1 Corinthians 7
Remain As You Are
In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul writes some puzzling verses about circumcision, and these verses lead many to believe that God no longer cares whether his followers are circumcised or not. If we as new covenant believers in Christ no longer are called to walk in obedience to the Torah, then this passage is not problematic – circumcision is simply another law that has been set aside or abolished for believers today. But if Christians are still to obey the Torah, how can that be reconciled with this passage?
In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul writes some puzzling verses about circumcision, and these verses lead many to believe that God no longer cares whether his followers are circumcised or not. If we as new covenant believers in Christ no longer are called to walk in obedience to the Torah, then this passage is not problematic – circumcision is simply another law that has been set aside or abolished for believers today. But if Christians are still to obey the Torah, how can that be reconciled with this passage?
Was anyone at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was anyone at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision. For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God (1 Corinthians 7:18-19).
Let’s consider these verses in context to determine if circumcision, and therefore at least a part of the law, has been set aside.
The Issue of Marriage: Remain As You Are
Recall from the introduction that the Corinthians were struggling with an over-realized eschatology. Because of this they were focusing on what they considered to be spiritual matters while neglecting physical or earthly matters. One of the ways this negatively affected them was their treatment of marriage. They were living as if marriage no longer mattered because it is tied to this earth and these current bodies. This resulted in many difficulties within the marriages in the Corinthian church. In chapter seven, Paul addresses these marriage issues.
He opens in verse 1 by listing the Corinthians’ question: whether or not it is good for a man to have sexual relations with a woman. He then answers this question in verses 2 through 16, and his theme throughout is that believers should remain as they already are. Paul addresses several different situations in which believers might find themselves. If they are already married, they should continue in that marriage and not neglect the needs of their spouse (2-5). Paul affirms that marriage is good and sexual relations with one’s spouse are good and should not be withheld. Paul explains that he was called by God to live unmarried, but not all have this same call, and an unmarried status should not be forced upon anyone (6). To widowers and widows, Paul encourages them to remain single, but they are free to remarry if they cannot exercise sexual self-control – it is not wrong to be married (8-9). Again, he addresses those who are already married and encourages them not to separate from each other (10-11). He follows this with some instruction about marriage to an unbeliever and what to do if the unbelieving spouse chooses to leave (12-16). Finally in verse 17, Paul gives a summary statement of the overall theme: “Only let each person lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him, and to which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches.” This idea will be repeated in verses 20 and 24, and is specifically relevant to the main issue he is addressing: marriage. The Corinthian believers must not desert their marriage partners for a more “spiritual” experience.
Any Social Status: Remain As You Are
While the pressing issue in the Corinthian church was marriage, Paul applies the principle of verse 17 to any social status. Corinthians scholar Gordon E. Fee explains:
The Issue of Marriage: Remain As You Are
Recall from the introduction that the Corinthians were struggling with an over-realized eschatology. Because of this they were focusing on what they considered to be spiritual matters while neglecting physical or earthly matters. One of the ways this negatively affected them was their treatment of marriage. They were living as if marriage no longer mattered because it is tied to this earth and these current bodies. This resulted in many difficulties within the marriages in the Corinthian church. In chapter seven, Paul addresses these marriage issues.
He opens in verse 1 by listing the Corinthians’ question: whether or not it is good for a man to have sexual relations with a woman. He then answers this question in verses 2 through 16, and his theme throughout is that believers should remain as they already are. Paul addresses several different situations in which believers might find themselves. If they are already married, they should continue in that marriage and not neglect the needs of their spouse (2-5). Paul affirms that marriage is good and sexual relations with one’s spouse are good and should not be withheld. Paul explains that he was called by God to live unmarried, but not all have this same call, and an unmarried status should not be forced upon anyone (6). To widowers and widows, Paul encourages them to remain single, but they are free to remarry if they cannot exercise sexual self-control – it is not wrong to be married (8-9). Again, he addresses those who are already married and encourages them not to separate from each other (10-11). He follows this with some instruction about marriage to an unbeliever and what to do if the unbelieving spouse chooses to leave (12-16). Finally in verse 17, Paul gives a summary statement of the overall theme: “Only let each person lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him, and to which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches.” This idea will be repeated in verses 20 and 24, and is specifically relevant to the main issue he is addressing: marriage. The Corinthian believers must not desert their marriage partners for a more “spiritual” experience.
