Initiation for Jews in the Jesus Movement Under Paul

Abstract

This paper examines the role of water immersion for Jews in Pauline assemblies. By analyzing Paul’s letters alongside the Qumran literature, Philo and Josephus, we show that ancient Jewish groups understood the nature of circumcision and its requirement for Jews and proselytes. Extrapolating Paul’s apocalyptic theology reveals that physical lineage and eighth-day circumcision are insufficient to overcome universal sin in Paul’s thought. Water immersion serves as the essential vehicle for receiving pneuma, establishing pneumatic initiation as mandatory for both Jewish and Gentile believers to enter the true covenantal remnant.

1. Introduction

The question of the importance of immersion in Pauline communities has been addressed vis-a-vis its importance for Gentile believers. However, the importance of immersion for Jewish believers merits further discussion. Scholars within the Paul within Judaism movement have rightly highlighted Paul’s self-understanding as an apostle specifically commissioned to the nations, yet this focus has frequently left unexamined how his pneumatic and apocalyptic framework directly impacted ethnic Jewish followers of Jesus, among Paul within Judaism scholars. By reading Paul’s letters alongside Second Temple Jewish benchmarks, particularly the Qumran community, Philo, and Josephus, Paul’s understanding of how Jews integrated into the movement inaugurated by Jesus can be fully presented as an option within Second Temple Judaism. This paper demonstrates that ancient Jewish groups consistently maintained distinct socio-religious categories for native Jews and incoming proselytes. Paul also maintains this distinction when clearly distinguishing between ethnically non-Jewish followers of Jesus and ethnic Jewish followers, indicating his understanding of identity in the Jesus movement fits in and reflects broader Jewish currents of the time.

This research situates Paul among other voices from the Second Temple period, noting similarities and differences around the topic of circumcision and how it applies to both Jews and proselytes. Philo understood two aspects of circumcision, a physical component and a spiritual or mental component, both of which were considered obligatory by Philo. This paper presents Paul’s understanding of circumcision to be similar in containing those two elements but different in that pneumatic circumcision is elevated by Paul to be the true and necessary component of circumcision. Contrary to some scholars within the Paul within Judaism camp, this research understands that Paul did not consider Israelite lineage or eighth day circumcision as sufficient to save an ethic Jew from the power of sin. This research argues that within Paul’s eschatological restorationism, water immersion functions as the symbolic vehicle for receiving pneuma, making it just as mandatory for Jewish believers as for Gentiles to participate in the true covenantal remnant.

This paper also distinguishes this line of Paul within Judaism research from most scholarship associated with that framework in two ways. First, it continues to unpack the implication of seeing Paul’s gentile followers as proselytes to Judaism, rather than godfearers or ex-pagan pagans (Fredriksen 2017), and secondly it questions the assertion within Paul within Judaism that Paul would have encouraged Jewish believers to undergo physical circumcision, a position which cannot be maintained by the texts left by Paul without question.

2. Paul’s Gentile Audience

Scholars associated with the Paul within Judaism framework typically read Paul’s letters as only addressed to Gentiles and not to Jews, against both the Reformational and New Perspective on Paul readings. This is justified by understanding Paul’s message as reflective of his identity as an ambassador of the Jesus movement to Gentiles. The composition of Paul’s audience is a controversial topic among scholars that cannot be addressed fully here. The issue will be addressed in the analysis of specific passages to give alternative understandings of how audience might affect the reading of a text.

This being the case, there is considerable debate as to whether any of Paul’s letters were addressed to Jews, even partially, among Paul within Judaism scholars (Gager 2000, p. 51). However, some have noted that the language around how Paul talks about Jesus varies if there is a possibility of a Jewish audience, such as in Romans, where he uses the title son of God, not found in other letters, indicating perhaps a different audience (Dunn 1977, p. 46). Additional attention must be paid to the careful linguistic style adopted by Paul in his use of second person vs. first person plural pronouns which some read as indicating a broader audience including Jewish believers (i.e., Stendahl and Holmer 1977, p. 22).

Staples (2023, p. 23) presents arguments in favor of a mixed audience, at least for Romans, by reading Paul’s direct reference to Gentiles in Rom 11:13–14 as evidence that the letter was written to both Jews and Gentiles (cf. Rom 15:7–9, which also appears to address both groups), rejecting the previous argument that being the ambassador to the nations limits Paul’s audience to only Gentiles (p. 24). Nanos rejects a mixed audience for Romans and suggests it is only written to Gentile Christ-followers to warn against “gentilizing”, returning to pagan worship (1999, p. 284). He proposes that non-Christian Jews are a focal point of interest in the letter and are mentioned throughout the text but not directly addressed to them (Nanos 1999, pp. 298–99).

Staples (2023) reflection on the letter to the Romans are valid but Romans is notably different in quality from the other letters in that it is addressed to an audience that Paul does not know and to an assembly he did not start. In all of the other letters, the indication is that the audience is addressed to Gentiles, those who abandoned idolatry (1 Thess 1:9–10; 4:1–8) and former pagans (1 Cor 12:2) who were now the true circumcision (Phil 3:3). This supposes that most of the authentic letter collection was addressed to Gentiles except for Romans which was addressed to Jews and Gentiles. This variation in intended audience gives us the opportunity to understand how Paul’s message was meant to apply to Jews and Gentiles.

Having that in mind, and siding with the viewpoints that propose at least Romans as having a mixed audience, we can begin to understand how Paul’s message applied to Gentiles and Jews. This paper examines citations from Romans with the mixed audience in mind, and in other cases acknowledges that the audience could be mixed, consisting of both Jews and non-Jews.

