1 Corinthians 7:18-19
Paul says here that if anyone was called while already circumcised he should not undo his circumcision. Huh? That’s an odd statement. An uncircumcised man can cut off his foreskin, but can a circumcised man “sew on” foreskin?
There were some that attempted to do something like that. In the second century B.C. there was a large Hellenization of Jews. A gymnasium was built in the land of Israel, and some of the men wished to participate in the games at the gymnasium nude. In order to have the appearance of the Greeks, the men would undergo some type of "surgery" whereby the foreskin was reattached to their penis. They were circumcised men, but attempted to become Greeks by performing un-circumcision. (See 1 Maccabees 1:10-15 and 2 Maccabees 4:7-9.)
Paul follows this by writing, "Was anyone called while uncircumcised? He should not get circumcised." Admittedly, this is a difficult phrase for the Torah-observant believer, but we must somehow interpret it in light of the law and the prophets (Isaiah 8:20).[1]
Paul could be saying that those called to Yeshua while in un-circumcision should not receive circumcision for the wrong reason. You should not receive circumcision out of pressure from the Pharisees, or for declaring you innocent in the sight of Yahweh.
Remember, Paul did not compel Titus (a Greek) to be circumcised, because of the false brethren (Galatians 2:3-4). Paul saw it best to leave Titus uncircumcised, because to circumcise Titus at that time (and in that context) would give Titus the impression that Paul was caving in to the false circumcision doctrine of some believing Pharisees. For a person to be circumcised out of a desire to be obedient was and is an entirely different issue. As a matter of fact, the phrase "did not compel Titus to be circumcised because of the false brethren" implies that if it were not for the false brethren, Paul would have circumcised Titus.[2]
This interpretation gains weight when reading the next verse, 1 Corinthians 7:19: "Circumcision does not matter and un-circumcision does not matter, but keeping the commandments does." Circumcision is a commandment (Genesis 17:9-14; Leviticus 12:1-3), and keeping Yahweh's commandments does matter.
What did not matter was what was going on at that time concerning Jews trying to be Greeks and Gentiles trying to gain the approval of the Pharisees. These types of scruples or idiosyncrasies do not matter. It is the simple obedience to the law of Yahweh that does matter.
Recognize as well that Yahweh, in the Tanak (Old Testament), speaks negatively of circumcision in certain contexts. He speaks of a day where He will punish the circumcised along with the uncircumcised (Jeremiah 9:25-26). When we read these passages in the Tanak we are forced to interpret them in a way that does not contradict Yahweh's direct commands. We should read the Apostolic Scriptures in the exact same way, recognizing that any interpretation that contradicts Torah is an incorrect interpretation.
----------
[1] I do not use the word difficult to say that it is non-understandable for the person who believes the law is binding today. What we must do here is interpret this verse in light of hundreds of verses that speak of the continuance of the law. We should specifically interpret it in light of the previous revelation about the law of circumcision as found in the law itself. To tell Abraham that obedience to the Almighty in the area of circumcision was nothing, just after he heard Yahweh speak to him directly in Genesis 17:10-14, would have gotten nowhere with Abraham. Yahweh just told him that to disobey this covenant would constitute a cutting off of a person from His people; a breaking of the covenant. Remember also that Paul did not teach the Judahites to forsake Moses by ceasing to circumcise their children (Acts 21:15-27). That was a false rumor going around about Paul to discredit his ministry (Acts 21:24). All of the NT texts people attempt use to discredit circumcision deal with male adults, not children growing up in Torah observant homes.
[2] Some may point out Acts 16:3 where we read that Paul had Timothy circumcised, because he wanted Timothy to go with him in his witnessing efforts to the Judahites. The situation is different here though. Timothy was not being pressured to be circumcised by these Jews. They weren't telling Timothy, "You need to be circumcised in the manner we prescribe, or you’re not saved." Paul was simply heading off any questions that the Jews he would witness to would have about Timothy. He saw it best to circumcise Timothy before going to witness, and this proves that Paul did not believe all circumcising of uncircumcised men was unnecessary or heretical.
