Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Galatians 5:12
I would they were even cut off which trouble you.
12. The Apostle gives vent to his righteous indignation.
they were even cut off ] Two explanations of this expression are given. All expositors however agree in translating the verb as a middle, not as passive.
(1) ‘I would that they who are such advocates for circumcision would go further and practise self-mutilation, like the priests of Cybele’. This is the view of Chrysostom and has the support of the most eminent commentators, ancient and modern. Bp. Lightfoot remarks, that ‘by glorying in the flesh’ the Galatians were returning in a very marked way to the bondage of their former heathenism; and Dr Jowett considers that ‘the common interpretation of the Fathers, confirmed by the use of language in the Septuagint, is not to be rejected only because it is displeasing to the delicacy of modern times’.
(2) ‘I would that they who are not merely teaching error, but stirring up sedition among you, would go further and even cut themselves off from you’, i.e. that instead of remaining as a disturbing element in the Church, they would openly secede and sever themselves. In favour of this interpretation (which seems to be adopted by the R.V. ‘even cut themselves off’ [30] ) the following considerations are of weight: ( a) The word occurs three times (exclusive of repetitions) in the active voice in the N. T. and always in the physical sense = ‘amputate’ or cut through. It occurs nowhere else in the middle. And it is common for a verb to undergo a change from the physical to the ethical sense with the change of voice. ( b) It is not met with in the middle in the LXX. The passive participle occurs once in the sense of ‘mutilated’. ( c) The word rendered ‘trouble’ you, is not the same as that used in Gal 5:10, but a term descriptive of the action of those leaders who stirred up a body of disaffected citizens, inducing them to abandon their homes and live by warfare or depredation, comp. Act 21:38. What wish more natural than that men with such sectarian aims should sever themselves wholly from the company of believers? ( d) The coarseness of the former explanation is heightened by the abruptness of the wish. There is moreover no other allusion in St Paul’s writings to the practice in question.
[30] With the alternative in the Margin, ‘Mutilate themselves’.
Between the two interpretations the student must choose that which approves itself to his judgment.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
I would they were even cut off – That is, as I understand it, from the communion of the church. So far am I, says Paul, from agreeing with them, and preaching the necessity of circumcision as they do, that I sincerely wish they were excluded from the church as unworthy a place among the children of God. For a very singular and monstrous interpretation of this passage, though adopted by Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Jerome, Grotius, Rosenmuller, Koppe, and others, the learned reader may consult Koppe on this verse. To my amazement, I find that this interpretation has also been adopted by Robinson in his Lexicon, on the word apokopto. I will state the opinion in the words of Koppe. Non modo circumcidant se, sed, si velint, etiam mutilant se – ipsa genitalia resecent. The simple meaning is, I think, that Paul wished that the authors of these errors and disturbances were excluded from the church.
Which trouble you – Who pervert the true doctrines of salvation, and who thus introduce error into the church. Error always sooner or later causes trouble; compare the note at 1Co 5:7.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Gal 5:12
I would they were even cut off that trouble you.
Reasons for Pauls indignation
Not content with argument he charges the Judaizers with what is base, cowardly, and corrupt. They are mean and time-serving, and dread the loss of caste among their fellow-countrymen. His whole being at last becomes excited with indignation; his brow darkens; his feelings explode; and the flash and the thunderbolt leap forth in an anathema. Only something very serious could justify even an apostle in such a mode of conducting religious controversy. What was it? The error he denounced was–
1. A species of blasphemy against the Divine fact which constituted Gods method of reconciliation, and, as such, it shocked Pauls love and reverence for the Christ it dishonoured (Gal 2:21).
2. A species of apostasy from Christ, whatever might be their verbal profession of belief, and thus it shocked and was resented by his love for man (Gal 5:2-5).
3. A thing absurd in itself, and, as such, it shocked his understanding (Gal 2:16-18).
4. It opposed the idea of progress, intellectually considered, and it was thus inconsistent with Pauls hope for humanity (Gal 4:9).
5. It was a yoke put on the neck of the Gentiles, and, as such, it shocked the apostles respect for liberty, and offended and aroused his spirit of independence (Gal 5:1).
6. It was an attempt to perpetuate a national distinction, and to keep up the supremacy of a particular people, and, as such, it offended St. Pauls philanthropy and ran counter to his conviction of the design of the gospel, the oneness of the race, and the equality of the nations (Gal 3:26-28).