3. Proselytes and the Boundaries of Israel

Key to understanding the role of Jews in the scheme of salvation in Paul’s mind is to understand the role of Gentiles, as the contours of the boundaries of “Israel” intersect with two important concepts. First, can Jews be considered “not Israel” in any circumstances? Second, are proselytes considered part of Israel? Contrary to most scholarship, I read the role of Gentile believers as proselytes or converts to Judaism within the Jesus movement, acknowledging this is an anachronistic term but one that best encapsulates Gentile believer identity without confusion. My formulation of this identity is based on readings of Jewish literature of the time, particularly in early rabbinic sources, where converted Gentiles were considered not as full Jews but as a separate “proselyte” category (t. Kiddushin 5:1–2; m. Kiddushin 4:6–7; b. Kiddushin 77a; c.f. Life of Moses 1:27), which was distinct from another viewpoint which prohibited Gentile conversion entirely (b. Shabbat 31a–b).1

Most scholars understand circumcision to have been non-negotiable in proselyte conversion in the Second Temple period. For example, Cohen notes this with the narrative of the conversion of Izates, even if the procedure varied from later rabbinic halakhah. Terence Donaldson similarly notes that circumcision was the defining characteristic that signified a shift from “Gentile” to “Jewish identity” (Donaldson 2007, p. 656). This was because circumcision was practiced by Jews on the eighth day (Ant. 1.214) which led to some Jews rejecting the possibility of Gentile circumcision for conversion because it could not occur on the eighth day (Thiessen 2011).

We will consider how Israel was understood by various communities and authors of the period, with the intention of understanding how they considered proselytes to be integrated into the broader community of Israel and if there was any need for Jews to undergo a special initiation. We will consider the Qumran sect, Philo, Josephus and Paul.

3.1. Qumran

The meaning of the term ger in the Qumran literature is debated among scholars. The literature can be understood as reflecting a view at Qumran that separated born Jews from proselytes (CD 14:3–6; 4Q169 2:9) who would have access only to the outer courts of a future Temple (11QTa [11Q19] 40:5–6) but were still considered Israelites in a certain sense (Q11ATa46:7–8; Hayes 2002, p. 62). There is debate over whether or not the Qumran literature means “proselyte” or something different by the term ger, with some accepting it as a type of conversion, even if different from later rabbinic models (P. R. Davies 1994, p. 75), or a type of non-Jewish resident alien (Lübbe 1996) more aspirational in meaning. Some understand the references to gerim to be more hypothetical in nature but still describing converts of a certain sort (Gillihan 2011, p. 264). Berthelot considers the ger to be somewhat in between biblical and rabbinic models adopting elements of the Israelite tribal system as its own subcategory and distinct from an actual proselyte (except in 4QFlor 4Q174 and 4QpNah 4Q169; cf. Berthelot 1999, p. 177). Similar is Hamidović, who also uses a tribal model to understand the ger’s identity, understanding this as a distinct tribe of sorts without being natively Israelite, who might be fully assimilated by the fourth generation (Hamidović 2007, p. 266).

The Qumran community shared in the same type of restorationist eschatology that characterized Paul’s thinking. They considered that all who are initiated into the community become part of the covenant (CD 6:19; 19:33; 20:12), gaining access to the spirit (1QS 3:7; CD 7:4), and have heart circumcision (1QH 12:11; Staples 2023, p. 266), which included Jews. This meant that, for the Qumran sect, both Jews and Gentiles needed to undergo initiation into the remnant at Qumran to be considered righteous and part of the new covenant.

Initiation at Qumran was likely a two-step process (4Q265 4ii; cf. War 2.137–142; 1QS 6.13–23) which made one an insider after a period of trial membership (1QS 6.13–15; V, 7–11; Lavender 2025, p. 269). The Qumran community saw initiation as a transformational rite (Furstenberg 2016, p. 366). Qumran scrolls speak of entering purifying waters and becoming united with God’s spirit (1QS 3.4 12; 1QS 4.20–25; Marcus 2018, p. 29). The writings left behind by the Qumran sect indicate that they thought Jews needed something, God’s spirit, in addition to being born as Jews to enter the new covenant.

3.2. Philo of Alexandria

Philo understands “Israel” to be a metaphorical entity, related to the mind (Spec. 1.299; Plant. 42; Fug. 71) due to its meaning as “one who sees God” (Legat. 3–5). For this reason, proselytes can be defined by the quality of their soul and not ethnic ancestry (Virt. 187–227) and constitute a nation with Jews because they uniquely can “see” God (Mos. 2.271; Spec. 1.54; Virt. 179, 221; cf. Barclay 2017, p. 230). Philo defines proselytes as “not one who has circumcised his foreskin, but one who has circumcised the pleasures, desires, and other passions of the soul” (QE 2.2; Hubbard 2022, p. 147). Proselytes embraced the ultimate reality (Spec. 1.51, 309; Virt. 178) because Philo saw Judaism as truth (Virt. 219) due to its monotheism (Virt 102), the Cause and Father of all (Virt 221; QE 2.2). Abraham is the model example of a proselyte, being a Chaldean by birth who departed from his land and gods and worshipped the one true God (Virt 39; cf Das 2016, p. 199). It seems that Philo considered proselytes equals with born Jews, although they required special care after leaving their families (Spec. 1.51–52; 309; Boccaccini 2020, p. 79).

Philo understands there to be two types of circumcision based on reading the two scopes of the commandment of circumcision of all males and of the flesh (Gen 17:10–11) which Philo reads as a physical and mental circumcision (QG 3:46) which involves the excision of superfluous feminine accretions to the intellect, restoring the mind’s purity and virility, reversing Eve’s creation, understood by Philo to be an allegorical representation of passion (Niehoff 2003, p. 93). In this passage, Philo compares circumcision to the removal of superfluous growths in the mind to make it free of passions and able to ascend to the heavenly realm (cf. Her 69–70; Migr 9; cf. Niehoff 2003, p. 93; Blanton 2019, p. 152). Relying on Platonic notions of how human nature consisted of both flesh and mind (νοῦς/διάνοια), he understood circumcision as having two dimensions that affected both the physical body and the mind by removing superfluous physical tissue and superfluous passions of the mind, tied to the biblical notion of heart circumcision (Deut. 10:15; 30:6), and turned cultural stereotypes on their head such that circumcised Jewish genitalia represented not lust but self-control and the rejection of lust (Blanton 2019, pp. 153–54). Circumcision was also meant to help curb men’s sexual appetite (QG 3:47) and aid in preventing diseases (QG 3:48; Spec 1:8–9; cf Blanton 2019, pp. 97–98). The metaphorical circumcision is of the mind, heart, and eyes (QG 3:47–8; cf Niehoff 2003, pp. 97–99).