Any Social Status: Remain As You Are
While the pressing issue in the Corinthian church was marriage, Paul applies the principle of verse 17 to any social status. Corinthians scholar Gordon E. Fee explains:
Paul’s intent is not to lay down a rule that one may not change; rather, by thus hallowing one’s situation in life, he is trying to help the Corinthian believers see that their social status is ultimately irrelevant as such, in the sense that they can live out their Christian life in any of the various options; therefore their desire to change is equally irrelevant—because it has nothing to do with genuine spirituality as their slogan would apparently infer (v. 1b). (344)
According to Fee, Paul is not saying that a person is “stuck” in a particular social status; rather, the idea is that social status has no bearing on one’s salvation and Christian walk. In Christ, it does not matter if you are married or unmarried, and the same is true of any other social situation you might find yourself in – circumcised or uncircumcised, slave or free – as Paul will cover in the verses to come. Social status does not make you more or less spiritual, so we do not have to seek to change our social status to become a better Christian. Fee continues:
It is not change per se that he is against, but change as a Christian; that is, becoming a believer does not require one to seek change of status. That is to give significance to one’s social setting. Paul’s point is that God’s call, which comes to people where they are as his gracious gift, totally eliminates social setting as having any kind of religious significance (ibid).
Simply put, we do not have to change our social status as a Christian.
While the specific issue the Corinthians were struggling with was marriage, Paul goes on to show that this principle applies to any social status. The first application is to the circumcised and the uncircumcised:
While the specific issue the Corinthians were struggling with was marriage, Paul goes on to show that this principle applies to any social status. The first application is to the circumcised and the uncircumcised:
Was anyone at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was anyone at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision. For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God. Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called (7:18-20).
What does Paul mean by circumcised and uncircumcised? We know he is addressing social statuses, and “circumcised” represented the social status of being an ethnic Jew, while uncircumcised referred to being an ethnic Gentile. Fee comments:
Thus he argues, “Was anyone already circumcised when they were called?” That is, were you a Jew when you came to faith in Christ? If so, then “he should not become uncircumcised.”… So also: “Was anyone uncircumcised when he was called?” That is, were you a Gentile when you came to faith? If so, then “he should not be circumcised.” ... But in the present case it is not first of all a religious issue, but a sociological one. Being Jew or Gentile simply means nothing to God; whatever one was when called is what one still is, with no need to change. Christ has made such distinctions obsolete, and thus irrelevant. (345)
As Fee explains, the issue is primarily sociological. Your social identity as a Jew or a Gentile does not matter in the Kingdom of Christ. Whether you are physically descended from a line of Jews or physically descended from a line of Gentiles, you can still be saved and grow and mature as a believer. Being a physical descendent of Abraham does not make you a better Christian. Neither does being a physical descendent of Gentiles. Ethnicity is irrelevant. Scholars Ciampa and Rosner agree:
Fundamental to Paul’s vision of the church is that it transcends ethnic boundaries and unites Jews and Gentiles in one body. In the churches in which Paul worked Gentiles did not need to become Jews and Jews did not need to become Gentiles. (310)
In Christ, it does not matter if we identify as “circumcised” (that is, a Jew), or “uncircumcised” (that is, a Gentile).
G. Scott McKenzie expands on this when he writes, “Paul’s use of ‘circumcision’ seems to be shorthand for proselyte circumcision (ethnic conversion) and not the commands of God regarding circumcision. The phrase ‘each one must remain in the way they were called’ in verse 20, therefore, can be understood as referring to their ethnic status” (51). McKenzie’s insight is crucial and lines up with Fee’s comments above – mainly that Paul is not talking about obedience to God’s commands, of which circumcision was one, but rather, Paul is using “circumcised” and “uncircumcised” as ethnicity markers; in other words, they were shorthand terms that represented an ethnic group of people.
Verse 19 also indicates that Paul is not talking about the biblical act of circumcision, but rather “circumcision” and “uncircumcision” as social identity markers: “For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God.” Here Paul differentiates between circumcision/uncircumcision and obeying God’s commandments. Of course, this brings up controversy over what constitutes the commands of God. We can all agree that the act of circumcision was a command given to Abraham as a sign of the Abrahamic covenant (Genesis 17) and later commanded again at Mt. Sinai (Leviticus 12:3). The question is, is it still a command for believers today? If it is still a command for today, then what is Paul referring to when he says that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything? The scholars above agree that “circumcision” and “uncircumcision” in the first century indicated ethnic social status of Jew or Gentile. But is this what God originally intended circumcision to entail?
