It is true that circumcision is of use if you keep the law, but if you go against the law it is as if you had it not.

If those who have not circumcision keep the rules of the law, will it not be credited to them as circumcision?

How, then, was it judged? when he had circumcision, or when he had it not? Not when he had it, but when he did not have it:

What then? are we to go on in sin because we are not under law but under grace? Let it not be so.

Is it not clear, my brothers (I am using an argument to those who have knowledge of the law), that the law has power over a man as long as he is living?

What may we say then? is God not upright? let it not be said.

He who keeps the day, keeps it to the Lord; and he who takes food, takes it as to the Lord, for he gives praise to God; and he who does not take food, to the Lord he takes it not, and gives praise to God.

Let it not be possible for men to say evil about your good:

But he who is in doubt is judged if he takes food, because he does it not in faith; and whatever is not of faith is sin.