Hubbard proposes three points vis-a-vis Philo’s understanding of circumcision “(1) Philo encouraged and expected physical circumcision from his fellow ethnic Jews; (2) Philo did not believe physical circumcision should be required of gentile proselytes; and (3) Philo does not believe that proselytes became Jews” (Hubbard 2022, p. 145), some of which are controversial and not supported by all Philonic scholars. His analysis focuses on Migr. 89–93, which discusses the value of a good reputation in life, which leads to Philo’s critique of radical allegorical interpretations of the Torah’s commandments, as Philo understands that these must be tied to physical rites, without disregarding the allegorical meaning of the commandments (Hubbard 2022, p. 146). That is, Philo understands Jews to be a different category from proselytes, who join broader Israel but do not become Jews, and there were different ritual criteria for Jews and proselytes. This is opposite to what was expected at Qumran where Jews and proselytes both required the same initiatory rites into the new covenant, although it was left to debate as to whether proselytes become Israelites.

QE 2:2 is the only one in Philo’s corpus that discusses the circumcision of proselytes, which can be read as suggesting that they do not need physical circumcision (Belkin 1940; Cohen 1989; McEleney 1974), but many disagree with the assertion that proselytes did not need physical circumcision for Philo (Donaldson 2007, p. 267; Nolland 1981; cf. QE 3.50; 3.62). Hubbard reads QE 2:2 as suggesting that the status of the Hebrews as proselytes has to do with their having a foreskin (cf. Josh 5:2, LXX; Hubbard 2022, p. 149). Hubbard accounts for the discrepancy in QE 2:2 which suggests proselytes do not need circumcision and the necessity of maintaining the rite in Migr. 89–93 as Philo’s approach to two different classes of people, born Jews (Migr. 89–93) and proselytes (QE 2:2), such that physical circumcision was a necessity for Jews as an ethnic boundary marker but not for proselytes (Hubbard 2022, p. 151). This passage can also be tied to the two types of circumcision such that Philo understands proselytes as only requiring the metaphorical circumcision of the mind (QG 3:46), although this reading of Philo’s thought vis-à-vis the circumcision of proselytes is debated.

3.3. Josephus

Josephus mentions many non-Jews emulating their piety (eusebeia, C.Ap. 2.282; cf. Seneca, Epistulae 95.47; cf Berthelot 2020b, p. 499) and “Judaizers” who adopted Jewish practices (War 2.462–463; 2.560; cf 2.454; cf Thiessen 2016, p. 389). It is noteworthy that Josephus does not use the word proselytos or epelytos, the related term, to describe what should be clearly understood as “conversion to Judaism”, those who choose to live according to Jewish law and custom, but rather as allophyloi (“foreigners”) (Berthelot 2020a, p. 37). Berthelot proposes that Josephus was influenced by Philo’s type of thinking which universalized Israelite identity, in a sense, to a sort of spiritual common ancestry (Mos. 2.171, Spec. 1.126, 317), with the whole of Israel becoming their family (cf. C. Ap. 2.210). Josephus also echoes Philo’s description of converts as citizens in the Jewish politeia (C.Ap 2.260–261) connecting the acceptance of Mosaic law as the means of acquiring citizenship in Israel (Berthelot 2020a, p. 39; cf. C. Ap 2.210). Both authors accept that Israel is open to new citizens, perhaps reflecting the Roman conceptualization of citizenship as open to newcomers. Josephus considers Gentile admiration of Jewish charity, through the collection of tithes for the poor, as a principal reason for their interest in Judaism (C. Ap. 2.39; Cohen 1990, p. 183n12). Josephus mentions several women who converted to Judaism in his day, including Fulvia a Roman matron (Ant. 18.3.5), Helena, Queen of Adiabene (Ant. 20.2.3), and many unnamed women from Damascus who “had gone over to the Jewish religion” (War 2.20.2) which Cohen understands to either refer to conversion or sympathy with Judaism (godfearers) (Cohen 1990, p. 183n12). References to circumcision and conversion are found in accounts of conversions within Judaea and Israel, such as the conversion of the Idumeans and Itureans (Ant. 13.257–258, 318) and is tied to their residence in the land.

The story of the conversion of the royal house of Adiabene is the only detailed account of an ancient conversion to Judaism; as such, a detailed analysis of this text is crucial to understanding conversion in Josephus’ writings. First, the text indicates that it was Jews who initiated Izates’ interest in Judaism, as Ananias, a merchant, “εἰσιὼν τοῦ βασιλέως ἐδίδασκεν αὐτὰς τὸν θεὸν σέβειν” (20.34), teaching them to worship God, according to Jewish custom (ὡς Ἰουδαίοις πάτριον). Within the Adiabene narrative, τὸν θεὸν/τὸ θεῖον σέβειν is used by Ananias to argue that Izates can be such without circumcision, if he observes Jewish customs. Helena was the first in this family to convert to Judaism (Ant. 20.35), and it was her conversion that resulted in the conversion of her son, the subject of this extended episode (Liebowitz 2018). Josephus uses the verbs μετακομίζω and χράομαι to describe the adoption of Jewish laws. An overarching theme in the Adiabene narrative is God’s providence and the human response in piety to God’s providence, which is exemplified in Izates’ response in conversion (Marciak 2018, p. 611). Josephus uses the terminology of εἰς τὰ Ἰουδαίων ἔθη τὸν βίον μετέβαλον and not Ἰουδαϊσμός and does not call Izates a Jew.

