This argument repeats the same category mistake as the previous ones: it confuses the divine nature with the assumed human nature. The circumcision of Jesus concerns exclusively his true humanity. God as God has no need of circumcision—but God truly became human in Jesus (John 1:14) and voluntarily submitted himself to the law that he himself had given to Israel.
Paul puts it clearly: “When the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law” (Galatians 4:4). Circumcision is therefore not a sign of divine imperfection, but an expression of the Son’s obedience in his incarnation. Jesus fulfills the law not from the outside, but from within. That is why he later says: “I have not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it” (Matthew 5:17).
It is precisely here that the depth of the Incarnation is revealed: the eternal Son does not enter history merely in appearance, but in reality. He becomes a member of the covenant people Israel, accepts the sign of the Old Covenant, and thus prepares the New Covenant. That God allows himself to be circumcised is not a contradiction, but an expression of divine humility.
The early Church understood this clearly. Irenaeus of Lyon emphasizes that Christ “assumed everything that man is, in order to redeem everything” (Adversus haereses III,18,7). Circumcision is part of this “everything.”