Circumcision in the First Century and 1Corinthians 7:19

After writing my post on the significance of circumcision, I was asked to do a follow-up post on 1Corinthians 7:19 which reads: 

Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God. (1 Corinthians 7.19 NAS95)

It is my opinion that to properly understand this text we must understand the various ways the term “circumcision” was used in the first century. I have already written on this in my commentary on Acts (yet to be published). So I decided I would simply copy and paste this section of my commentary, which I believe shows my understanding of this text. 

The common term “circumcision/circumcised” is used in Acts 15:1, yet this phrase is often taken for granted. Although this word is sometimes used to mean the cutting away of flesh from the male organ of procreation, I believe it was also used to refer to a man-made ritual of conversion. Although this ritual may have varied from group to group, it was the practice that marked a Gentile as moving from the status of pagan outsider to included proselyte. We have already seen this distinction in chapter 13 when we see “god fearers” in the synagogue, but only Jews and proselytes come to speak with Paul in verse 43.

There is evidence to suggest that within the first and second centuries, not only were the Gentiles looked down upon but, the belief was that only Gentiles that became proselytes would have a place in the world to come. Terrence Donaldson notes that in 2Baruch [2Baruch 30:4-5, 44:15, 51:6, 82:3-9] those Gentiles that don’t take on the yoke of the law will suffer eternal punishment. He then cites Pesiq. R. 161a which states the proselytes will take part in judging the nations showing that some later rabbinic tradition put conversion in a favorable light. Donaldson then states:

Admittedly, most of the texts cited are post-70 C.E., and not all of them are positive towards proselytism. Nevertheless, on the basis of this evidence and of the full discussion in chapter 3 above, we can make the following observations with confidence: (1) many within Judaism expected the exclusion and judgment of the Gentiles in the future; (2) most of Judaism was prepared to receive proselytes in the present; (3) these two opinions can be easily combined within the framework of covenantal nomism, as the Tannaitic evidence demonstrates; and (4) the likelihood of such a combination is in no way dependent on the events of 70 C.E. There is every reason, then  to suppose that for one strand of Judaism, at least, the Gentiles’ hope of salvation in the age to come depended on their becoming proselytes in the present age. ¹

There is little data that allows us to understand the first century procedure(s) of becoming a proselyte, but we can be sure of one thing, the Torah does not proscribe such a process or suggest that such an act was necessary or right. Hegg has argued that the term “circumcision” in the first century   was sometimes used as a short-hand for such a man-made conversion process: 

From the perspective of the Rabbis, a Gentile could secure a place in the world-to-come only by becoming a Jew. This, the Rabbis taught, was possible through becoming a proselyte, a ritual based entirely upon their rules but without any foundation in the Torah itself. In fact, the added phrase “according to the custom of Moses” in the opening verse of Acts 15 may point to the fact that the disagreement taking place between Paul and Barnabas and the others was not over what the written Torah prescribed for Gentiles but whether or not the additional teachings of the Sages were binding upon them. Thus when men from Judea taught that “unless you are circumcised (undergo the ritual of a proselyte) according to the custom of Moses you cannot be saved,” they were simply applying the standard theology of their day. This is what the Council was dealing with: Did all Israel have a place in the world-to-come?

Did Gentiles therefore need to submit to the man-made ritual of the proselyte so that, in accordance with the prevailing theology, they too could secure eternal life, that is, be saved? ²

Ultimately, the idea that a Gentile would undergo circumcision and become a Jew stemmed from a belief that non-Jews were the antithesis to God’s chosen people. Being part of Israel meant being part of the chosen people of God and thus, being in covenant relationship with Him. In other words, if you were part of Israel you were righteous in God’s eyes. Being circumcised meant covenant membership which ultimately meant chosen of God. There were ways that a person could be cut off from their people, but a person who was circumcised, either on the eighth day or later in life, was seen as Jewish and therefore part of God’s chosen people. 

The basic point is that circumcision was inextricably bound up with Jewish identity, that is, with the identity of the Jews as the people of Israel, the people chosen by God from among all the other nations to be his own… Peter separated himself from the Gentile believers in [Gal] 2.12 under pressure from those whose identity or position was derived from their circumcision (οἱ ἐχ πεσιτομῆς). The same references (Gal. 2.7-9; similarly Rom. 3.30; 4.9; Col. 3.11) remind us that from a Jewish perspective, the rest of the world, the other nations, could be categorised simply as ‘the circumcision’… the  one physical feature standing for all the other nations in all their diversity. ³

Such a belief in national and ethnic superiority can be seen from writings in the first century . Works from around the time of Paul show that being circumcised was understood as equivalent to being a Jew. A fragment  from the Epic of Theodotus, translated by F. Fallo, recounts the rape of Dina and reads: 

And Dina, still a virgin, came into Shechem when there was a festival, since she wished to see the city. But when Sychem the son of Hamor saw her, he loved her; and after seizing her as his own, he carried her off and ravished her. Then, coming back again with his father to Jacob, he asked for her in the partnership of marriage. Jacob said that he would not give her until all the inhabitants of Shechem were circumcised and became Jews. Hamor said that he would persuade them. Concerning the necessity of their being circumcised, Jacob says, “For this is not allowed to Hebrews to bring sons-in-law or daughters-in-law into their house from elsewhere but, rather, whoever boasts that he is of the same race.” ⁴

  Theodotus equates being circumcised with becoming a Jew. This is not just a change of religion, but rather, an ethnic change. 

