# Galatians 5:12



## (^^)Regin (Jul 16, 2013)

[BIBLE]Galatians 5:12[/BIBLE]

Just a quick query for insight:

The Apostle Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit said this against the Judiazers. 

was this a form of:
- mockery?
- curse?
- insult?
- exageration?
- others?

Many thanks in advance!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 17, 2013)

I think it might be thought of as a form of hyperbole. He's been condemning confidence in the flesh throughout Galatians and that, in a real sense, for the Gentile believers to become circumcised _for the purposes advocated by the Judaizers_ amounts to mutilation of the flesh. The Judaizers had apparently convinced some of the Gentile believers that there was a lack in their Christianity. They (the Judaizers) were _real_ sons of Abraham because they kept the Law of God (Torah). Circumcision in the book of Galatians can be seen as equivalent to "salvation by Torah" as opposed to salvation by Christ.

Paul labors throughout to continue to build the case that Christ died in vain if this were even possible and then goes on to demonstrate that Abraham became the father of the faithful prior to the Torah being added so "Torah keeping" can't possibly form the ground for what the Gospel is. Salvation begins in the Spirit, is perfect in the Spirit, and ends in it. Our participation in the family of Abraham is not a trust in the flesh or the deeds of the flesh so Isaac and Ishmael become paradigms of one born from above as opposed to one who trust in the strength of the flesh.

One might then consider Paul's statement here to be a rhetorical flourish that basically argues that, if you're going to place all your confidence in the mutilation of a part then why not get really serious and cut off the whole! It's meant to demonstrate how ridiculous the whole issue of adding circumcision to the Gospel is. If they want to be serious about mutilation, they might as well get serious about it! If a tip is useful unto salvation how much more the whole!


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Jul 17, 2013)

Using a different version might solve your dilemma  

____________________________________________

Galatians 5:12

King James Version (KJV)

I would they were even cut off which trouble you.

_____________________________________________

Galatians 5:12

(1599 Geneva Bible)


Would to God they were even cut off which do disquiet you.


__________________________________________________

Galatians 5:12

(1526 Tyndale) 

I wolde to God they were seperated from you which trouble you.


___________________________________________________


Galatians 5:12

(1382 Wycliffe) 

Y wolde that thei weren cut awei, that disturblen you.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 17, 2013)

Ὄφελον καὶ *ἀποκόψονται* οἱ ἀναστατοῦντες ὑμᾶς.

"Those disturbing you" (οἱ ἀναστατοῦντες ὑμᾶς) is the subject and the verb is bolded above. It is future, middle, indicative, third person, plural of the verb "to cut off". In other words, the _subject_ of the action is the Judaizers ("those disturbing you") and they are not the _object_ of the verb but the subject so they are those whom Paul desires that "...they will cut _themselves_ off...." Furthermore, if we consult a lexicon, this is not a ceremonial action.


*ἀποκόπτω* fut. ἀποκόψω; 1 aor. ἀπέκοψα LXX; 2 aor. 3 pl. pass. ἀπεκόπησαν Judg 5:22 cod. A; inf. ἀποκοπῆναι (s. κόπτω; Hom. et al.; pap, LXX, Philo, Joseph.) to cut so as to make a separation, cut off, cut away
ⓐ of body parts (Hom. et al.; Hdt. 6, 91 χεῖρας; Diod S 17, 20, 7 ἀπέκοψε τὴν χεῖρα; Dt 25:12; Judg 1:6f; Jos., Bell. 6, 164, Vi. 177) Mk 9:43, 45 (Epict 2, 5, 24 of ἀποκόπτειν the foot ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὅλου; cp. Ael. Aristid. 48, 27 K.=24 p. 472 D.: παρατέμνειν one limb ὑπὲρ σωτηρίας of the whole body); ear J 18:10, 26 (on the implications of mutilation cp. Lev 21:16–23; BViviano, RB 96, ’89, 71–80). Private parts implied make a eunuch of, castrate (Lucian, Eunuch. 8; Cass. Dio 79, 11; Dt 23:2; Philo, Leg. All. 3, 8, Spec. Leg. 1, 325; Theoph. Ant. 3, 8 [p. 222, 3]) mid. (Epict. 2, 20, 19; §317; Rob. 809) ὄφελον καὶ ἀποκόψονται would that they might make eunuchs of themselves Gal 5:12. So interpr. by many since Chrysostom and Ambrosiaster, also PDebouxhtay, RevÉtGr 39, 1926, 323–26 (against ChBruston, ibid. 36, 1923, 193f); GDuncan, Gal ’34, 154; 161.
ⓑ of noncorporal things τὰ σχοινία cut the ropes (cp. Od. 10, 127; X., Hell. 1, 6, 21; Polyaenus 5, 8, 2; 6, 8) Ac 27:32; branches κλάδους in pruning procedure Hs 8, 1, 2 Joly (ἔκοπτε W.); building-stones πολὺ δεῖ ἀπʼ αὐτῶν ἀποκοπῆναι a great deal must be cut away from them Hs 9, 9, 2.—M-M. TW.


Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000).A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 17, 2013)

au5t1n said:


> "Cutting off" could mean excommunication, and some interpreters have taken it that way. I have sometimes wondered whether it could be a pun. The word could both imply mutilation and bring to mind the "cutting off" from the Lord's people frequently mentioned in the Old Testament.



Do you have any lexical evidence that this word is anywhere used in that way?


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jul 17, 2013)

Semper Fidelis said:


> I think it might be thought of as a form of hyperbole. He's been condemning confidence in the flesh throughout Galatians and that, in a real sense, for the Gentile believers to become circumcised _for the purposes advocated by the Judaizers_ amounts to mutilation of the flesh. The Judaizers had apparently convinced some of the Gentile believers that there was a lack in their Christianity. They (the Judaizers) were _real_ sons of Abraham because they kept the Law of God (Torah). Circumcision in the book of Galatians can be seen as equivalent to "salvation by Torah" as opposed to salvation by Christ.
> 
> Paul labors throughout to continue to build the case that Christ died in vain if this were even possible and then goes on to demonstrate that Abraham became the father of the faithful prior to the Torah being added so "Torah keeping" can't possibly form the ground for what the Gospel is. Salvation begins in the Spirit, is perfect in the Spirit, and ends in it. Our participation in the family of Abraham is not a trust in the flesh or the deeds of the flesh so Isaac and Ishmael become paradigms of one born from above as opposed to one who trust in the strength of the flesh.
> 
> One might then consider Paul's statement here to be a rhetorical flourish that basically argues that, if you're going to place all your confidence in the mutilation of a part then why not get really serious and cut off the whole! It's meant to demonstrate how ridiculous the whole issue of adding circumcision to the Gospel is. If they want to be serious about mutilation, they might as well get serious about it! If a tip is useful unto salvation how much more the whole!



I agree with your take on this verse.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 17, 2013)

I'm not trying to be obnoxious in the asking. One of the uses of the term is the second meaning as it refers to the cutting of a branch. Why I have trouble accepting a translation that says "...let them be cut off..." is because the subject of the "cutting off" is the Judaizers and it's in the middle voice. Even if we accept the notion of cutting off, he's still saying: "I wish that those who are troubling you would cut _themselves_ off".


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 17, 2013)

au5t1n said:


> I understand. The bottom line is that I'm not qualified to speak dogmatically to the question. Some men who are so qualified have taken the verse as a reference to excommunication, but I do not have the ability to defend their viewpoint any further than to say it exists.


Huh? No. I didn't imply you weren't qualified for the discussion.

I'm interacting with the original language in order to discuss what the passage means. Commentaries and translations are useful but I want to see how they exegete the text itself because exegesis begins at syntax. It's the reason we want our teachers to know the languages because all translation is a form of interpretation.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 17, 2013)

au5t1n said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > Even if we accept the notion of cutting off, he's still saying: "I wish that those who are troubling you would cut themselves off".
> ...



It's possible but I've also taught through Galatians about three times now and Paul keeps laying on one devastating argument after another. He doesn't just take a baseball bat to it but keeps ratcheting up the arguments so as to leave the whole thing decimated. He ends up referring to "mutilators of the flesh" in Gal 5:20 and, in one sense, the irony is that the Judaizers are actually trying to bring the Gentiles out of the true religion and back into a form of pagan captivity.

When I combine that with the lexical note that the manner in which it was used at the time of the writing was to refer to emasculation, then the "graphicness" of it fits what I think Paul's overall point is. It's not a die on the hill thing for me.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Jul 18, 2013)

I also think this verse should be considered, I doubt Paul meant to say that the Judaizers should castrate themselves. Paul would not wish that they commit sin by castrating themselves, that's ridiculous, plus if this is the meaning intended and not excommunication what would be the purpose?




> Deuteronomy 23:1
> 
> King James Version (KJV)
> 
> 23 He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord.