Circumcision and the Abrahamic Covenant
Before we address if the command of circumcision is applicable to believers today, let’s understand what the original command entailed and what it did not. To do so, we must turn to Genesis and the story of Abraham. In Genesis 15:4-7, God gave a promise to Abraham, then known as Abram:
G. Scott McKenzie expands on this when he writes, “Paul’s use of ‘circumcision’ seems to be shorthand for proselyte circumcision (ethnic conversion) and not the commands of God regarding circumcision. The phrase ‘each one must remain in the way they were called’ in verse 20, therefore, can be understood as referring to their ethnic status” (51). McKenzie’s insight is crucial and lines up with Fee’s comments above – mainly that Paul is not talking about obedience to God’s commands, of which circumcision was one, but rather, Paul is using “circumcised” and “uncircumcised” as ethnicity markers; in other words, they were shorthand terms that represented an ethnic group of people.
Verse 19 also indicates that Paul is not talking about the biblical act of circumcision, but rather “circumcision” and “uncircumcision” as social identity markers: “For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God.” Here Paul differentiates between circumcision/uncircumcision and obeying God’s commandments. Of course, this brings up controversy over what constitutes the commands of God. We can all agree that the act of circumcision was a command given to Abraham as a sign of the Abrahamic covenant (Genesis 17) and later commanded again at Mt. Sinai (Leviticus 12:3). The question is, is it still a command for believers today? If it is still a command for today, then what is Paul referring to when he says that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything? The scholars above agree that “circumcision” and “uncircumcision” in the first century indicated ethnic social status of Jew or Gentile. But is this what God originally intended circumcision to entail?
Circumcision and the Abrahamic Covenant
Before we address if the command of circumcision is applicable to believers today, let’s understand what the original command entailed and what it did not. To do so, we must turn to Genesis and the story of Abraham. In Genesis 15:4-7, God gave a promise to Abraham, then known as Abram:
And behold, the word of the LORD came to him: “This man shall not be your heir; your very own son shall be your heir.” And he brought him outside and said, “Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your offspring be.” And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness. And he said to him, “I am the LORD who brought you out from Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to possess.”
God promised Abram that he would have a son, who would be his heir, and moreover, that his descendants would be as numerous as the stars in the heavens. He also promised that he would give Abram the land of the Canaanites (15:7,18-21). These promises in Genesis 15 are what is referred to as the Abrahamic Covenant.
The promise of an heir and innumerable offspring seemed impossible because Sarai, Abram’s wife, was barren and beyond child bearing age (15:2; 16:1;17:17). Because of this, Abram and Sarai tried to attain the promise through their own means, that is through Sarai’s servant Hagar (Genesis 16). Hagar was given to Abram as a wife, and she bore him a son named Ishmael. Yet God said Ishmael was not the promised son; rather, Abram’s heir would come through Sarai (17:18-19).
In Genesis 17, God restates his covenant with Abram and changes his name to Abraham (verse 5), for he would be a father to a multitude of nations. This covenant is to endure through all ages:
The promise of an heir and innumerable offspring seemed impossible because Sarai, Abram’s wife, was barren and beyond child bearing age (15:2; 16:1;17:17). Because of this, Abram and Sarai tried to attain the promise through their own means, that is through Sarai’s servant Hagar (Genesis 16). Hagar was given to Abram as a wife, and she bore him a son named Ishmael. Yet God said Ishmael was not the promised son; rather, Abram’s heir would come through Sarai (17:18-19).
In Genesis 17, God restates his covenant with Abram and changes his name to Abraham (verse 5), for he would be a father to a multitude of nations. This covenant is to endure through all ages:
“And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God” (17:7-8).
The Abrahamic covenant is an everlasting covenant between God and Abraham’s offspring. It endures even at the present time and extends to all who are in Christ. The New Testament teaches that Abraham’s offspring refers not just to those physically descended from Abraham, but rather to those who are spiritually children of Abraham, and thus we as believers are participants in the Abrahamic Covenant (Galatians 3:7-9, 29; Romans 4:11-12).
