Corpus-Paul

[Richard Fellows <rfellows AT intergate.ca>]

Charles Savelle wrote:

>The second question is a little more historical, that is, is there any 
>evidence that early Jewish Christians ever attempted to undo their 
>circumcisions?
>The third question is more literary. If early Jewish Christians were not 
>typically involved in being uncircumcised, then what is the purpose of 
>Paul's reference to what basically would be a non-issue in 1 Cor 7:18? At 
>this stage, I am inclined to think that Paul mentions it merely for the sake 
>of balancing his argument and illustrating the comprehensiveness of the 
>principle which he introduced in the previous verse. Any thoughts?

In 1 Cor 7:18 Paul advises the circumcised not to undo their circumcisions.
He then advises the uncircumcised not to become circumcised. I don't see
any way of telling from this verse which of the two situations is real, and
which, if any, is just to balance the argument. To decide this question, we
must look at the immediate context and the letter as a whole.

I would suggest that the reference to epispasm reflected the real
situation, and that the reference to circumcision may have been just to
illustrate the principle. Here's why. Firstly, we have no indications that
there was any pressure on Corinthian believers to become circumcised. We
read nothing in 1 Cor or 2 Cor similar to what we read in Galatians on
circumcision. But while the issue of circumcision was probably not real in
Corinth, it had been real in others of Paul's churches, so the reference to
circumcision here would well serve to illustrate Paul's principle. It had
been necessary for Paul to tell believers in other cities not to be
circumcised, and by pointing to this fact in 7:18 he demonstrates his
consistency in applying the principle of status quo. This is why he says in
7:17, "this is my rule in all my churches". If, on the other hand, epispasm
was never an issue in any of Paul's churches, the clause on epispasm would
hardly serve to demonstrate that "this is my rule in all my churches".

Another reason for believing that Paul's real focus in 7:18 is on epispasm
rather than circumcision, is that the sociological significance of epispasm
seems to fit the context better than does circumcision. On this see Bruce
Winter's "Seek the Welfare of the City" p147-154. Winter shows that
epispasm was done by Jews to increase the individual's prospects and status
in the pagan society. Now, the discussion of slavery in 7:21ff also
concerns the issues of prospects and status, so the mention of epispasm is
probably not incidental. Rather, it is part of Paul's purpose, and is his
focus in 7:18.

A dominant theme of 1 Corinthians is the secularizing tendency of the
Corinthian believers, and epispasm is an expression of this tendency. The
epispasm issue fits with the rest of the letter, whereas the circumcision
issue does not. Incidentally, we should not be surprised that epispasm is
not mentioned elsewhere in Paul: it is only 1 Corinthians that deals so
much with the relationship between the believers and the secular world.

Furthermore, Acts 21:21 lends some support to the hypothesis that some Jews
in Paul's churches had renounced circumcision.

In view of these arguments, it seems likely that there really were some
Jews in Corinth, who wanted to mix freely in pagan society, and that the
reference to epispasm reflects that situation. I am not sure, however,
whether they were actually contemplating a physical operation, or whether
the reference is a metaphorical one to their secularizing tendencies.