A belief that circumcision changed a person’s ethnic status is also put forward by Josephus who relates a story, set during Paul’s lifetime, of a Parthian prince and eventual king, who takes upon himself the commands of Torah. This prince, named Izates, wants to complete his devotion to the Lord by becoming circumcised but his mother advices against it: 

And as he supposed that he could not be thoroughly a Jew unless he were circumcised, he was ready to have it done. But when his mother understood what he was about, she endeavored to hinder him from doing it, and said to him that this thing would bring him into danger; and that as he were a king he would thereby bring himself into great odium among his subjects, when they would understand that he was so fond of rites that were to them strange and foreign; and that they would never bear to be ruled over by a Jew.  (Antiquities. 20.38–39)

Izates is able to live out the Torah without consequence, but taking on the final step of circumcision would place him in a different category. It would define him as a “Jew” in the eyes of his people. 

Izates was originally taught about God and the laws of Torah by a Jew named Ananias who was one of his advisors. When Izates was considering circumcision he told Ananias what his mother had said and the advisor agreed with his mother saying: 

That he might worship God without being circumcised, even though he did resolve to follow the Jewish law entirely; which worship of God was of a superior nature to circumcision.  (Antiquities 20.41)

Josephus then introduces another advisor to Izates, a Jew name Eleazer who is descried as being “esteemed very skillful in the learning of his country” (20.43). Eleazer has a different understanding then Ananias and believes that Izates should become circumcised: 

“Thou dost not consider, O king! that you unjustly break the principal of those laws, and are injurious to God himself, [by omitting to be circumcised]; for you ought not only to read them, but chiefly to practice what they enjoin thee. (20.2.4) How long will you continue uncircumcised? but, if you have not yet read the law about circumcision, and do not know how great impiety you are guilty of by neglecting it, read it now.” (Antiquities 20.44–45)

Izates ends up calling for a physician and becomes circumcised. We can first note that “Judaism” within the first century was not monolithic. We have two Jews with two very different views. One believes Izates should keep the Torah and the customs but not undergo the final step of circumcision. While the other view believes keeping the Torah and customs without being circumcised stands against the very Torah Izates is attempting to keep.

We should also highlight the fact that circumcision is the final step in “conversion.” Izates is not considered a Jew even when he follows the commands of Torah and the customs of the Jews. In other words, this king can live and worship according to the Torah and the customs of the Jews all he wants, but no one considers him Jewish or part of the covenant people until he undergoes the act of circumcision. This one ritual act changes everything and places the king in a totally different category, not only for the Jews, but for the Gentiles under his rule. 

We may see some of this continue throughout generations, although the Talmud is at least 600 years after Paul, converted Gentile took on an ethnic change just as they did in the first century. When speaking on proselyte conversion in the Talmud, Oskar Skarsaune states: 

What was the status, legally and religiously, of a new convert, a proselyte? The basic principle was simple as well as radical: at his conversion the proselyte began a completely new life as a Jew; he was ‘like a new-born child.’ His entire Gentile past was annulled, which meant two things: (1) his sins were wiped out, together with his past; and (2) his former family relations were annulled, from now on he had no father or mother, and only such offspring and family as he made after his conversion. So complete was this break with the past that in theory a proselyte could marry any of his or her former relatives. Accordingly, the rabis had to make special rulings to regulate this. ⁵

We need to be very cautious reading later rabbinical texts into the first century. My point is not to suggest that since the later rabbinical texts states something it must have been believed in the first century, but rather, the change in ethnic status that we see in first century  writings continued into the Tamudic times 600 years later.

For Izates, there may have been some interesting social problems that arose from his change in status. How was a Jewish king supposed to rule a Gentile people? Jews weren’t even allowed to eat with non-Jews as can be seen from the non-canonical book of Jubilees and from the Scriptures themselves:

And you also, my son, Jacob, remember my words and keep the commandments of Abraham, your father. Separate yourself from the gentiles, and do not eat with them, and do not perform deeds like theirs. And do not become associates of theirs. Because their deeds are defiled and all their ways contaminated, and despicable, and abominable. (Jubilees 22:16)

So when Peter went up to Jerusalem, the circumcision party criticized him, saying, “You went to uncircumcised men and ate with them.” (Acts 11:2–3)

Or before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. (Galatians 2:12–13)

Beyond various social norms that might now be required of Izates, this official change in status meant he could no longer worship or participate in any pagan rituals or idol worship. He had turned his back on the gods of his people in favor of the single God of Israel. 

