Live as you are Called: 1 Corinthians 7:17–24✞
Passage
A fairly short passage today, so let’s have it all at once to start:
17 Only let each person lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him, and to which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches. 18 Was anyone at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was anyone at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision. 19 For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God. 20 Each one should remain in the condition in which he was called. 21 Were you a bondservant when called? Do not be concerned about it. (But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.) 22 For he who was called in the Lord as a bondservant is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a bondservant of Christ. 23 You were bought with a price; do not become bondservants of men. 24 So, brothers, in whatever condition each was called, there let him remain with God.
This is kind of a side-note from the larger points Paul is making in this chapter1. In the last passage Paul talked about marriage, and in the next passage he’ll continue on talking about marriage and engagements, but part of the point he was making in that last passage is about living as God calls you to live, so in this passage he expands on that topic a bit, but using circumcision and servitude as subjects, rather than marriage, to make his point.
And, as with some parts of the previous passage, on the surface things are quite straightforward: Where you circumcised when you got saved? Fine! Were you uncircumcised? Fine! It doesn’t matter; however you were when you were called, that’s how God called you. Similarly, whether you were free when you were called or a “bondservant” (a type of servant, though different from what we now think of as “slaves” – see below), so be it! Remain as you were called!
The overall point Paul is making is that the state you were in when you were called doesn’t prevent you from being a good Christian. If it did, God wouldn’t have had you in that state when He called you. These specific examples don’t resonate with us, but we could substitute in many other things; for example, the type of job you do doesn’t disqualify you from being a Christian (unless you’re, say, a sex worker, or a dealer in illegal drugs, or some job that’s inherently un-Christian). You can be a Christian stockbroker, or a Christian firefighter, or a Christian computer programmer, or whatever. Whatever situation you find yourself in, whatever your life’s circumstances, God chose to save you as you are and use you as you are. That doesn’t mean you can’t change anything about yourself (as we’ll see in a moment), if you’re making changes in your life go for it! But it does mean that those circumstances in your life, on their own, aren’t going to prevent you from being Godly.
But because life is rarely simple, both of the examples Paul gives come with complications, so let’s delve into them.
We’ll take the easier one first: being a bondservant. Which… well, let me quote a large chunk from the preface from the English Standard Version of the Bible:
… a particular difficulty is presented when words in biblical Hebrew and Greek refer to ancient practices and institutions that do not correspond directly to those in the modern world. Such is the case in the translation of ‘ebed (Hebrew) and doulos (Greek), terms which are often rendered “slave.” These terms, however, actually cover a range of relationships that requires a range of renderings—“slave,” “bondservant,” or “servant”—depending on the context. Further, the word “slave” currently carries associations with the often brutal and dehumanizing institution of slavery particularly in nineteenth-century America. For this reason, the ESV translation of the words ‘ebed and doulos has been undertaken with particular attention to their meaning in each specific context. Thus in Old Testament times, one might enter slavery either voluntarily (e.g., to escape poverty or to pay off a debt) or involuntarily (e.g., by birth, by being captured in battle, or by judicial sentence). Protection for all in servitude in ancient Israel was provided by the Mosaic Law, including specific provisions for release from slavery. In New Testament times, a doulos is often best described as a “bondservant”—that is, someone in the Roman Empire officially bound under contract to serve his master for seven years (except for those in Caesar’s household in Rome who were contracted for fourteen years). When the contract expired, the person was freed, given his wage that had been saved by the master, and officially declared a freedman. The ESV usage thus seeks to express the most fitting nuance of meaning in each context. Where absolute ownership by a master is envisaged (as in Romans 6), “slave” is used; where a more limited form of servitude is in view, “bondservant” is used (as in 1 Corinthians 7:21–24); where the context indicates a wide range of freedom (as in John 4:51), “servant” is preferred. Footnotes are generally provided to identify the Hebrew or Greek and the range of meaning that these terms may carry in each case. The issues involved in translating the Greek word doulos apply also to the Greek word sundoulos, translated in the text as “fellow servant.”
ESV preface
When Paul is talking to “bondservants” he’s talking about a form of servitude that, while unlike being a slave during the North American slave trade, was still not ideal! So this is very much like what I was saying above: if one of the Corinthians Paul was writing to was a bondservant, Paul was encouraging them to gain their freedom if possible, because it’s better to be free than not to be free.
