Book Review - “The Apostle To The Foreskin” – by Ryan Collman
One of the most common misunderstandings about Paul is his viewpoint on circumcision.
Was Paul against circumcision? I’ll give a good Jewish answer. Yes, no, and it depends on what you mean. Keep reading, and I’ll unpack this and share about a helpful new book on this central Pauline topic.
I recently finished Ryan Collman's new book, "The Apostle to the Foreskin." This is a comprehensive study of "circumcision" in the letters of Paul, which was a central topic for the Apostle and had massive implications for the early Christ movement.
It is an important and well-done book.
Personally, I am thankful for Collman’s book because it challenges the traditional viewpoint that Paul negated the role of circumcision – which is a foundational, Biblical observance for the Jewish people. This viewpoint is a pillar of a larger, long-held framework among interpreters that Paul’s gospel replaced Judaism and the ongoing relevance of the Torah. In other words, the “anti-circumcision” Paul contributes to the “anti-Judaism” Paul – a viewpoint that saturates commentaries and sermons and assumptions in pews.
The anti-Judaism Paul, though familiar, has not only distorted the real (Jewish) Paul, it has also provided fuel for thousands of years of Christian anti-Judaism – which is one step before anti-Semitic action.
Was Paul against circumcision? Typically, interpreters answer this question with a flat and confident "yes."
Works like Collman's help us to think more carefully about this question.
A better question is: Was Paul against circumcision for in-Christ Gentiles? The answer to that question is also yes. But this is only one side of the issue.
Paul was against circumcision for in-Christ Gentiles because, in his thinking, they were already fully justified members of God's family. But for Jews, in Paul's thinking, it was very different.
Jews, whether in Christ or not, most definitely should be circumcised – as Paul was himself (see Philippians 3:5). As Collman notes, “Circumcision is what Jews do. For Paul, it quite literally defines them” (202).
Collman's book is an academic work. It is well-written, comprehensive, and operates from a "Paul within Judaism" perspective. Also, here's some good news: it is now affordable at 21.99 on Amazon.
Here are a few brief takeaways:
1. Collman’s emphasis on translating akrobustia as “foreskinned” instead of the universal “uncircumcision” is significant. He says, “Circumcision (peritome) has historically received much attention from Pauline interpreters, however, the language of foreskin (akrobustia) is rarely given much thought…The Greek term that indicates uncircumcision (aperitmatos)- does not occur in the Pauline corpus…Instead of Paul discussing what individuals possess- a foreskin- they make it about what they lack- a circumcision” (16). This is important. Collman is right. Paul did not view Gentiles as lacking anything – so long as they embraced Christ and thus the means to join God’s family as right-wised humans. Translating “uncircumcision” as “foreskinned” reinforces Paul’s emphasis that Gentiles in Christ are not substandard. For Paul, if Gentiles are in Christ, there is no “un” in their identity
2. Collman argues persuasively that Paul does not negate the importance of circumcision in his letters – despite standard interpretations of well-known passages that confidently assert that he does. Collman says, “Paul’s negation of circumcision and foreskin in 1 Cor 7:19 is not a true negation of those identities, but serves to highlight the importance of keeping the commandments of God. Paul employs the rhetoric of negation and comparison…to draw his readers attention to what he thinks truly matters. While one’s identity as circumcised or foreskinned does not matter as it pertains to membership within the assembly, what does matter is keeping the commandments of God” (45). Collman’s emphasis on Paul’s “rhetoric of negation” is important.
Rhetorically, circumcision doesn’t matter to Paul in the sense that it is not a required custom for Gentiles to enter God’s family. But it does remain a required practice for Jews. Paul’s letters emphasize that the distinction between Gentiles and Jews remains among Christ's followers. “Ultimately, for Paul, one’s ethnic identity as a Jew or non-Jew has no bearing on their ability to be recipients of the divine pneuma and eschatological dikaiosyne; they both have an equal standing before God in the Messiah” (45). In other words, for Paul, Jews and in-Christ Gentiles are one but not the same – and this manifests in how each relates differently to circumcision. Collman’s exegesis of the relevant texts, such as 1 Cor 7:17-20, is vital in establishing Paul’s emphasis upon unity, but not uniformity within the people of God.
3. Here’s a big point that sums up Collman’s book: “Circumcision is what Jews do. For Paul, it quite literally defines them…Paul’s harsh words about the circumcision of non-Jews were taken as a rejection of circumcision tout court. The Jewish Paul’s repudiation of circumcision for Gentiles became the Christian Paul’s repudiation of circumcision for everyone” (202). This is well said.
Understanding Paul this way is a game changer. Seeing Paul as repudiating circumcision for everyone has not only obscured Paul and significant themes within his letters, but it has also added large bricks to an unnecessary barrier between Christians and Jews. Historically, the anti-circumcision (Christian) Paul provided fuel for Christian vitriol toward Jewish practices and, ultimately, Jewish people.
Recovering the (Jewish) Paul’s more nuanced view of circumcision, and particularly his advocacy for circumcision for Jews, can help repair relationships between Christians and Jews. This is one way that efforts like Collman’s to reinterpret Paul “within Judaism” not only help provide more probable interpretive options but also provide the materials for expanded bridge-building between these historically estranged siblings.