At this time, God gave Abraham circumcision as the sign of the Abrahamic covenant. (Note: many think circumcision is a sign of the Mosaic covenant, but that covenant has a different sign – the Sabbath; see Exodus 31:12-18):
At this time, God gave Abraham circumcision as the sign of the Abrahamic covenant. (Note: many think circumcision is a sign of the Mosaic covenant, but that covenant has a different sign – the Sabbath; see Exodus 31:12-18):
And God said to Abraham, “As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant” (Genesis 17:9-14).
There are some important things to note here about circumcision. First, the promise was given in Genesis 15. Abram believed God’s promise and was counted as righteous because of his belief in what God told him (aka by faith in God’s promise; Genesis 15:6). He did not have to do anything to be counted righteous, other than simply believe God’s promise. Second, circumcision, the sign of this covenant, was not given until Genesis 17, over thirteen years later (cf. Gen 16:6 and 17:1). Therefore the sign came after the promise and after the declaration of Abraham’s justification by faith. Abraham’s entry into the covenant was not by circumcision but by belief in God’s promise. In other words, it was not by works but by faith. Paul points out this very thing in Romans 4:9-12:
Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? For we say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.
Paul stresses that Abraham was justified by faith, and so are all who are sons of Abraham. We follow the same pattern – we believe God’s promises, then respond in obedience, just as Abraham believed God’s promise and later responded in obedience to circumcise himself and his household. Therefore, it cannot be that he was somehow justified by circumcision. You do not become a member of the Abrahamic covenant through circumcision; rather circumcision is a sign of that promise. And in the case of Abraham, it was a sign that did not happen until at least thirteen years after he entered the covenant, so it cannot be confused with somehow being a requirement to enter.
What is circumcision symbolic of? Tim Hegg offers some helpful insight:
What is circumcision symbolic of? Tim Hegg offers some helpful insight:
The sign is attached to the organ of procreation, but it is the cutting away of the flesh. Since the promised son is the key element to the success of the covenant, the sign points to the fact that the son would come, not by the flesh (such as the “Hagar Plan”) but through divine means alone (126).
Abraham and Sarah were not to depend on their own physical flesh, which was old and in Sarah’s case, barren. Cutting away a part of the very organ of procreation demonstrates that the heir would not come through dependence on the flesh but on the miraculous promise of God. This stands in contrast to what Abraham and Sarah had attempted to do in chapter sixteen, where they tried to produce an heir through their own efforts via Hagar. Paul comments on this when he says, “For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise” (Galatians 4:22-23). The sign of circumcision therefore was intended as a beautiful picture of relying on God to fulfill his promise and not on our own fleshly efforts to achieve God’s promise. Thus, the sign of the covenant is a declaration that we enter covenant relationship with God by faith and not by works. This was its intention, but sadly by the first century, circumcision had become twisted to declare an entirely antithetical message.
Circumcision in the First Century
By the first century, the practice of circumcision lost its original intent and message. It was no longer a picture of depending on the promise of God by faith and not the flesh, and ironically had become just the opposite – a dependence on the flesh, specifically on being Jewish. Hegg explains that in the first century, circumcision was a Jewish identity marker:
Circumcision in the First Century
By the first century, the practice of circumcision lost its original intent and message. It was no longer a picture of depending on the promise of God by faith and not the flesh, and ironically had become just the opposite – a dependence on the flesh, specifically on being Jewish. Hegg explains that in the first century, circumcision was a Jewish identity marker:
In the 1st Century, circumcision was no longer simply the sign of the covenant with Abraham—it had long since combined with a cultural imperative to define Jewishness (at least as far as males were concerned). So clearly had circumcision become an ideological identity marker for Jews, that Paul could utilize the term “the circumcision” to mean “Jewish people.” This was also the standard perspective of pagan authors. For them, “circumcision” and “Jewish” were one and the same (121).
In the first century, to be circumcised meant to be Jewish, either ethnically or by proselyte conversion. In fact, this idea existed prior to the first century. Theodotus, a Jewish poet from around 100 BC, writes this concerning the incident at Shechem in Genesis 34:
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. (Charlesworth; Theodotus 4:1)
Notice how Theodotus equates being circumcised and becoming a Jew, and how he considers this to be a change in race – an ethnic change. Circumcision was a defining trait of being an ethnic Jew.
