Christ Circumcised. Andrew S. Jacobs

those who would gain admission to the Kingdom once it was established, would enter as Gentiles. They would worship and eat together with Israel, in Jerusalem, at the Temple. The God they worship, the God of Israel, will have redeemed them from the error of idolatry: he will have saved them—to phrase this in slightly different idiom—graciously, apart from the works of the Law.”⁵² Fredriksen points out that this eschatological adhesion mirrored the situation Paul likely faced on the ground in major cities of the Mediterranean: gentiles (“Godfearers”) who attached themselves to the Jewish God and synagogue without entering into any process of conversion or entry into the Jewish covenant.⁵³ If we consider circumcision not only as a theological seal but also a social and political marker—a sign of participation in the Roman cultural economy—we can view the conflict between Paul and the “circumcisers” from quite a different angle.

      Paul, the fairly conservative former Pharisee,⁵⁴ in resisting the wholesale application of the Jewish sign of circumcision, may be viewed as resisting Roman power in several ways.⁵⁵ On the one hand, we might imagine him along the lines of the later intellectual heirs of the Pharisees, the sages, who developed tight controls over ritualized circumcision and so partially recuperated their sacred symbol from the clutches of Roman imperialism. When Paul writes, “What is the use of circumcision? Much, in every way (

)” (Rom 3:1–2), we need not see this as a rhetorical concession. Rather we might sense the same admiration for and anxiety surrounding the cultural function of circumcision as we find later in the sages, who similarly proclaim, “Great is circumcision!” (b. Ned. 31a–32b). The value of circumcision lies in its appropriate application by Jews alone: in Roman hands, it is a tool of power and control over Jews.

      Paul’s aversion to gentile circumcision might also resist Roman power in more general fashion: by refusing to submit followers of Jesus to the scrutiny of Roman specular authority. Paul opts out of this cultural economy of signs, and so pronounces that “circumcision has no value, and uncircumcision [literally, ‘foreskin’] has no value (

)” (1 Cor 7:19; cf. Gal 5:6, 6:15). Paul values circumcision at nothing, even though elsewhere it was “of use in every way.” Paul is not simply denying the value of circumcision or the Jewish Law: he is denying value to circumcision and uncircumcision, that is, to the distinction between the two.⁵⁶ They cannot be used to segregate populations in the fashion that the Roman Empire insisted.⁵⁷ So too Paul tells the church in Rome: “circumcision is not in the visible flesh (

) … but rather a matter of the heart (

)” (Rom 2:28–29).⁵⁸ Located now in the heart, circumcision remains invisible to the powers of Rome that Paul, elsewhere, is careful not to oppose (Rom 13:1–7). The followers of Jesus who internalize the mark of Judaism are thereby made invisible to the powers of this world, stripped of the stereotypical signs that would allow them to circulate in the Roman imperial system. Circumcision remains the secret, hidden treasure of Israel.⁵⁹

      If Paul’s reluctance to incorporate this visible sign of Jewish identity and Roman power into his gospel may be read (at least in part) as a form of cultural resistance,⁶⁰ then we may also reimagine “the circumcisers” as, in some ways, accommodating the cultural constraints of Roman rule. When “certain individuals from Judea” insisted to Paul’s gentile adherents that they be circumcised to show they belong to the “Law of Moses,” they were preaching gentile incorporation into that same Roman economy of cultural signs. Where Paul would have his followers float invisibly (“neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, no male and female” [Gal 3:28]), free radicals in the Roman body politic,⁶¹ the circumcising apostles would fix them—like the old Jewish tax dodger of Suetonius’s memory—firmly, and legibly, in that Roman system of stereotypes. If they shared Paul’s apocalyptic worldview, the circumcisers may even have thought that God would himself require a similar system of symbolic legibility during his final judgment.

      My intention is not to reduce the role of circumcision in the first generation of the Jesus movement to simply a cipher for politics: clearly, Paul (and his opponents) felt passionately about this particular sign and its role in the apocalyptic scenario they all believed would soon play out across the face of the oikoumenē. The distinct lack of emotion in the same debate, as narrated in Acts of the Apostles, must likewise be read both theologically and politically (Acts 15): the text is notable for its efforts to “make nice” with the power of Rome (a point I address more fully below), and also for its distance from Paul’s fiery apocalyptic abolition of status, sign, stereotype, and hierarchy.⁶² Once Paul and his circumcising opponents have died, his followers continued to imagine the role of circumcision in culture and salvation: now brought into contact, for the first time, with the person of Jesus.

       Colossians: Circumcision Rewritten

      Jesus himself seems not to have preached about circumcision (in favor or against), at least as far as we can tell from the gospels;⁶³ nor does Paul speak of Jesus providing any direct or indirect guidance on the question of circumcision.⁶⁴ Later interpreters of Paul, however, came to imagine the issues of Moses’ Law and Jesus’ messiahship in a more diachronic fashion: not only did old covenant expand into a new, universal relationship between God and humanity but there was also a chronological development from the old covenant to a new covenant. The person of Jesus was imagined to have transformed the covenant, and its sign: circumcision.

      The Letter to the Colossians is considered by many scholars to be pseudonymous, possibly written soon after Paul’s death in his name.⁶⁵ Even those who defend Pauline authorship admit that “Colossians does not manifest the urgency about the timing of the Parousia [Second Coming] that 1 Thessalonians, for example, has.”⁶⁶ With this dampened eschatological heat comes a comparative warmth toward the hierarchical structures of the Roman Empire: the notorious “household code” (Col 3:18–4:1) that ties the domestic theology of Colossians much more clearly to the later, pseudonymous “Pastoral” Epistles 1 Timothy and Titus.⁶⁷

      It is also in the Letter to the Colossians that we find our earliest possible reference to Christ’s own circumcision, a notably positive use of “circumcision.”⁶⁸ The language is dense, and the Greek grammar multivalent.⁶⁹ In the midst of a warning against “philosophy and empty deceit,” the author reminds the Colossians of the celestial and divine fullness of Christ in which they now participate: “For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily (

), and you have come to fullness in him, who is the head of every ruler and authority. In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision not made by hands (

), by putting off the body of the flesh in the circumcision of Christ (

), when you were buried with him in baptism, you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead” (Col 2:9–13; NRSV modified). The letter continues to extol the life-giving virtues of the crucifixion, which abnegates the need to follow the Jewish Law (Col 2:14)—here specified not as circumcision, but rather “matters of food and drink … observing festivals, new moons, or sabbaths” (Col 2:16). Circumcision does appear once more in the letter, as a gloss on a Pauline slogan from Galatians 3:28: “there is no more Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free-person, but Christ is all in all” (Col 3:11). As Harry Maier has pointed out, the particular resonances of the letter as a whole set this later