I believe the context is clear and is saying he wishes that those who impose unnecessary burden on the believers should be "cut off" (excommunicated), the same way we would separate ourselves from professors who are bringing false doctrines into the church today.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Jul 18, 2013)

au5t1n said:


> Obviously in the mutilation interpretation Paul is using hyperbole to emphasize the folly of ceremonial circumcision for Gentiles, not making an actual suggestion.
> 
> Deut. 23:1 may, however, shed some interesting light on this because it serves to remind us that such mutilation (if that is the correct interpretation) carried a connotation of excommunication in the OT. Maybe that is where I originally got the idea that it might be a metaphor; I don't recall.



The only problem with this interpretation is that if Paul uses it as a hyperbole it means he wishes that they commit a sin that would have warranted excommunication in order to be excommunicated. This is the same thing as saying I wish they commit adultery so we would have grounds to excommunicate them. 

Castration is not a symbol of excommunication as far as I know so I do not see the imagery that could be intended.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Jul 18, 2013)

au5t1n said:


> But that is not the way hyperbole works. The interpretation goes that Paul is showing that circumcision for Gentiles is little more than sanctified mutilation, and if the Judaizers were consistent, they would go all the way with it. In this interpretation, it is not meant to be a sincere wish that they would do so.



Yes I understand my second comment was more inline with my reasoning on the hyperbole. I just don't believe there's any reason to justify this translation in modern versions, In my humble opinion it only brings unnecessary confusion and vulgarity, this thread is the proof of that.




au5t1n said:


> You just quoted the verse that connects the two. Besides, the root word used in Gal. 5:12 means "cutting off" which Rich has shown can carry a physical meaning (like the cutting off of a limb) or it can be more metaphorical (as Rich gave the secondary meaning of the removal of a branch).



I understand that the word used means "cutting off", the only thing I have a problem with is associating this "cutting off" with their genitals, I believe the context is clear the "cutting off" refers to the be "cut off" from the church.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Jul 18, 2013)

au5t1n said:


> I am inclined to think so, too, but I wonder what the answers to the questions raised above from the Greek would be.



I'm not qualified to debate Greek language issues but unless there's a specific mention of their genitals in the Greek, which I don't believe there is, I don't see the reason to associate this verse with castration. I understand that circumcision is mentioned but the symbolism of circumcision is the removal of the sinful flesh, I really don't see how they would jump from circumcision to castration since there's no symbolic relation between the two. 

There is vast difference with the removal of the flesh through circumcision and cutting off genitals. Circumcision is a symbol of blessing through the removal of sinful flesh and a seal of the covenant, castration is transgression of the law. Even if there are both performed in the same area of the body they are not linked symbolically. Even "IF" we would associate castration with excommunication (which I see no reason to do so) I still wouldn't see the link between circumcision and castration since their symbolism would be opposite.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 18, 2013)

Fogetaboutit said:


> I doubt Paul meant to say that the Judaizers should castrate themselves. Paul would not wish that they commit sin by castrating themselves, that's ridiculous, plus if this is the meaning intended and not excommunication what would be the purpose?


That question has been answered and so it is no more ridiculous for Paul to use the shock value of calling circumcision a "mutilation of the flesh" or to say that the Jews are the sons of Hagar. Both are clearly "un-Biblical".

Again, interpretation is a multistage process that do not end at the lexical level. When I take the primary lexical meaning, it makes better sense to me of Paul's polemic. If you're not convinced then I'm fine with that but don't think that you solve an interpretive discussion in the manner above. You have to look beyond the specific verse to exegete something within the context. If it makes sense then so be it. The idea that they would cut themselves off doesn't "destroy" the whole flow for me but it doesn't make as much sense to me either.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Jul 18, 2013)

Semper Fidelis said:


> That question has been answered and so it is no more ridiculous for Paul to use the shock value of calling circumcision a "mutilation of the flesh" or to say that the Jews are the sons of Hagar. Both are clearly "un-Biblical".
> 
> Again, interpretation is a multistage process that do not end at the lexical level. When I take the primary lexical meaning, it makes better sense to me of Paul's polemic. If you're not convinced then I'm fine with that but don't think that you solve an interpretive discussion in the manner above. You have to look beyond the specific verse to exegete something within the context. If it makes sense then so be it. The idea that they would cut themselves off doesn't "destroy" the whole flow for me but it doesn't make as much sense to me either.