The message of circumcision had become one in which you had to be Jewish in order to be accepted as part of the people of God, a member of the Abrahamic covenant. Circumcision was no longer merely a physical sign of the Abrahamic covenant, but rather a change in ethnic status. This is why Paul had to take such a strong stance against Gentile believers becoming circumcised – it gave a message that one had to either be born Jewish or become Jewish in order to be a covenant member. This is not what the Bible taught about circumcision, which taught quite the opposite, but rather is what first century Pharisaical Judaism taught about circumcision.
The false message of first century circumcision was that believers in Jesus could not be saved unless they were first circumcised and therefore considered to be Jewish. Circumcision was understood to be intricately connected with Judaism, and thus many taught you had to become Jewish before you could be saved as a covenant member of the Abrahamic promise. Paul and the leaders of the early church could not allow this false gospel to be preached, and we see them combat it in the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) and in many of Paul’s letters, the foremost being Galatians and Romans. Salvation through Christ is by faith alone, through Christ alone, not through any work of the flesh. Whether or not you were circumcised has no bearing on your salvation status.
However, this does not mean that Paul was against circumcision as it was originally described and intended in the word of God. In Acts, immediately after the Jerusalem Council, Paul has Timothy circumcised (Acts 16:3). Paul could do this because Timothy had a solid understanding of the gospel message and would not believe that somehow his circumcision or change in ethnic status was required for his salvation. The apostles and leaders of the early church would want to ensure that believers had their theology straight before being circumcised:
The message of circumcision had become one in which you had to be Jewish in order to be accepted as part of the people of God, a member of the Abrahamic covenant. Circumcision was no longer merely a physical sign of the Abrahamic covenant, but rather a change in ethnic status. This is why Paul had to take such a strong stance against Gentile believers becoming circumcised – it gave a message that one had to either be born Jewish or become Jewish in order to be a covenant member. This is not what the Bible taught about circumcision, which taught quite the opposite, but rather is what first century Pharisaical Judaism taught about circumcision.
The false message of first century circumcision was that believers in Jesus could not be saved unless they were first circumcised and therefore considered to be Jewish. Circumcision was understood to be intricately connected with Judaism, and thus many taught you had to become Jewish before you could be saved as a covenant member of the Abrahamic promise. Paul and the leaders of the early church could not allow this false gospel to be preached, and we see them combat it in the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) and in many of Paul’s letters, the foremost being Galatians and Romans. Salvation through Christ is by faith alone, through Christ alone, not through any work of the flesh. Whether or not you were circumcised has no bearing on your salvation status.
However, this does not mean that Paul was against circumcision as it was originally described and intended in the word of God. In Acts, immediately after the Jerusalem Council, Paul has Timothy circumcised (Acts 16:3). Paul could do this because Timothy had a solid understanding of the gospel message and would not believe that somehow his circumcision or change in ethnic status was required for his salvation. The apostles and leaders of the early church would want to ensure that believers had their theology straight before being circumcised:
Before they could receive physical circumcision, they had to be well grounded in the truth that their covenant status was based upon their faith, not the declaration of Jewishness offered by the rabbinic ritual of proselytism … We may therefore presume that Paul’s perspective on Gentile circumcision was that until the Gentile believer was sufficiently mature in his faith, he should not receive circumcision. Once he was well grounded in the fact that his faith in the Messiah was the means of his covenant inclusion, he would be circumcised, a process that gained him no new pedigree, nor awarded him any more covenant status than what he already had. In this way, circumcision would be a seal of the covenant without any connection to the rabbinic ritual of proselytism (Hegg, 122, 124).
This is also in line with Paul’s behavior in Acts 21, in which he demonstrates that he does not teach against the law or circumcision (20-26). Circumcision according to God’s original purpose is a beautiful demonstration of faith in the promise of God, and Paul understood this. But trusting in circumcision is a complete twisting of its message:
If one trusts in being declared a Jew for his covenant status, then he will have no use for [Jesus] and His saving work. He will have turned his back on the message of grace and believed the lie that one can enter the covenant of God’s family through the works of the Torah (ibid, 124).
The key idea here is that being Jewish or non-Jewish has no bearing on a person’s salvation or Christian walk. Since first century circumcision was associated with becoming a Jewish convert, Paul unashamedly taught that neither “circumcision” nor “uncircumcision” mattered.