We can summarize the approaches of the texts consulted in the following manner. In the first row of Table 1, the status of Israelites and proselytes is determined such that Qumran and Philo maintain that proselytes are distinct from Jews along with Josephus, who maintains the same distinction. In the second row of Table 1, Qumran and Josephus both maintain that Jews and proselytes require circumcision but with the difference that Josephus does not hold to the same remnant theology that the Qumran sect did, and Josephus’ understanding of the requirement of circumcision is tied to the land of Israel such that Gentiles in the Diaspora would not be required to be circumcised in all cases and by all communities—in the case of the Adiabene narrative, the view associated with the requirement of circumcision comes from Ananaias, a Jew from Galilee. Philo did not require circumcision for male proselytes, a rite that was required of born male Jews.

Table 1. Differences in sources.

	Qumran	Philo	Josephus
Status of proselytes	Jews and proselytes distinct	Jews and proselytes distinct	Jews and proselytes distinct
Initiation	Jews and proselytes require same initiation	Jews and proselytes require distinct initiation	Jews and proselytes require the same initiation (in Israel)

The data point to the tendency in Second Temple literature to maintain distinct socio-religious identities for proselytes such that they did not “become Jews” in modern parlance. Due to limitation of space, we cannot consider the likely assertion that proselytes were considered part of Israel. However, how does Paul’s religious community of Jewish believers fit into this paradigm of initiation?

4. Initiation into the Jesus Movement

Once again, due to the historical realities of the contours of Paul’s mission to the Gentiles, we must understand his thought on how Gentiles were initiated to extend that to Jews, because the material in his letters would be understood by all as applying to Gentiles, whereas the Jewish composition of his audience is debated.

I have interpreted the infusion of pneuma as a divine medical intervention to save humanity from the cosmic forces of evil and sin (Lavender 2023, 2025) as crucial to understanding the initiation of Gentiles into the movement. Due to space limitations, the full argumentation for these points cannot be presented in this article, but a summary will be presented. Immersion should be understood as a replacement for genital circumcision for adult Gentiles which is part of the process of creating covenantal bodies by God, referring to it as “pneumatic circumcision,” to highlight the physicality of how pneuma was to alter Gentile bodies (Lavender 2025, p. 266). Previous studies have not fully understood the implication of incorporating Gentiles into the Abrahamic lineage, as this erases previous Gentile identity and incorporates these individuals into Israel, being pneumatically circumcised in the Abrahamic covenant—as being the seed of Abraham was one prominent way of identifying Israel in the period (Pss. Sol. 18:4). Gentiles must become related to Abraham through Christ, suggesting two distinct processes, one of descent via Abraham and one of identification “in Christ.” Pneuma alters the genetic codes of the gentiles to make them “materially, genetically and genealogically connected to Abraham” (Thiessen 2023, p. 109). After it entered the body, pneuma was located within the body in the heart (Gal 4:6; 2 Cor 1:22; Rom 8:26–27; Bazzana 2020, pp. 165, 176–77; cf. Rom 8:15; 2 Cor 1:22; Gal 4:6; Ezek. 36:26; Philo, Spec Laws 1:6; QG 2:59; Aetius, Placit. 4.5.6; Collman 2023, p. 174).

Paul was creating a more expansive definition of Israel to include both physical descendants and those who keep the Torah but who do not descend from Israel and who are not physically circumcised, that is, a definition centered around faithfulness (Kim and Kim 2018) such that an uncircumcised Gentile could be considered part of Israel and an Israelite by keeping the Torah per the understanding of how to do so in the Jesus movement. Paul understands pneuma to be the agent that makes the body of Christ, the assembly of God (1 Cor 12:12) and that pneuma admits members into the body through immersion (1 Cor 12:13; Lee 2020, p. 206). Believers become a temple of pneuma (1 Cor 6:19; 3:16) showing its role in organizing believers as a generative force (Lee 2020, p. 208). The cosmic power of sin made law observance extremely difficult, if not impossible, but through immersion, ritualizing justification, sinners are forgiven and given pneuma to be able to observe the law (Boccaccini 2023, pp. 341, 347). It can be argued that Paul envisions the Torah to be continued to be observed under the faithfulness of the messiah, i.e., by his teaching and example (Cha 2021, p. 71). Paul considered his Gentile followers as sons of Abraham, making them “eschatological Israelites” (Beale 2005, p. 29) existing in their connate pneuma that is activated by Messiah’s pneuma, infused through immersion (water covering the entire body) in the hearing of Christ’s faithfulness. Pneuma can be identified as the “divine spirit” in Isaiah, in which God’s presence is described as “going forth” (Is. 2:3; 11:1; 42:13; 45:23; 51:4–5), and the restoration of Israel is strongly associated with this pneumatic activity (Beale 2005, p. 33). Pneuma is received through the hearing of faithfulness (Gal 3:2, 5), that is through the body (Lavender 2025, p. 274; cf. Gal 3), and believers await final justification through the same pneuma of faithfulness (Gal 5:5, 16) and living by the ordinances of the biblical law (Ezek. 11:19–20; 36:26–27; cf. Cha 2021, p. 153; contra law observance Haddad 2023, p. 23).

5. Applying Paul’s Thought to Jews

Because Paul views humanity as universally impaired by sin (Rom 3:9) and unable to keep the law without pneuma (Rom 8:3–4; 2 Cor 3:6), his logic dictates that physical descent and eighth-day circumcision are insufficient on their own for Jews to belong to the eschatological remnant. This point relies on an understanding of the book of Romans as being addressed to a mixed audience, a point not accepted by all Pauline scholars.

