John Calvin Commentary Romans 2:26

"If therefore the uncircumcision keep the ordinances of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be reckoned for circumcision?" — Romans 2:26 (ASV)

If then the uncircumcision, etc. This is a very strong argument. Everything is subordinate to its ultimate purpose. Circumcision is oriented towards the law and must therefore be inferior to it; consequently, it is a greater thing to keep the law than circumcision, which was instituted for the law's sake. It therefore follows that the uncircumcised person, provided he keeps the law, far excels the Jew with his barren and unprofitable circumcision if he is a transgressor of the law. And though he is by nature polluted, he will yet be so sanctified by keeping the law that his uncircumcision will be counted to him as circumcision. The word uncircumcision is to be taken in its proper sense in the second clause, but in the first, figuratively for the Gentiles—the condition representing the people.

It must be added that no one ought anxiously to inquire who these observers of the law are of whom Paul speaks here, since no such person can be found. For Paul simply intended to present a hypothetical case: that if any Gentile could be found who kept the law, his righteousness would be of more value without circumcision than the circumcision of the Jew without righteousness.

Therefore, I understand the following words, And what is by nature uncircumcision shall judge thee, etc., not as referring to actual persons, but to the hypothetical case. This is similar to what is said of the Queen of the South, that she shall come, etc. (Matthew 12:42), and of the men of Nineveh, that they shall rise up in judgment, etc. (Luke 11:32).

For Paul’s own words lead us to this view. He says, “The Gentile, being a keeper of the law, shall judge thee who art a transgressor, though he is uncircumcised, and thou hast the literal circumcision.”