7. It interfered with the bestowal of the gifts of the Spirit, and, as such, it grieved the apostle on account of his anxiety for the holiness of the Church (Gal 3:2-3). (T. Binney.)
Church troublers
The Church is troubled–
I. By false doctrine; thus Ahab troubled Israel (1Ki 18:18), and false apostles the Galatians.
II. By wicked example; thus Achan troubled Israel (Jos 7:15).
III. By force and cruelty; thus tyrants and persecutors trouble the Church (Act 12:1). (W. Perkins.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 12. I would they were even cut off which trouble you.] This saying has puzzled many, and different interpretations of the place have been proposed by learned men.
At first sight it seems as if the apostle was praying for the destruction of the false teachers who had perverted the Churches of Galatia. Mr. Wakefield thought might be translated, I wish that they were made to weep; and in his translation of the New Testament the passage stands thus: “I wish that they who are unsettling you may lament it.” I believe the apostle never meant any such thing. As the persons who were breeding all this confusion in the Churches of Galatia were members of that Church, the apostle appears to me to be simply expressing his desire that they might be cut off or excommunicated from the Church. Kypke has given an abundance of examples where the word is used to signify amputating; cutting off from society, office, c. excluding. In opposition to the notion of excommunication, it might be asked: “Why should the apostle wish these to be excommunicated when it was his own office to do it?” To this it may be answered: The apostle’s authority was greatly weakened among that people by the influence of the false teachers, so that in all probability he could exercise no ecclesiastical function; he could therefore only express his wish. And the whole passage is so parallel to that, 1Co 5:6-7, that I think there can be no reasonable doubt of the apostle’s meaning: Let those who are unsettling the Church of Christ in your district be excommunicated; this is my wish, that they should no longer have any place among you.”
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
I wish that God would some way or other put an end to these that trouble you. This Paul speaketh not out of hatred to their persons, but out of a zeal to the glory of God, and a just indignation against these men, who had so much hindered the salvation of the members of this church. And it is not improbable that the apostle here spake by the Spirit of prophecy, as knowing God would cut them off; so that his and the like imprecations of holy men in Scripture are not to be drawn into precedents, or made matters for our imitation, unless we had the same discerning of spirits which they had, or the same Spirit of prophecy and revelations from God as to future things. But how far it is lawful or unlawful for ordinary persons, whether ministers or private Christians, to pray against Gods or his churchs enemies, is a question for the arguing which this place is too narrow.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
12. they . . . which troubleyouTranslate, as the Greek is different from Ga5:10, “they who are unsettling you.”
were even cut offevenas they desire your foreskin to be cut off and cast away bycircumcision, so would that they were even cut off from yourcommunion, being worthless as a castaway foreskin (Gal 1:7;Gal 1:8; compare Php3:2). The fathers, JEROME,AMBROSE, AUGUSTINE,and CHRYSOSTOM, explainit, “Would that they would even cut themselves off,” thatis, cut off not merely the foreskin, but the whole member: ifcircumcision be not enough for them, then let them haveexcision also; an outburst hardly suitable to the gravity ofan apostle. But Gal 5:9; Gal 5:10plainly point to excommunication as the judgment threatenedagainst the troublers: and danger of the bad “leaven”spreading, as the reason for it.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
I would they were even cut off which trouble you. These words are a solemn wish of the apostle’s with respect to the false teachers, or an imprecation of the judgment of God upon them; that they might be cut off out of the land of the living by the immediate hand of God, that they might do no more mischief to the churches of Christ: this he said not out of hatred to their persons, but from a concern for the glory of God, and the good of his people. The word here used answers to the Hebrew word , and which is often made use of by the Jews in solemn imprecations; we read o of a righteous man, , “that cut off his children”: the gloss upon it is,
“he used to say, when he made any imprecation, , “may I cut off my children”;”
that is, may they die, may they be cut off by the hand of God, and I bury them;
“says R. Tarphon p, may my children be “cut off”, if these books of heretics come into my hands, that I will burn them;”
and says the same Rabbi q may I “cut off” my children, or may my children be cut off, if this sentence or constitution is cut off, or should perish. There is another use of this word, which may have a place here, for it sometimes signifies to confute a person, or refute his notion r.
“It is a tradition of the Rabbius, that after the departure of R. Meir, R. Judah said to his disciples, let not the disciples of R. Meir come in hither, for they are contentious; and not to learn the law do they come, but
, “to cut me off”; (i.e. as the gloss says, to show how sharp they are that none can stand against them;) to confute and overcome me, by their sentences, or constitutions.”
