The integrity of a divine message rests upon its consistency. A foundational principle for any scripture claiming divine origin is its internal coherence, free from contradictions that undermine its core tenets. One of the most significant covenants established in the Old Testament is the Abrahamic covenant of circumcision, described as an “everlasting” sign in the flesh. However, a careful examination of the New Testament, particularly the writings attributed to Paul, reveals a theological position that appears not only to modify but to outright condemn this practice, creating a profound theological dilemma.
The Abrahamic Covenant: An Everlasting Sign
In the book of Genesis, chapter 17, God establishes a clear and unambiguous covenant with Abraham and his descendants. This covenant is not presented as a temporary measure but as a perpetual ordinance. The text states, “I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant.”
The physical sign of this eternal agreement was to be circumcision. The command was explicit: “This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.” The scope of this command was comprehensive, applying not only to the direct descendants of Abraham but also to anyone born in his household or bought with money from a stranger—those who were “not of thy seed.” This sign was to be “in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.” The language used—”everlasting,” “perpetual,” “in their generations”—emphatically establishes the intended permanence of this divine decree. It was the indelible mark of inclusion within the covenant community established by God himself.
Pauline Theology and ‘Mutilators of the Flesh’
Centuries later, the teachings of Paul of Tarsus introduced a dramatically different perspective on this foundational practice. In his letter to the Philippians, Paul issues a stern warning that seems to directly target those who uphold the covenant of circumcision. In Philippians 3:2, he writes, “Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision,” with “concision” often translated as “mutilation” to reflect the Greek pejorative katatomē.
He continues, “For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.” Here, Paul redefines circumcision, shifting it from a physical act ordained by God to a spiritual concept of the heart. In doing so, he not only spiritualizes the covenant but uses intensely negative language—”dogs,” “evil workers,” “mutilators”—to describe those who insist on the physical sign. This is not merely a clarification; it is a polemical re-characterization of a practice God Himself commanded as an everlasting sign. This creates a direct conflict: how can a divine, everlasting covenant be re-labeled as evil mutilation by a later apostle?
The Problem of Harmonization
Attempts to reconcile these opposing views often suggest that Paul was not against circumcision for Jews but only against its imposition on Gentile converts as a requirement for salvation. This is the issue addressed at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, where the apostles debated whether Gentiles must be circumcised. While the council decided against it for Gentiles, this does not resolve the contradiction posed by Paul’s harsh language in Philippians.
His admonition to “beware of dogs” is not presented as a nuanced argument limited to the salvation of Gentiles; it is a broad and damning condemnation. He labels the physical act itself as something done by “evil workers.” Furthermore, the argument that Paul supported circumcision for Jews is weakened by his own actions and teachings. While he did circumcise Timothy, it was explained as a pragmatic measure due to Timothy’s Jewish heritage, yet his core theology consistently prioritized the spiritual “circumcision of the heart” and de-emphasized the physical law, which he saw as a “shadow of things to come.”
The effort to “harmonize” this stark contradiction exposes a deeper hermeneutical issue. If an “everlasting covenant” commanded by God can be dismissed and its adherents condemned as “dogs” and “evil workers,” then the very meaning of divine commands becomes fluid and unreliable. Such harmonization allows for any apparent contradiction to be explained away, potentially undermining the stability and clarity of the entire scriptural message. It raises the question: if God’s everlasting decrees can be set aside, what part of His word is truly permanent? This fundamental conflict between the clear command in Genesis and the condemnatory theology of Paul remains a significant and unresolved issue for those seeking a consistent and coherent divine scripture.