I don't disagree but at least the analogy used for the Jews being the sons of Hagar and circumcision being a mutilation of the flesh can be explained by the intended analogy, unbelieving Jews are compared to Hagar's sons because they are still slave to sin, circumcision is compared to mutilation of the flesh because it doesn't have the status of covenant sign anymore therefore doesn't carry original symbolism anymore. I do not see such analogy with castration in Gal 5:12. To me this seem like an invented interpretation in some translations.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 18, 2013)

Fogetaboutit said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > That question has been answered and so it is no more ridiculous for Paul to use the shock value of calling circumcision a "mutilation of the flesh" or to say that the Jews are the sons of Hagar. Both are clearly "un-Biblical".
> ...



The point is that one can go to Genesis 17 in a haphazard manner and make the same claim against Paul's analogy if they don't understand the rhetorical usage. To call circumcision a mutilation of the flesh would be scandalous if it stood on its own without any explanation. Likewise, to go to a single verse, outside of the surrounding context of the argument and say: Paul can't mean X because X is wrong is haphazard in the same manner.

The fact that Paul calls circumcision a mutilation of the flesh (something prohibited by the Law) is part of his overall polemic. Emasculation is an extension of that polemic as I already noted. Clearly, Paul doesn't want anyone to emasculate themselves under this interpretation any more than someone would be foolish to believe Paul thought that circumcision was, fundamentally, a mutilation of the flesh.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Jul 18, 2013)

Semper Fidelis said:


> The point is that one can go to Genesis 17 in a haphazard manner and make the same claim against Paul's analogy if they don't understand the rhetorical usage. To call circumcision a mutilation of the flesh would be scandalous *if it stood on its own without any explanation*. Likewise, to go to a single verse, outside of the surrounding context of the argument and say: Paul can't mean X because X is wrong is haphazard in the same manner.
> 
> The fact that Paul calls circumcision a mutilation of the flesh (something prohibited by the Law) is part of his overall polemic. Emasculation is an extension of that polemic as I already noted. Clearly, Paul doesn't want anyone to emasculate themselves under this interpretation any more than someone would be foolish to believe Paul thought that circumcision was, fundamentally, a mutilation of the flesh.



I understood your point, I'm not arguing againt hyperboles or analogies in general and I agree that Paul did use some in his letters. What I'm arguing against is that I do not believe such hyperbole is used in Gal 5:12 since I do not believe that emasculation is a genuine translation. I understand that the greek word used is often used to depict physical mutilation or amputation but I do not see any reason to take this verse and add that this "cutting off" was refering to their genitals. Most commentors only refer to them being cut off from the body of Christ, there no mention of emasculation.

you noted above (in bold) that to call circumcision a mutilation of the flesh would be scandalous "if" there's no explanaition. This is the problem with Gal 5:12 Paul does not offer an explaination like he usually does in other places when making references to thing that could be perceived as scandalous. This explainaition only come from commentators trying to justify this translation, which I believe is not warranted from the text or the context.


----------



## Mathetes (Jul 18, 2013)

I don't know, I think Tom Schreiner explains it pretty capably:

"The exclamation here is shocking. The opponents are characterized as troublemakers (cf. the verb ἀναστατὀω also occurs in Acts 17:6; 21:38). This fits with what Paul has said about them earlier in the letter (1:7; 5:10). The trouble they inflict comes from their preoccupation with circumcision. Paul wishes that they would go the whole way with the knife and emasculate themselves. The verb "mutilate" (άποκόπτω) is used in the LXX of the cutting off of the penis (Deut 23:1; 23:2 LXX). Paul now considers the covenantal rite of circumcision to be no better than a pagan cutting.

We see the same sentiment in Phil 3:2, where circumcision is no longer a sign of dedication to God but is dismissed as mutilation. Any attempt to derive right standing with God by human effort is nothing other than paganism, according to Paul (cf. Gal 4:3, 8 - 9), and hence it must be resisted both root and branch. Those who are so taken with circumcision as a means to enter the people of God are actually cutting themselves off from God's people." (Thomas Schreiner, Galatians: Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament)


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Jul 18, 2013)

Mathetes said:


> The verb "mutilate" (άποκόπτω) is used in the LXX of the cutting off of the penis (Deut 23:1; 23:2 LXX).



It is also used in (Mark 9:43, John 18:10, John 18:26 and Acts 27:32) none of these verse have any references to male organs. From my understanding the word used only means "cut off", the interpretation of what is being cut off is their male organs is added to the translated text. From the context of Gal 5 this interpretation does not fit and is actually pretty awkward. in my opinion it distorts the plain meaning of the verse. Again I really see not reason to link circumcision with emasculation. 

Even if a link were made to the comments Paul made about circumcision being a mutilation of the flesh (which I don't really see), why would this analogy be linked specifically to the mutilation of "male organs" and not any other body part?


