Romans 2:26

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

(v26, NIV)

Here is the other part or other half of this logic. Breaking the law renders as if one was uncircumcised. If this is the case, isn't the opposite true? So, if an uncircumcised person keeps the law's requirements, shouldn't they in a way become as if they were circumcised? This is a great surprise to the Jews if it is in fact true. This undermines their flaunting of this physical mark. It is a reversal that is taking place. The Jews with their circumcision are having this undone by their breaking of the law. However, the keeping of it's requirements changes uncircumcision to circumcision. It's quite a surprise that this mark is no longer of the Jews only, since uncircumcised people can become like one circumcised. And so this is leading to some conclusions that Paul will get to in the verses to come. However, this continues to show how lame it is to boast in an outward physical mark. Who alone is worthy of a boast if one should boast?