But, at the same time, Paul was also not calling them “second class Christians” because they were bondservants. God calls every man, woman, and child at exactly the right time, in exactly the right place, in exactly the right way. If God called one of Paul’s readers when that person was a bondservant, He had a reason for doing do. Perhaps His plan was for that person to gain their freedom later, perhaps it wasn’t, but that person could serve God as a faithful Christian as a bondservant, and later, if freedom was obtained, continue to serve God as a faithful Christian as a freed person.
The first example Paul gives, circumcision, is also complicated, though this passage doesn’t actually hint at the difficulties. Those hints come elsewhere. Let’s see those verses again:
18 Was anyone at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was anyone at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision. 19 For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God.
This is pretty straightforward2. Whether you’re circumcised or not, it doesn’t mean anything from a Christian perspective. You don’t need to try to change anything, and whether you’re circumcised or uncircumcised it doesn’t make you a “second class Christian.”
And… this is another example that doesn’t resonate with us. Who cares about circumcision in this day and age? But in Paul’s day, when the Christian Church was very closely entwined with the Jewish heritage out of which it grew, circumcision was a huge deal, because being circumcised was very much aligned with being a Jew. In fact, depending on who you were talking to, you could get judged harshly both ways:
- If you were talking to someone from a Jewish background, they might tell you that you can’t be a real Christian unless you’re circumcised, because God’s Law prescribes it.
- If you were talking to someone from a Gentile background they might tell you that you’re not a real Christian if you are circumcised, because it’s a bit “too Jewish,” or “too legalistic.”
- I don’t know how much this point would have been raised in Paul’s day, though it didn’t take long for the Christian Church to get very antisemitic, so it might have been raised more and more after Paul’s day.
So Paul is, again, reassuring his readers: Are you circumcised? Don’t worry! Are you uncircumcised? Don’t worry! As he says, “neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision.”
So… if things are so clearcut, why am I claiming it’s difficult? Because, at first glance, it might seem like Paul talks about circumcision differently in different places. (That’s not true, but at first glance it might seem that way.)
- Here in 1 Corinthians Paul says that neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything.
- In Galatians 5:1–15✞, however, he takes a strong stance against circumcision, going so far as to say that those who preach the need for circumcision should go all the way and emasculate themselves!
So which is it, Paul? Does circumcision matter, or doesn’t it? And, if I might make things as simplistic as possible, circumcision doesn’t matter – which is exactly why it was a problem in his letter to the Galatians!
I’ll put it this way: circumcision, on its own, doesn’t matter. Neither being circumcised nor being uncircumcised makes you either a better or a worse Christian. So, the point of today’s passage is that whatever “state” you were in when you were saved is fine – you’re fine.
The problem for the Galatians, however, is that there were teachers who were claiming that you have to be circumcised in order to be a Christian – that it’s a necessary thing you have to do in order to be a Christian. And Paul had a huge problem with that, because they were trying to add to the work of Christ. They were claiming that you had to have faith in Christ and you had to obey certain laws (of which circumcision was the most obvious), or else you weren’t saved. No, Paul said to the Galatians, you are saved by faith in Christ alone. He has done the work, not you (so that no one may boast). As soon as you try to make anything other than Christ’s work necessary for salvation you’re saying something blasphemous.
But if you’re not trying to make it necessary for the Gospel, if you just happen to be either circumcised or uncircumcised, then don’t worry about it! It means nothing.
Thoughts
It occurs to me that very often, when we’re taking the Scriptures out of context and trying to get too legalistic with the text, it’s often on topics where the author’s original intent was to reassure his readers. I don’t have any theological hypotheses as to why that might be, it’s just something I’ve noticed when blogging through Paul’s letters.
In the previous passage we had a [legitimately difficult] passage about non-believing spouses or children being “made holy,” and I’m not going to try to claim that’s a simple passage to understand, but as we strive to define what Paul meant (and didn’t mean) by “holy,” we lose sight of the fact that he was writing to reassure his readers. Do you have an unbelieving spouse? Don’t worry! It’s in God’s hands! No, it’s not an ideal situation, but He’s in control.
Similarly here: Are you a bondservant? Are you circumcised – or uncircumcised? Don’t worry! You’re fine the way you are! Some blogger in the 21st Century might write a ton of words trying to think about circumcision and what Paul meant in different situations, but in this particular passage Paul is telling his listeners that they’re fine exactly the way God called them. They aren’t second class Christians.
No comments:
Post a Comment