What does 1 Corinthians 7:19 mean?

Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. 1 Corinthians 7:19

Explanation

The verse from 1 Corinthians 7:19 is making a declaration regarding the relative unimportance of the physical rite of circumcision within the Christian faith, especially compared to the importance of obeying God’s commandments. Paul is addressing a major debate in the early Christian community: whether Gentile (non-Jewish) converts to Christianity needed to observe Jewish rites, including circumcision, to fully belong to the Christian church. In stating “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing,” Paul underlines that these physical marks do not hold spiritual significance within the new covenant of faith in Christ Jesus. The deeper meaning reveals Paul’s emphasis on a heart-transforming faith that results in obedience to God, over and above external religious rituals.

Historical Context

1 Corinthians is a letter written by the Apostle Paul to the Christian church in Corinth around A.D. 55. The early church was composed of both Jewish and Gentile converts, which led to significant disputes regarding the necessity of following Jewish law and customs. Circumcision was particularly contentious since it was a critical mark of Jewish identity and religious observance. Through this epistle, Paul sought to address the divisions and questions that arose within this diverse community, focusing particularly on issues of Christian liberty, proper conduct, and the nature of the church.

Theological Insights

The theological insights of this verse can be understood differently depending on one’s interpretive framework:

• Covenant Theology: This perspective might emphasize that Paul’s words here indicate a shift from the old covenant, which included physical circumcision as a sign, to the new covenant under Christ, where the focus is on the spiritual transformation and obedience to God.
• New Perspective on Paul: Scholars from this viewpoint may argue that Paul is not dismissing Jewish practices outright but is redefining what they meant for Jewish followers of Jesus, as well as Gentiles, within the new Christian context.
• Dispensationalism: Adherents of this view may see Paul’s statement as an affirmation that the ceremonial laws given to Israel in the Old Testament do not apply to the church, which is a distinct dispensation in God’s plan.

Practical Applications

In practical terms, this verse can serve as a reminder that ritualistic practices or outward signs do not substitute for genuine faith and obedience. It encourages individuals to focus on developing a relationship with God that is reflected in ethical living, rather than merely adhering to external religious obligations. The essence of religious life, according to this verse, is not ritual compliance, but heartfelt compliance to the moral and ethical teachings of the faith.

Cross-References

• Galatians 5:6: “For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.”
• Romans 2:28-29: “For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.”
• Galatians 6:15: “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.”

Language Study

The key words in this verse in the original Greek are:

• “Peritome” (περιτομή), which means “circumcision.”
• “Akrobustia” (ἀκροβυστία), which means “uncircumcision” or the foreskin of males.
• “Entole” (ἐντολή), which means “commandment” or “directive.”
• “Theos” (θεός), meaning “God.”

An analysis of these words highlights a contrast between physical states (circumcised or uncircumcised) and the action of obeying God’s “entole,” the commandments.

Cultural and Religious Comparisons

In comparison to other ancient religious practices, circumcision was uniquely central to Jewish identity and faith. It marked the Abrahamic covenant with God in a physical and perpetual way. Other ancient religions, however, also practiced types of bodily rites and marks, though they often carried different meanings and purposes.

Scientific Perspectives

From a scientific perspective, the debate on circumcision has evolved to include discussions on medical benefits, ethics, and human rights. While ancient religious texts like the Bible discuss circumcision in a strictly religious context, modern discussions also focus on the health implications and the individual’s right to bodily autonomy.

Commentaries

Different Biblical commentators have interpreted this verse in varied ways:

• John Calvin viewed the verse as a way for Paul to stress the centrality of the inner man over external ceremonies.
• Matthew Henry’s commentary emphasized that Christianity is an inward and spiritual religion, and that the essence of it is obedience to God’s commandments, rather than outward compliance with religious customs such as circumcision.
• Contemporary scholars such as N.T. Wright have approached the text in light of second-temple Jewish perspectives, urging readers to understand the cultural and religious dynamics within Judaism when interpreting Paul’s letters. Wright might suggest Paul is redefining the markers of the people of God in light of the Messiah’s arrival.
• Other modern commentators might focus on the sociological implications of Paul’s words, emphasizing the apostle’s efforts to unify a diverse Christian community by minimizing divisions based on ethnic and religious identity markers.