----------



## Mathetes (Jul 18, 2013)

Fogetaboutit said:


> It is also used in (Mark 9:43, John 18:10, John 18:26 and Acts 27:32) none of these verse have any references to male organs.



The word doesn't have to be that specific. It's a word for mutilation, and the immediate context has to do with circumcision, and Paul makes the same observation in Phil 3:2.



> From my understanding the word used only means "cut off", the interpretation of what is being cut off is their male organs is added to the translated text.



Then why was the same observation made by John Chrysostom?

"On this account he curses them; and his meaning is as follows, For them I have no concern, “A man that is heretical after the first and second admonition refuse.” (Tit. iii. 10.) If they will, let them not only be circumcised, but mutilated. Where then are those who dare to mutilate themselves"

NPNF1-13. Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, and Philemon - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

According to my BDAG, the word has been used to mean mutilation of the private parts by Philo, Lucian, Cassius Dio, and Theophilus Antiochenus, so that usage is not unheard of. Also Deuteronomy 23:1.



> From the context of Gal 5 this interpretation does not fit and is actually pretty awkward. in my opinion it distorts the plain meaning of the verse. Again I really see not reason to link circumcision with emasculation.



All of this really sounds like a prejudging of the text. You seem to have decided beforehand that it would be morally repugnant for Paul to say something of such a sort, so you look for reasons to justify that interpretation. Especially given your misunderstanding of hyperbole in your third post.

It's already been pointed out that Paul is making a rhetorical point, he's using hyperbole to show that for all the Judaizer's zeal regarding circumcision, they might as well emasculate themselves for all the good it would do.



> Even if a link were made to the comments Paul made about circumcision being a mutilation of the flesh (which I don't really see), why would this analogy be linked specifically to the mutilation of "male organs" and not any other body part?



I'm starting to wonder if you know what circumcision is. You really can't see the connection being made between circumcision and mutilating the male private parts?


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Jul 19, 2013)

Mathetes said:


> The word doesn't have to be that specific. It's a word for mutilation, and the immediate context has to do with circumcision, and Paul makes the same observation in Phil 3:2.



What I'm having an issue with is that I see no need to associate the fact that Paul did call the circumcision, from the perspective of new testament believers, a mutilation of the flesh with emasculation. From what I understood so far many of those who use emasculation in this verse see it as an "analogy" to excommunication, which seem to be the clear meaning of the verse. What I don't see is how emasculation, or any mutilation of the flesh for that matter, can be use as an analogy for excommunication. 




Mathetes said:


> Then why was the same observation made by John Chrysostom?
> 
> "*On this account he curses them*; and his meaning is as follows, For them I have no concern, “A man that is heretical after the first and second admonition refuse.” (Tit. iii. 10.) If they will, let them not only be circumcised, but mutilated. Where then are those who dare to mutilate themselves"



Maybe I'm wrong but it seem that he is seeing this verse as referring to Paul cursing them in anger saying that since these men are so bent on mutilating the flesh by preaching unnecessary circumcision they should emasculate themselves. He seem to link this emasculation to a curse then interpret this curse as an excommunication. I understand that Paul does make some some reference to curse and excommunication (ie: if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. Gal 1:9) but this is referring to a spiritual curse (unbelief/carnal understanding). I personally believe it's stretch to interpret emasculation to a curse and then interpret this curse as referring to excommunication. 





Mathetes said:


> All of this really sounds like a prejudging of the text. You seem to have decided beforehand that it would be morally repugnant for Paul to say something of such a sort, so you look for reasons to justify that interpretation. Especially given your misunderstanding of hyperbole in your third post.



I believe this goes both ways, I prefer the interpretation that say that Paul was referring to a spiritual "cutting off" which would be easily linked to excommunication (obviously many commentators and translators from the past agree with this). If you interpret this as referring to a hyperbole using a physical cutting off I believe you have to do interpretive gymnastics to come up the intended meaning of excommunication.




Mathetes said:


> It's already been pointed out that Paul is making a rhetorical point, he's using hyperbole to show that for all the Judaizer's zeal regarding circumcision, they might as well emasculate themselves for all the good it would do.



Some do make that point yes, I'm not sure I agree with it.




Mathetes said:


> I'm starting to wonder if you know what circumcision is. You really can't see the connection being made between circumcision and mutilating the male private parts?



I apologize if my intellect and my imagination is not as developed as yours. I was not trying to be obnoxious just to understand the reasoning for those advocating that the verse was referring to emasculation. I think I understand a bit better with the Chrysostom quote but I still believe it's a stretch.


----------