After having presented a thorough understanding of what Paul thought happened to Gentiles, it is now appropriate to try to extrapolate the applicability of that framework to Jews. Unfortunately, there is no place in Paul’s letters where he details how his message relates to Jews specifically, meaning that a certain amount of educated guesswork will need to happen to arrive at a conclusion, due to the contested understanding of the composition of Paul’s interlocutors, with two options possible: (1) entirely made up of Gentile interlocutors or (2) made up of a mixed audience of Jews and Gentiles.

The framework which will help us understand how Jews relate to Paul’s gospel is the restoration framework as laid out by Sloan (2025) which is based on a reading of the Pentateuch and an understanding of Israel’s history and future (Lev 26; Deut. 28–32). This results in a cycle in which Israel is under discipline due to breaking the covenant, subject to foreign nations and spiritual impairment, the loss of divine presence and an uncertainty surrounding the Temple cult. This leads to the promise of restoration and a return to the land, the reunification of the tribes and judgment of Israel’s opponents, accomplished through keeping the law (Deut 30:1–2), bringing the law to their hearts, and causing them to love God and receive his spirit (Deut 30:6; Jer 31:33; Ezek 36:26–27; Sloan 2025, p. 6). Jesus can be understood as the deliverer who relives Israel’s discipline and brings about the consolation of Israel (Lk 2:25) as an authoritative interpreter of the law, and as keeping the law was the path to restoration, one needed to know how to keep it properly (Sloan 2025, p. 8). Jesus’ mission is Israel-centric, and his role is to serve as eschatological judge who requires full observance of the law (Sloan 2025, p. 29). This makes his ministry the inauguration of the restoration of Israel with his audience the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Sloan 2025, p. 30). The community of the restoration becomes a family, and members are “brothers” and “sisters” and under one “Father” in heaven (Sloan 2025, p. 146). The reference to the “blood” of the covenant in the last supper (Mk 14:24; Matt 26:28; Lk 22:20) refers to the new covenant (Jer 31:31–34) where God promises to forgive sins and bring about the restoration (Sloan 2025, p. 200). Paul fits with this overall picture, and Sloan reads Paul as essentially congruous with the historical Jesus, although for different audiences (Sloan 2025, p. 226), which leads to Gentiles being members of the covenant family and the obligation to fulfill the law (Rom 13:8, 10), although Sloan reads this as fulfilling the law as Gentiles not as proselytes (Sloan 2025, p. 226). Staples (2023) understands Paul in a similar way within the broader context of restorationist eschatology such that the remaining absence of the ten northern tribes meant that the age of wrath (CD 1:5; Dan 8:19) was still ongoing and the nation awaited restoration in the land (Staples 2023, p. 61). Many groups began to see themselves as the faithful remnant that would lead to Israel’s restoration, including the Jesus movement, which held sectarian views that cast other Jews out of the restoration for not following the law appropriately. “Jews” were understood as part of “Israel” which included non-Jewish Israelites from among the dispersed tribes (Staples 2023, p. 62). Paul considered the current age to be a “pruning of Israel” within the remnant motif (Isa 10:22), meaning only the remnant of Israel will be saved (Rom 11:14; Staples 2023, p. 189). Paul’s hope for the salvation of “all Israel” and the “fullness of the nations” (Rom 11:25–26) includes the remnant of Jews and the northern tribes, who were now “non-Israelite” through intermarriage with the nations (Staples 2023, p. 314). This differs from other models of understanding Gentile inclusion and the identity of Israel as shifting either due to Paul’s opposition to works righteousness in the Reformational model or through the elimination of distinctive ethnic traits associated with the New Perspective on Paul.

5.1. Rom. 6:1–7

Paul only mentions baptism in two places in the undisputed letter collection (Gal 3:26–28; Rom 6:1–6). I will focus on Rom. 6:1–6 here, as the audience of Galatians is more certainly Gentiles, who have been persuaded that circumcision is required of them.

The implication in Romans is that the effects of sin are universal and affect both Jew and Gentile (Rom 3:9). Staples (2023, p. 8) mentions also Paul’s comment that all under the works of the law are under a curse (Gal 3:10), that Moses administered a ministry of death (2 Cor 3:7), that the messiah was the end of the law (Rom 10:5) and that the natural branches were cut off due to infidelity (Rom 11:19–23). Some of these examples are more appropriate than others, but the general idea remains that Jews were also under the power of sin. This is due to Paul’s understanding that bodies need pneuma in order to keep the letter of the Torah (2 Cor 3:6) which Staples reads as a requirement to remove the sinful inclination through the power of pneuma in heart circumcision which internalizes the pneumatic Torah (2 Cor 3:3; p. 89). Paul mentions the idolatry and immorality of Israel as examples and as a warning (1 Cor 10:7–12), and these sins parallel the stereotypical Gentile sins he so strongly opposes. Having the Torah as an inheritance does not provide any cover because Paul sees God as without favoritism, meaning it is those who keep the Torah who will be blessed (Rom 2:10, 14; Staples 2023, p. 142).

This sets up a discussion on Rom 6:1–6 which focuses on another important aspect of Paul’s understanding of immersion which is to be a remedy to the power of sin. The theme of baptism as a means of providing the forgiveness of sins is more explicitly tied together in the contested Pauline letters (Eph 1:7; Col 1:14). This emphasizes the other key element in Paul’s understanding of the rite as a means of connecting the believer to the life of Christ but also to providing forgiveness of sins and pneuma leading to faithfulness (Boccaccini 2023, p. 430). The transfer of pneuma to the believer should not be overlooked in Paul’s understanding of baptism and is connected to the overall discussion of Galatians 3 (Zimmermann 2020). The type of thinking demonstrated by Paul here is apocalyptic because sin is considered as something beyond human transgression and more a divine power that holds humans captive and in need of a counter divine power for remedy (J. Davies 2022, p. 37). Paul’s apocalyptic view of salvation should be considered alongside other contemporary Jewish thinkers, such as Philo, who also saw forgiveness of sins and eschatological liberation as parts of salvation along with healing from sickness and God’s rescue of the Jews (Lega. 3–4, 196; cf. Termini 2009, p. 106).