Yet, for our study, we need to simply focus on the act of circumcision. The cutting away of the foreskin was the final act in conversion from being pagan and Gentile to being chosen and Israel. This is where Paul’s discourse on circumcision comes into play. 

Paul is not suggesting that Gentiles not observe the commandments of God and reject the physical act of circumcision. Such a teaching would go contrary to the Torah and the teachings of Moses, something Paul claims he has never done: 

Paul argued in his defense, “Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar have I committed any offense.” (Acts 25:8)

“Brothers, though I had done nothing against our people or the customs of our fathers, yet I was delivered as a prisoner… (Acts 28:17)

When looking at the conversion of Izates one of the questions that arises is whether or not this king went through an officially sanctioned conversion process or not? Or if there even was an official conversion process. Perhaps a better way to state the questions is, could any Gentile go to a physician, have his foreskin removed, and instantly be considered a Jew and part of the chosen people? The evidence suggests the ritual had to be overseen by someone of high standing. For instance, Izates is told to be circumcised by Eleazer, thus sanctioning his “conversion” and most likely overseeing the final act of circumcision. Likewise, Acts 16:3 tells us that Paul circumcised Timothy. Does this mean that Paul physically cut away Timothy’s foreskin? Or does it mean that Paul was the one who sanctioned the conversion and oversaw the final act of circumcision? No matter what, Timothy is suddenly seen as acceptable by the Jews, but why? Because his status changed from Gentile to Jew. 

This is what the Council was dealing with: Did all Israel have a place in the world-to-come? Did Gentiles therefore need to submit to the man-made ritual of the proselyte so that, in accordance with the prevailing theology, they too could secure eternal life, that is, be saved? ⁶

Paul’s continued discussions of Gentiles and circumcision was not confronting the physical act of circumcision, but rather, was challenging the notion that ethnic heritage, i.e. being Jewish, was what saved a person. Within the Judaism of the first century, keeping the commandments didn’t save you, what saved a person was being part of Israel. Thus, if a Gentile wanted to be saved they needed to become ethnically Jewish: 

I submit that Paul also means by faith(fulness) apart from circumcision not simply believing in contrast to taking action, especially not in contrast to acts of righteousness, for it is precisely to such a behavior that the gospel calls them to be enslaved (cf Rom. 6; 13; Gal. 5). Paul was not seeking to bifurcate faith and action/deeds by advocating that faith(fulness) for Christ-following non-Jews meant not becoming circumcised, any more than Josephus’s Ananias or Eleazar were making such a bifurcation when they alternatively urged the non-Jew Izates to avoid or undertake circumcision as the appropriate course of faith(fulness). The work (or ‘deed’ or ‘act’ or ‘rite,’ singular or plural) in view in all of these articulations of faith(fulness) specifically revolves around whether faith(fulness) requires identity transformation into becoming Jews/Israelites or not.” ⁷

The suggestion that “circumcised” can be shorthand for a ritual of conversion may find support in Paul’s own writing when he states: 

Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God. 

(1 Corinthians 7.19 NAS95) [cf. Rom. 2:26, 1Cor. 7:19 Gal. 5:6, 6:5,]

This statement looks like a clear contradiction as circumcision is one of the commandments within the Torah. Thus, if the commandments are what matter, certainly circumcision is a part of that. Rather, Paul is attacking the man-made ritual of conversion that has been set up and is now the benchmark for inclusion into the people of God. 

If we accept for a moment that the term “circumcised” was a term that referenced ritual conversion and the phrase, “custom of Moses” could refer to the non-biblical man-made customs that were followed by various sects within the first century, chapter 15 now takes on a totally different meaning. 

The men from Judea have suggested that unless a Gentile goes through a ritual of conversion they are not part of the covenant people. Paul had already contended that the Gentiles were part of the Abrahamic covenant. Faith in the God of Israel was the mark of inclusion, not a man-made ritual. 

This interpretation is not a popular one as most scholars have assumed observance of the Mosaic law to be the topic of conversation at the Jerusalem Council. My view of the term “circumcision” does not suggest that the law was absent from the Council’s discussion. God-fearing Gentiles were still able to take part in some of the communal rituals in the synagogue, but they were seen as second-class citizens. Table fellowship and even basic friendship were not allowed within the social structures of first-century Judaisms, even with Gentiles who served the God of Israel unless a ritual of conversion had taken place. Were the God-fearers expected to keep the entire Torah if they had not gone through a conversion process? Later rabbinic arguments show this was a discussion that took place (see Sanhedrin 58b-59a).