1 Corinthians 7:18,19

The rule of 1 Corinthians 7:17 applied to the most prominent and critical distinction in the Church, that between Jew and Gentile : περιτετμημένος τις ἐκλήθη κ. τ. λ.; “Was any one called (as) a circumcised man? let him not have the mark effaced”. ἐπισπάσθω alludes to a surgical operation (ἐπισπάω, to draw ever) by which renegade Jews effaced the Covenant sign: see Malachi 1:11; Malachi 1:11 ff., Joseph., Ant., xii., 5, 1; Celsus, vii., 25. 5; also Schürer, Hist. of Jewish People, I., i., p. 203, and Wetstein ad loc [1078] Such apostates were called m'shûkím, recutiti (Buxtorf's Lexic., p. 1274). On the opp [1079] direction to the Gentile, μὴ περιτεμνέσθω, the Ep. to the Gal. is a powerful commentary; here the negative reasons against the change suffice (1 Corinthians 7:17; 1 Corinthians 7:19). The variation in tense and order of words in the two questions is noticeable: “Was any one a circumcised man at the time of his call (ἐκλήθη)?… Has any one been called (κέκληται) though in uncircumcision?” To clinch the matter (cf. 1 Corinthians 1:31; 1 Corinthians 3:7) P. applies one of his great axioms: “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing; but keeping of God's commands” that is everything.

[1078] ad locum, on this passage.

[1079] opposite, opposition.

In Galatians 5:6; Galatians 6:15 this maxim reappears, with πίστις διʼ ἀγάπης ἐνεργουμένη and καινὴ κτίσις respectively in the antithesis: this text puts the condition of acceptance objectively, as it lies in a right attitude toward God (cf. Romans 2:25 ff.); those other texts supply the subjective criterion, lying in a right disposition of the man. In Galatians 5, οὐκ ἰσχύει opposed to ἐνεργουμένη signalises the impotence of external states, the other two passages their nothingness as religious qualifications. “Those who would contrast the teaching of St. Paul with that of St. James, or exaggerate his doctrine of justification by faith, should reflect on this τήρησις ἐντολῶν Θεοῦ ” (Lt [1080]).

[1080] J. B. Lightfoot's (posthumous) Notes on Epp. of St. Paul (1895).