Rom 6:1–7, NRSVue

1 Tί οὖν ἐροῦμεν; ἐπιμένωμεν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ, ἵνα ἡ χάρις πλεονάσῃ;2 μὴ γένοιτο· οἵτινες ἀπεθάνομεν τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ, πῶς ἔτι ζήσομεν ἐν αὐτῇ;3 ἢ ἀγνοεῖτε ὅτι ὅσοι ἐβαπτίσθημεν εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν εἰς τὸν θάνατον αὐτοῦ ἐβαπτίσθημεν;4 συνετάφημεν οὖν αὐτῷ διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος εἰς τὸν θάνατον, ἵνα ὥσπερ ἠγέρθη Χριστὸς ἐκ νεκρῶν διὰ τῆς δόξης τοῦ πατρός, οὕτως καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐν καινότητι ζωῆς περιπατήσωμεν.5 εἰ γὰρ σύμφυτοι γεγόναμεν τῷ ὁμοιώματι τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως ἐσόμεθα·6 τοῦτο γινώσκοντες, ὅτι ὁ παλαιὸς ἡμῶν ἄνθρωπος συνεσταυρώθη, ἵνα καταργηθῇ τὸ σῶμα τῆς ἁμαρτίας, τοῦ μηκέτι δουλεύειν ἡμᾶς τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ·7 ὁ γὰρ ἀποθανὼν δεδικαίωται ἀπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας.

What then are we to say? Should we continue in sin in order that grace may increase? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin go on living in it? 3 Do you not know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we were buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be destroyed, so we might no longer be enslaved to sin. 7 For whoever has died is freed from sin.

The use of pronouns by Paul should be considered purposeful and meaningful in understanding the meaning behind his words. Paul’s use of plural pronouns can either be considered a stylistic plural, perhaps for emphasis, or collective, which could either be contrastive “we Jews” vs. “you gentiles” or inclusive “all of us.” Stendahl (1976, p. 23) points to Rom 3:9 as an example of an exclusive collective “we Jews” in contrast to “you Gentiles.” The use of the first-person plural in Rom 6 is noteworthy, especially given the association of immersion with Gentile inclusion into the Abrahamic lineage (Gal 3:28–29). There is only one occurrence of the second person plural in this passage in v. 3. This leads to a consideration of the purpose behind the linguistic choices here. The context does not suggest a stylistic plural, although the suggestion could be made that Paul was immersed as a representative of the Gentiles and this rite was not expected of all Jews, and Paul cannot use the first person plural here in an exclusive collective sense because Gentiles are also immersed unless a proposal is submitted to suggest that only Jews are baptized into Christ’s death and should expect resurrection. This is an unlikely reading given other passages that indicate Paul thought Gentiles should also expect to be resurrected. This leaves only an inclusive collective reading of the pronominal usage in this passage. We know that Paul did baptize individuals occasionally, although Paul seems to not have regularly performed the rite (at least in Corinth, 1 Cor 1:14–16) but gives us the names of three individuals and households who he did baptize: Crispus, Gaius, and Stephanas. The latter might have been Jewish, given the lexical relation to Stephanos (Acts 6:8, presumably a born Greek-speaking Jew given the contrast with Nicolas, a proselyte).

In contrast to baptism, circumcision is mentioned many times by Paul. However, most of these cases are negative, indicating why this rite is not obligatory for Gentiles. I will focus on places where Paul contrasts his understanding of circumcision with that of his opponents (Rom. 2:25–29; Phil. 3:2–3).

5.2. Rom. 2:25–29

Paul’s comments in Rom 2:25–29 must be understood with relation to his understanding of believers’ new identity in Christ. Paul’s argument seems to be that circumcision is of value unless coupled with disobedience to Torah (v. 25), which negates the status of circumcision and makes it really uncircumcision, that is, the status of a non-Jew. However, the converse is also true: if an uncircumcised person keeps the Torah, his uncircumcision will be credited as circumcision; the different verb used in each side of the equation should be noted. The uncircumcised Torah keeper is credited or counted as circumcised, even though he is uncircumcised by nature (v. 27). The implication of vv. 28–29 is that Torah observance per the halakhic standards of the messianic movement is how Paul is defining Jewishness such that Jews by nature who do not follow the correct halakhah are deemed non-Jews and vice versa.

Some readings of Rom 2:25–29 do not emphasize Paul as redefining circumcision and instead as directing criticism at Gentile Judaizing via circumcision, which some proponents of Paul within Judaism see as opposed by Paul for Gentiles but not for Jews. This leads to a contrast often between Paul and Philo such that Paul is seen as limiting Gentile access to Judaizing via circumcision, while Philo is more open to the possibility (Stowers 1994, pp. 83–158*). Others, such as Boyarin, see more potential overlap between Paul and Philo’s views here (Boyarin 1994, pp. 13–38). Some, such as Thiessen, see Paul’s comments in Rom 2:25–29 as directed towards Gentiles and suggest that it was impossible for them to fully Judaize via circumcision, which they are unable to do because they cannot be circumcised on the eighth day, yet still they can have a circumcised heart.