Circumcision for Believers Today?
Now we can return to our question – should believers be circumcised today? We can answer this in two ways.
Let’s begin with why a believer should not be circumcised – believers should not be circumcised in order to convert to Judaism, as a kind of requirement for salvation or covenant status. This is exactly what the false teaching regarding circumcision was in the first century. There is no requirement to become Jewish to be a member of the Abrahamic covenant. We must remember the original giving of the commandment to circumcise – circumcision came after Abraham received the promise, not before. Also, being a member of the Abrahamic covenant is open to all who receive God’s promise through faith as Abraham did, not just Jews.
On the other hand, when or why might a believer become circumcised? First, believers must be firmly rooted in the truth of the gospel and understand that circumcision or uncircumcision has no bearing on their salvation. When this is solidly established, participation in circumcision as described in Genesis is a beautiful picture of dependence on God’s promises and not on our own flesh. Also, note that the commandment to circumcise in Genesis is something parents are to do to their eight-day-old baby boys, again with the understanding that we depend not on our flesh but on God’s promises. So believers recognize and proclaim this truth—that covenant status is based on faith in the promises of God and not on our flesh—when they circumcise their sons at eight days. But what about older males who have accepted Jesus as their Messiah? Should they be circumcised? It seems it would be wise to follow the example of the apostles – making sure that the gospel message is not compromised and that circumcision is not required for salvation, but also teaching the value of circumcision as it was originally intended, as a mark of the covenant they have already entered into, based on God’s promises and not our own works. When and what this looks like will be different based on the walk and maturity of each believer.
Paul’s Circumcision Message
We can now understand that Paul’s message to the Corinthians was not against or even apathetic to circumcision as it was described in the original command given to Abraham. Rather, Paul was adamant that a person’s social identity – married or unmarried, circumcised (Jewish/Jewish proselyte) or uncircumcised (Gentile), slave or free – had no bearing on a person’s salvation or spiritual walk with God. If you were saved as a Jew or saved as a Gentile, you can fully live out your calling to God. What truly matters is walking in faith and obedience to him. How do we do this? By trusting him and listening to his commandments as described throughout his Word. May we each strive to do this, more and more.
Circumcision for Believers Today?
Now we can return to our question – should believers be circumcised today? We can answer this in two ways.
Let’s begin with why a believer should not be circumcised – believers should not be circumcised in order to convert to Judaism, as a kind of requirement for salvation or covenant status. This is exactly what the false teaching regarding circumcision was in the first century. There is no requirement to become Jewish to be a member of the Abrahamic covenant. We must remember the original giving of the commandment to circumcise – circumcision came after Abraham received the promise, not before. Also, being a member of the Abrahamic covenant is open to all who receive God’s promise through faith as Abraham did, not just Jews.
On the other hand, when or why might a believer become circumcised? First, believers must be firmly rooted in the truth of the gospel and understand that circumcision or uncircumcision has no bearing on their salvation. When this is solidly established, participation in circumcision as described in Genesis is a beautiful picture of dependence on God’s promises and not on our own flesh. Also, note that the commandment to circumcise in Genesis is something parents are to do to their eight-day-old baby boys, again with the understanding that we depend not on our flesh but on God’s promises. So believers recognize and proclaim this truth—that covenant status is based on faith in the promises of God and not on our flesh—when they circumcise their sons at eight days. But what about older males who have accepted Jesus as their Messiah? Should they be circumcised? It seems it would be wise to follow the example of the apostles – making sure that the gospel message is not compromised and that circumcision is not required for salvation, but also teaching the value of circumcision as it was originally intended, as a mark of the covenant they have already entered into, based on God’s promises and not our own works. When and what this looks like will be different based on the walk and maturity of each believer.
Paul’s Circumcision Message
We can now understand that Paul’s message to the Corinthians was not against or even apathetic to circumcision as it was described in the original command given to Abraham. Rather, Paul was adamant that a person’s social identity – married or unmarried, circumcised (Jewish/Jewish proselyte) or uncircumcised (Gentile), slave or free – had no bearing on a person’s salvation or spiritual walk with God. If you were saved as a Jew or saved as a Gentile, you can fully live out your calling to God. What truly matters is walking in faith and obedience to him. How do we do this? By trusting him and listening to his commandments as described throughout his Word. May we each strive to do this, more and more.