Paul Abolished the Eternal Covenant of Circumcision — Against God's Word, Against Medical Science, and Against Christ's Own Teachings
God declared circumcision an eternal covenant. Paul declared it of no benefit. The World Health Organization declared it medically protective. The question is not a theological abstraction — it is a test of whose word carries divine authority.
The matter is simple and the evidence is in the open. God, in His covenant with Abraham, established circumcision as an eternal sign — and the word eternal is not a rhetorical flourish. It is the deliberate language of the divine covenant. Then Paul of Tarsus arrived and, by his own admission, was willing to be a Jew among Jews and a pagan among pagans in order to win everyone. He found that circumcision stood as an obstacle to winning the Gentile nations. So he abolished it — and was smart enough to make adherence to the full law so burdensome that only liberation through his crucified Christ could free people from it. Modern medical science, through the research of the World Health Organization and The Lancet, has now confirmed what God knew when He ordained the covenant: circumcision protects human health. The question before every person of understanding is therefore direct — whose word do you follow?
The Eternal Covenant — God’s Own Words on Circumcision
The Old Testament text is unambiguous. God spoke to Abraham and established circumcision not as a temporary ordinance, not as a symbol pending future spiritual reinterpretation, but as an eternal covenant:
The word is everlasting — eternal — used by God Himself about a covenant written in the flesh. This is not the language of a temporary sign awaiting spiritual replacement. It is the language of permanence.
God attached a consequence to the breaking of this covenant — being cut off from the people. This is not the language of a symbolic ordinance that will later be upgraded to a spiritual metaphor. This is the language of binding divine law.
When God says “everlasting covenant,” Paul does not have the authority to say “of no benefit.”
Paul’s Abolition of the Covenant — His Own Words
Paul did not quietly set aside circumcision. He explicitly declared it useless and made belief in his Christ incompatible with it:
Note the opening of the first verse: “I, Paul, say unto you.” Not: the Spirit of God says to you. Not: the Lord commands. Paul says. He announces himself as the speaker. And what he says is that circumcision — the everlasting covenant of God with Abraham — profits nothing for those who believe in his Christ.
The question stands: can the Spirit of God — after the facts that medical science has proven about the effectiveness of circumcision — say through Paul: “Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision benefits a person at all”?
Either circumcision protects a person from filth, disease, and other benefits of safety, cleanliness, and health — in which case Paul’s statement is medically false — or it does not, in which case God’s eternal covenant was built on no benefit to humanity. One of these must be accepted. Both cannot be true.
Paul’s Stated Method — A Jew to the Jews, a Pagan to the Pagans
Paul did not hide his method. He stated it in plain language:
Paul declared himself a man who adapts his religious identity to his audience in order to win them. A Jew among Jews, a pagan among pagans. He stated this himself.
Now apply this stated method to the question of circumcision. Paul found that circumcision — the everlasting covenant of God — stood as an obstacle to winning the Gentile nations who had no tradition of it. His method, by his own description, was to become as those without law when dealing with those without law. Abolishing circumcision for Gentile converts was therefore not a theological revelation. It was a strategic decision made by a man who had declared himself willing to set aside law when it served the purpose of gaining converts.
He was smart in his method: he made the law so comprehensive and demanding that anyone who wanted to live under it would have to observe all of its details in full. While liberation from it through faith in his crucified Christ was offered as an easy alternative. And so at Paul’s hands, liberation from the law and redemption from Adam’s first sin were packaged together — and circumcision, God’s everlasting covenant, was discarded as an obstacle to the package’s appeal.
The Medical Evidence — WHO and The Lancet on Circumcision
God, when He made circumcision an everlasting covenant, was not issuing an arbitrary ritual requirement. He was ordaining what was good for man — and His knowledge of what is good for man precedes by centuries what science would later discover. The evidence of what science now reveals is confirmation that God’s law contains what benefits humanity and provides safety, health, and cleanliness.
Does the Spirit of God cancel and reduce the importance of a law that is in man’s interest and provides him with health? The answer is obvious to every person who thinks.
The Internal Contradiction — Paul Called Christ a Curse
Paul wrote in his own letter:
And Paul also established:
Paul says whoever calls Jesus accursed does not speak from the Spirit of God. Paul also says Christ became a curse for us. These two statements are Paul’s own words in Paul’s own letters. He condemns himself by his own standard.
How far is this speech from the word of the God who said of His prophets: “Indeed, We will support Our messengers and those who believe, in the life of this world and on the Day when the witnesses will stand” (Az-Zumar).
Christ’s Own Teachings — The Law Affirmed, Not Abolished
Christ, peace be upon him, did not say the law is a curse. He emphasized it. He told those who came to him how to gain eternal life. He told them that it is better for anyone who looks with his eye at something contrary to the law to have his entire eye plucked out than to have the body of the one who violates the law thrown into the fire of hell. These are the teachings of the true Christ.
Christ came to fulfill the law — not to abolish it, not to declare it a curse, and not to make circumcision of no benefit. Heaven and earth had not passed when Paul wrote his letters to the Galatians. By Christ’s own statement, the law remained in force.
Paul succeeded in killing the teachings of Christ by promoting another Christ — a crucified, cursed, and crushed redeemer — and the result stands before us: followers who call themselves Christians while following the teachings of Paul, discussing hypostases and redemption and incarnation that Christ never mentioned, that his disciples never heard from him, and that the World Health Organization would not endorse.
Islam and Judaism — Identical on Circumcision and Pure Foods
Between the time of the true Christ and our time, there is nothing except Paul and his teachings — which are not the teachings of Christ, peace be upon him. Islam and Judaism are identical in the matters of circumcision and pure foods — precisely the matters that concern the safety and health of the human being.
The Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, maintained circumcision and conveyed it to the polytheists of Arabia despite the difficulty it presented as a requirement. He did not discard it to make his message easier for people who had no tradition of it. He conveyed the truth entrusted to him by the Lord of the Worlds, even when that truth was harder to accept.
Paul did the opposite. He discarded circumcision precisely because it was an obstacle to winning the Gentiles. He declared himself willing to become as those without law in order to gain those without law. And so circumcision — the everlasting covenant of God — fell at his hands, and the Gentile nations who followed Paul were deprived of its protection, its cleanliness, and its health.
“And We have not sent you, [O Muhammad], except as a mercy to the worlds.” (Al-Anbiya: 107)
The mercy includes what benefits the body. The mercy includes what the Lord of the Worlds knew would protect man from disease before man’s science could measure it. The Prophet who maintained circumcision among the polytheists, when it would have been easier to abandon it, did so because he carried a truth entrusted to him — not a strategy designed to maximize his following.
What makes the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, testify to circumcision like the Jews — while it would have been easier to win the polytheists without it — except that it is the truth entrusted to him by the Lord of the Worlds?
Muhammad ﷺ vs Paul on Alcohol: Modern Medicine Confirms No Safe Level of Wine