Staples notes an echo of Deut. 30:10, 16 in the passage which exhorts Israel to “keep his just statutes” which connects the uncircumcised person here to the redemption of Israel (2023, p. 163). Uncircumcised Gentiles receive the promise of the Torah on their hearts and keep the statutes of the Torah, becoming part of Israel’s heritage (Rom 2:26; cf. 1 Cor 7:19; Staples 2023, p. 172). However, Staples understands Paul as not saying that uncircumcised Gentiles become Jews, as Staples sees four categories of people in Rom 2—unjust Jews, unjust Gentiles, just Gentiles and just Jews—arguing that circumcision alone does not make a man a Jew but must be accompanied by heart circumcision (Rom 2:29), “It therefore appears that Paul retains the traditional definitions of ‘Jew’ and ‘circumcision’ but tightens the boundaries, counting as ‘Jews’ only those who are circumcised and true Torah-keepers as defined by Paul’s own halakhic standard” (Staples 2023, p. 173). Staples understands the contrast between “visible” and “hidden” in vv. 28–29 to refer to Deut 29:28. Paul connects the hidden things in this passage to the circumcision of the heart in Deut 30, indicating that covenantal members are defined by obedience and now outward signs (Staples 2023, pp. 169–70).

Rom 2:25–29

Περιτομὴ μὲν γὰρ ὠφελεῖ ἐὰν νόμον πράσσῃς· ἐὰν δὲ παραβάτης νόμου ᾖς, ἡ περιτομή σου ἀκροβυστία γέγονεν. 26 ἐὰν οὖν ἡ ἀκροβυστία τὰ δικαιώματα τοῦ νόμου φυλάσσῃ, οὐχ ἡ ἀκροβυστία αὐτοῦ εἰς περιτομὴν λογισθήσεται; 27 καὶ κρινεῖ ἡ ἐκ φύσεως ἀκροβυστία τὸν νόμον τελοῦσα σὲ τὸν διὰ γράμματος καὶ περιτομῆς παραβάτην νόμου. 28 οὐ γὰρ ὁ ἐν τῷ φανερῷ Ἰουδαῖός ἐστιν, οὐδὲ ἡ ἐν τῷ φανερῷ ἐν σαρκὶ περιτομή· 29 ἀλλ’ ὁ ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ Ἰουδαῖος, καὶ περιτομὴ καρδίας ἐν πνεύματι οὐ γράμματι, οὗ ὁ ἔπαινος οὐκ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἀλλ’ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ.

For circumcision is of value if you do the law, but if you should be a transgressor of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26 Therefore, if the uncircumcised person follows the requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be credited for circumcision? 27 And the uncircumcised person by nature who carries out the law will judge you who, though provided with the precise written code and circumcision are a transgressor of the law. 28 For the Jew is not one outwardly, nor is circumcision outwardly, in the flesh. 29 But the Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter, whose praise is not from people but from God.

Dal Bo’s reading of Rom 2:28–29 suggests that Paul encourages Christ believers to conform to a series of presuppositions vis-a-vis Jewish identity such that there are two types of claims to Jewish identity, overt and covert, and that only those covertly Jewish are truly Jewish and praised by God. Therefore, Christ believers should observe heart circumcision, a covert practice, instead of physical circumcision, an overt practice (Dal Bo 2022, p. 400). The covert nature of the practice indicates that the distinction is to be found in the pneuma of the believer and not the sarx, a contrast found throughout Paul’s letter collection, indicating that the covert attitude is not necessarily perceptible by humans but known to God. The contrast here is between these two individuals, one an overt Jew, presumably a Jew from birth and circumcised on the eighth day, and a covert Jew, presumably a baptized Gentile but possibly an uncircumcised diasporic Jew. The implication is that Paul accuses those Jews who do not accept uncircumcised believers into the covenant. Dal Bo suggests a step further that Paul agrees that the commandment of Scripture, as plainly read, would suggest that these believers are uncircumcised and should not be accepted but that the new message from God opposes this understanding and that these uncircumcised believers should be accepted and praised by God (Dal Bo 2022, p. 409).

Israel is an ongoing identity which is a positive thing per the items mentioned by Paul. However, Paul has a remnant theology view of Israel, and not all who are called Israel are Israel (Rom 9:6), meaning that Israelite identity can be lost. It is the pneumatic descendants who are truly called Israel, the children of the promise. This relates to Paul’s conceptualization of the pneumatic lineage of Abraham, which is the mechanism by which gentiles enter the covenant through receiving pneuma in immersion. The implication here is that Paul understands that Jews must also be linked to the pneumatic lineage although he hesitates in fully saying this. Rom 9:30–32 continues to ponder how Gentiles could be righteous when Israel was not because they did not pursue it through faithfulness but through works. That is, in Paul, “works of the law” refers to the mechanism of receiving pneuma. It seems that Paul is saying that here he does not consider circumcision a way to receive pneuma even for Jews. That is, righteousness comes by faithfulness which Paul has located within the messiah, meaning that outside of the messiah, one cannot fully live faithfully. Here Paul reverts to Jew and Greek as distinctions, with the implication that this is distinct from Israel. There are two important shifts in language here. One is the shift from talking about Israel to Jews and from talking about Gentiles to Greeks. The Gentiles as such were natural people (ψυχικὸς ἄνθρωπος), who in their natural state were incapable of understanding pneuma, that is, things of God (1 Cor 2:15). This explains why Paul introduces the concept of pneuma between discussing justification in Gal 2:15–21 and then again returning to the theme of being God’s children through faithfulness in Christ and submitting to water immersion, which erases the division between Jew and Greek (Gal 3:26–28) that Paul presupposes in Gal 2:15, before mentioning justification by faithfulness. We could speculate Paul as saying that both Jew and judaizer are Israel by faithfulness. However, in Rom 11 (vv. 1–8) we can see Paul’s hesitation at the implication of his own thought. Here he presents his remnant understanding of Israel but notes that the rest of Israel is not cut off from God, suggesting perhaps that there is an exception for Israelites who can be considered righteous even without faithfulness in messiah by God’s mercy.