There were some that attempted to do something like that. In the second century B.C. there was a large Hellenization of Jews. A gymnasium was built in the land of Israel, and some of the men wished to participate in the games at the gymnasium nude. In order to have the appearance of the Greeks, the men would undergo some type of "surgery" whereby the foreskin was reattached to their penis. They were circumcised men, but attempted to become Greeks by performing un-circumcision. (See 1 Maccabees 1:10-15 and 2 Maccabees 4:7-9.)
Paul follows this by writing, "Was anyone called while uncircumcised? He should not get circumcised." Admittedly, this is a difficult phrase for the Torah-observant believer, but we must somehow interpret it in light of the law and the prophets (Isaiah 8:20).[1]
Paul could be saying that those called to Yeshua while in un-circumcision should not receive circumcision for the wrong reason. You should not receive circumcision out of pressure from the Pharisees, or for declaring you innocent in the sight of Yahweh.
Remember, Paul did not compel Titus (a Greek) to be circumcised, because of the false brethren (Galatians 2:3-4). Paul saw it best to leave Titus uncircumcised, because to circumcise Titus at that time (and in that context) would give Titus the impression that Paul was caving in to the false circumcision doctrine of some believing Pharisees. For a person to be circumcised out of a desire to be obedient was and is an entirely different issue. As a matter of fact, the phrase "did not compel Titus to be circumcised because of the false brethren" implies that if it were not for the false brethren, Paul would have circumcised Titus.[2]
This interpretation gains weight when reading the next verse, 1 Corinthians 7:19: "Circumcision does not matter and un-circumcision does not matter, but keeping the commandments does." Circumcision is a commandment (Genesis 17:9-14; Leviticus 12:1-3), and keeping Yahweh's commandments does matter.
What did not matter was what was going on at that time concerning Jews trying to be Greeks and Gentiles trying to gain the approval of the Pharisees. These types of scruples or idiosyncrasies do not matter. It is the simple obedience to the law of Yahweh that does matter.
Recognize as well that Yahweh, in the Tanak (Old Testament), speaks negatively of circumcision in certain contexts. He speaks of a day where He will punish the circumcised along with the uncircumcised (Jeremiah 9:25-26). When we read these passages in the Tanak we are forced to interpret them in a way that does not contradict Yahweh's direct commands. We should read the Apostolic Scriptures in the exact same way, recognizing that any interpretation that contradicts Torah is an incorrect interpretation.
----------
[1] I do not use the word difficult to say that it is non-understandable for the person who believes the law is binding today. What we must do here is interpret this verse in light of hundreds of verses that speak of the continuance of the law. We should specifically interpret it in light of the previous revelation about the law of circumcision as found in the law itself. To tell Abraham that obedience to the Almighty in the area of circumcision was nothing, just after he heard Yahweh speak to him directly in Genesis 17:10-14, would have gotten nowhere with Abraham. Yahweh just told him that to disobey this covenant would constitute a cutting off of a person from His people; a breaking of the covenant. Remember also that Paul did not teach the Judahites to forsake Moses by ceasing to circumcise their children (Acts 21:15-27). That was a false rumor going around about Paul to discredit his ministry (Acts 21:24). All of the NT texts people attempt use to discredit circumcision deal with male adults, not children growing up in Torah observant homes.
[2] Some may point out Acts 16:3 where we read that Paul had Timothy circumcised, because he wanted Timothy to go with him in his witnessing efforts to the Judahites. The situation is different here though. Timothy was not being pressured to be circumcised by these Jews. They weren't telling Timothy, "You need to be circumcised in the manner we prescribe, or you’re not saved." Paul was simply heading off any questions that the Jews he would witness to would have about Timothy. He saw it best to circumcise Timothy before going to witness, and this proves that Paul did not believe all circumcising of uncircumcised men was unnecessary or heretical.