A Note on Circumcision and Paul's Hatred of IsraelShemayah
I have told a number of Christians that Paul of Tarsus had such a distorted, evil opinion of YHWH's covenant with Israel--that is the covenant mark of circumcision (b'rit mila) that he wished that the knife of circumcison would slip and cut off their penis. They are astounded and quickly claim that they have never read such a thing in Paul! They probably haven't. English Christian Bibles they read do not clearly translate the Greek and perhaps purposely disguise Paul's loveless wish. Here are two quotes from Pauline literature which make his hate of the Jewish People and their sign of Covenant apparent.
I leave the Strong's Concordance numbers Christians find helpful. Also notes from the Online Bible text are kept.10 I <1473> have confidence <3982> in <1519> you <5209> through <1722> the Lord <2962>, that <3754> ye will be <5426> <0> none <3762> otherwise <243> minded <5426>: but <1161> he that troubleth <5015> you <5209> shall bear <941> his judgment <2917>, whosoever <3748> he be <302> <5600>. 11 And <1161> I <1473>, brethren <80>, if <1487> I <2784> <0> yet <2089> preach <2784> circumcision <4061>, why <5101> do I <1377> <0> yet <2089> suffer persecution <1377>? then <686> is <2673> <0> the offence <4625> of the cross <4716> ceased <2673>. 12 I would <3785> they were <609> <0> even <2532> cut off <609> which trouble <387> (5723) you <5209>. 10 I have confidence in you through the Lord that ye will be none otherwise minded: but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be. 11 And I , brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased. 12 I would they were even cut off which trouble you.The online bible itself shows that the actual word for "they were even cut off" in the KJV (apokoptw apokoptO) means "amputate" while Thayers Lexicon (used by Christians) explains " ophelon kai apokospontai - I would that they (who urge the necessity of circumcision would not only circumcise themselves, but) would even mutilate themselves (or cut off their privy parts) ...." A better translation is "I wish they who harass you would amputate themselves." =I wish the circumcisers would cut off their penises.-Galatians 5
Paul held that circumcision was the same as mutilation.
2 Beware <991> of dogs <2965>, beware <991> of evil <2556> workers <2040>, beware <991> of the concision <2699>. 3 For <1063> we <2249> are <2070> the circumcision <4061>, which <3588> worship <3000> God <2316> in the spirit <4151>, and <2532> rejoice <2744> in <1722> Christ <5547> Jesus <2424>, and <2532> have <3982> <0> no <3756> confidence <3982> in <1722> the flesh <4561>.Here the word given as "concision" is Greek katatomE (katatomh). It means to "cut up, mutilate". But not only this, he mocks circumcision in a hateful wordplay on peritomE (peritomh), the Greek word for circumcision. Is it any wonder when he calls those in covenant with God according to His commandment of circumcision (as the mark between Him and His own) "dogs" and "workers of evil"? Then he repeats that circumcision, against the word of God Himself, means nothing! He claims the uncircumcised replace God's People. What kind of person, knowing scripture and God's commandments could ever say such things? None. But gentiles held such beliefs. They saw circumcision as a mutilation and deformity. Jews could not participate in Olympic games because they were deformed. Louis Feldman (Jews and Gentiles in the Ancient World) says that of all Jewish differences circumcision was the only practice which had no pagan admirers or defenders. (p. 158). Paul was part of the Gentile hatred toward circumcision, and knew he could not obtain followers by being true to God.2 Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision. 3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.
-Philippians 3
Paul's world was the gentile world, not the world of Jews and Israel. Some Hellenistic people of Jewish background were known to not perform circumcision on their children and thus assimilate to gentile civilization and forsake the covenant. They left and settled in the Hellenistic world, such as Tarsus in Cilicia where Paul purportedly hailed from. Was Paul's father a Jew who had done this? How did he receive Roman citizenship? Others practiced epispasm, or stretching the remaining foreskin back over the glans of the penis to disguise their circumcision. How did Paul, as (supposedly) a Jew honor his father? Did he turn his back on his heritage given to his fathers, follow the apostasy of an assimilated father, or teach all to dishonor God the Father by describing His way as a mutilation? It was evidently Paul who was unable to "keep the Law" and so he condemned it.
The ancient Ebionites did not believe Paul was a Jew at all. One story tells that he was a gentile who sought conversion in order to court the daughter of a priest. But she rejected him. In Paul's Hellenistic culture he would have been greatly humiliated simply for being "apella" --- without a foreskin, and it is well known that circumcision was a huge obstacle for gentiles who came to fear the Jewish God Yahweh. One might think this is because of pain involved with circumcision. But some Christians later came to castrate themselves "for God." Bodily mutilation with piercing, branding, tattooing, and even dismemberment was not at all unknown among pagans. Paul and his followers were adverse to cultural harassment for the extremely criticized Jewish practice of circumcision. It was not pain, but shame of being associated too much with Judaism that scared them.
If Paul had undergone such a humiliating practice of Jewish circumcision in order to gain a woman, who in turn wanted nothing to do with him, it would explain Paul's psychotic hate of circumcision and other Jewish practices. It would also explain his odd opinion of women and sex as a weakness and obstacle to religion. Paul would not have been acceptable to the gentile women he preached and traveled among, but would have been seen as something of a deformed man, a barbarian, mutilated. This would have made such an attitude toward sex a rationalization of Paul's inability to be seen as sexually viable.
Still it is possible that Paul was not even circumcised, or ever a convert. In either case, he maintained the same attitudes toward Israel's covenant mark of circumcision as the pagans of the Greek and Roman world where he began his new religion.