precepts of the law, will he not be considered circumcised?

So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will his uncircumcision not be regarded as circumcision?

If those who are not circumcised ·do [keep; obey] ·what the law says [or the law’s righteous requirements], it is as if they were circumcised.

Therefore, if the uncircumcised keeps the righteous decrees of the Torah, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision?

So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?

And sometimes those who aren’t circumcised do what the law requires. Won’t God accept them as if they had been circumcised?

Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?

Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the Torah, won’t his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision?

So if a man who has not been circumcised obeys the law, will he not be like a man who has been circumcised?

So, if those who are uncircumcised keep the requirements of the law, will not their uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?

If then the ben Adam without bris milah is shomer fulfilling the just requirements of the Torah (1:32), will not his uncircumcision be counted as "bris milah "?

So if a man does what those laws demand, won’t he be considered circumcised even if he is uncircumcised?

Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteousness of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision?

Those who are not Jews are not circumcised. But if they do what the law says, it is as if they were circumcised.

The non-Jews are not circumcised. But if they do what the law says, then it is as if they were circumcised.

Therefore, if the uncircumcised person follows the requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be credited for circumcision?

So then, if those who are not circumcised keep the law’s requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised?

So if the uncircumcised one keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?