Paul’s use of Israel here is unique, as it is mentioned thirteen times in Rom. 9–11, in contrast to six times elsewhere in the letter corpus; in comparison, Ioudaios appears twenty-six times in the corpus (Staples 2021, p. 26). Ioudaios is the standard term Josephus uses to describe his people (Ant. 1.4, 6, 214; 9.291; 9.245; 10.87, 169, 182, 186, 222, 265; cf Staples 2021, pp. 43, 44n76). Although, The term Ioudaios at the time could have geographic connotation to refer to inhabitants of Judaea, at least in discussions regarding the land. Josephus clearly distinguishes both Idumeans and Galileans as separate ethnoi from the Ioudaioi (War 1.123; 4.231; 2.510; 4.105; cf. Horsley 44–45), even though they followed Judean laws and customs, unlike the Samaritans (Ant. 13.255). Josephus uses Israelite to describe the ten northern tribes (Ant. 7.103; 8.224, 286, 298, 306, 311, 314; Staples 2021, p. 45).

We suggest that Paul is saying that both Jew and Judaizer are part of Israel by faithfulness, that is, they are justified or considered righteous, not based on their status via-a-vis circumcision but by adherence to the Torah’s commandments, implying that an unfaithful circumcised Jew is not Israel and that a faithful fore-skinned Gentile is. However, in Rom 11 (vv. 1–8) we can see Paul’s hesitation at the implication of his own thought. Here he presents his remnant understanding of Israel but notes that the rest of Israel is not cut off from God, suggesting perhaps there is an exception for Israelites who can be considered righteous even without faithfulness in messiah by God’s mercy. This is made more explicit using the term “mystery”.

Paul’s comments about circumcision in Rom 2:28–29 should also be read in conjunction with similar comments by Philo of Alexandria, who distinguishes two types of circumcision. The language of how this dual nature to circumcision is expressed differs between these two authors. However, both express that there is a physical component and a spiritual reality to the rite. Philo anchors this in the realm of the mind and thought, whereas Paul expresses this as “inward” vs. “outward” and “in the flesh.” Philo also ties this dichotomy to his view of masculine traits (Q.G. 3:46—47) which should be defined, an emphasis that is not present in Paul’s thought.

5.3. Phil. 3:3

In Philippians, Paul refers to the requirement of physical circumcision as κατατομή (3:2), often translated as mutilation, but perhaps better understood literally as false circumcision. It is a sarcastic comment meant to contrast between what the agitators were requiring, physical circumcision for adult Gentiles, to the true circumcision that they had which he defines as worshipping God in spirit (3:3). It is common to understand this as not criticizing circumcision itself but the misinterpretation of the ritual by Paul’s opponents. His language on this matter is inconsistent; in this passage a possible interpretation is that physical circumcision is mutilation and not really reflecting God’s will, but just a few sentences later, Paul indicates that physical circumcision on the eighth day is something that he can take pride in (3:5). However, there is an indication that true circumcision now is equated with heart circumcision (Lev. 26:41; Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4; Ezek. 36:26; 44:7; Lioy 2009, p. 87). The tone of the term κατατομήν is both sarcastic and sharp in language and a contrast with the term περιτομὴ (circumcision), which he uses to refer to his opponents in Gal 2:11–12. The use of κατατομήν mirrors Paul’s exhortation that his opponents castrate themselves (ἀποκόψονται; Gal 5:12). The twist in Philippians is that he now refers to himself and his followers as “the circumcision” (3:3) and not the opponents as in Galatians, who are distinguished from the opponents because they do the following things: “(1) worship in the Spirit of God and (2) boast in Christ Jesus and (3) have no confidence in the flesh” (v. 3; Dizon 2025). Here, Paul has made the full connection of his thought to express that those who are marked by faithfulness to the new covenant are the true circumcision, without regard for the physical status of the individual.

Philippians 3:3
Bλέπετε τοὺς κύνας, βλέπετε τοὺς κακοὺς ἐργάτας, βλέπετε τὴν κατατομήν. ἡμεῖς γάρ ἐσμεν ἡ περιτομή, οἱ πνεύματι θεοῦ λατρεύοντες καὶ καυχώμενοι ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐν σαρκὶ πεποιθότες, καίπερ ἐγὼ ἔχων πεποίθησιν καὶ ἐν σαρκί. εἴ τις δοκεῖ ἄλλος πεποιθέναι ἐν σαρκί, ἐγὼ μᾶλλον	Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of those who mutilate the flesh! For it is we who are the circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and boast in Christ Jesus and have no confidence in the flesh—4 even though I, too, have reason for confidence in the flesh.

The various strands of this research point towards a definition of Israel within a new covenant and restorationist perspective as defined by faithfulness to the commandments of God (1 Cor 7:19), as understood by the Jesus movement, and the law of Christ (Gal 6:2) and not by the status of physical circumcision, which has become not necessary for Paul, although perhaps not completely eschewed. The defining characteristic of true circumcision (i.e., pneumatic circumcision) and covenant membership is now faithfulness to the messiah.

6. Conclusions

Second Temple authors maintained distinctions between Jews and proselytes and how one entered the covenant in these two camps. Additionally, both the Qumran literature and philosophy maintain that Jews do not necessarily remain part of Israel if they are disobedient to the covenant. Paul follows these contemporary currents by maintaining a sharp distinction between Jews and proselytes, as well as conditioning Israelite identity around the messiah. In distinction from other authors, Philo and Paul recognized two distinct dimensions of circumcision, a physical and either mental or pneumatic axis. Philo maintains the necessity of physical circumcision, while Paul’s ultimate stance is not clear, but certain statements can be read as understanding physical circumcision to not be necessary for Jews—although this charge was certainly later raised against him (cf Acts 21:21). The necessity of radical moral transformation, due to the power of sin, led to this assessment by Paul, who uses language of the “true circumcision” or “inward circumcision” as the truly necessary and meaningful rite. The inward circumcision overlaps with immersion in Pauline thought, as this is the ritual means of identifying with Christ, becoming a son of God and receiving his pneuma, which enables observance of the law in faithfulness. Paul can be understood as equalizing Israelite covenant identity by requiring the same initiatory rite of immersion for both Jew and Greek.