So the apostle here might wish that the mouths of these false teachers were stopped, their notions refuted, that they might give them no more trouble; to which agrees the Arabic version; “they that trouble you I wish they were dumb”; or that their mouths were stopped, as such vain talkers should be; see Tit 1:10 or the sense of the apostle is, that it was his will and desire that these men should be cut off from the communion of the church; with which views he mentions the proverbial expression in Ga 5:9 with which compare 1Co 5:6 or that they would cut themselves off, by withdrawing from them, going out from among them, and leaving them as these men sometimes did.
o T. Bab. Bava Metzia, fol. 85. 1. p T. Bab. Sabbat, fol, 116. 1. q T. Bab. Sabbat, fol. 17. 1. Misn. Oholot, c. 16. sect. 1. & Maimon, in Bartenora in ib. r T. Bab. Kiddushin, fol. 52. 2. Nazir, fol. 49. 2.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
I would (). Would that, used as conjunction in wishes. See on 1Cor 4:2; 2Cor 11:1. Here a wish about the future with future indicative.
They which unsettle you ( ). Late verb from , driven from one’s abode, and in papyri in this sense as well as in sense of upsetting or disturbing one’s mind (boy’s letter) as here. In Acts 17:6; Acts 21:38 we have it in sense of making a commotion.
Cut themselves off (). Future middle of , old word to cut off as in Ac 27:32, here to mutilate.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
They were cut off [] . More correctly, would cut themselves off. Perhaps the severest expression in Paul ‘s Epistles. It turns on the practice of circumcision. Paul says in effect : “These people are disturbing you by insisting on circumcision. I would that they would make thorough work of it in their own case, and, instead of merely amputating the foreskin, would castrate themselves, as heathen priests do. Perhaps that would be even a more powerful help to salvation.” With this passage should be compared Phi 3:2, 3, also aimed at the Judaisers : “Beware of the concision” [ ] , the word directing attention to the fact that these persons had no right to claim circumcision in the true sense. Unaccompanied by faith, love, and obedience, circumcision was no more than physical mutilation. They belonged in the category of those referred to in Lev 21:5. Comp. Paul ‘s words on the true circumcision, Rom 2:28, 29; Phi 3:3; Col 2:11.
Which trouble [] . Only here in Paul, and twice elsewhere, Act 17:6; Act 21:38. o LXX Stronger than tarassein disturb. Rather to upset or overthrow. The usual phrase in Class. is ajnastaton poiein to make an upset. Used of driving out from home, ruining a city or country. See on madest an uproar, Act 21:38. Rev. unsettle is too weak.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “I would they were even cut off,” (ophelon kai opkopsontai) “I indeed would (that they) cut themselves off,” from interference in the fellowship of the Galatian church, by sowing seeds of division, in preaching that men had to be circumcised to be saved, as their forerunners had at Jerusalem and Antioch, Act 15:1; Act 15:24; Gal 4:29; 1Co 5:13.
2) “Which trouble you,” (hoi Anastatountes humas) “The ones who (are) unsettling you all,” with “another gospel,” one of a different kind from what Paul had preached to them, Gal 1:6-7; Gal 5:1-3; Gal 5:10,
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
12. Would that they were even cut off. His indignation proceeds still farther, and he prays for destruction on those impostors by whom the Galatians had been deceived. The word, “cut off,” appears to be employed in allusion to the circumcision which they pressed. “They tear the church for the sake of circumcision: I wish they were entirely cut off.” Chrysostom favors this opinion. But how can such an imprecation be reconciled with the mildness of an apostle, who ought to wish that all should be saved, and that not a single person should perish? So far as men are concerned, I admit the force of this argument; for it is the will of God that we should seek the salvation of all men without exception, as Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world. But devout minds are sometimes carried beyond the consideration of men, and led to fix their eye on the glory of God, and the kingdom of Christ. The glory of God, which is in itself more excellent than the salvation of men, ought to receive from us a higher degree of esteem and regard. Believers earnestly desirous that the glory of God should be promoted, forget men, and forget the world, and would rather choose that the whole world should perish, than that the smallest portion of the glory of God should be withdrawn.
Let us remember, however, that such a prayer as this proceeds from leaving men wholly out of view, and fixing our attention on God alone. Paul cannot be accused of cruelty, as if he were opposed to the law of love. Besides, if a single man or a few persons be brought into comparison, how immensely must the church preponderate! It is a cruel kind of mercy which prefers a single man to the whole church. “On one side, I see the flock of God in danger; on the other, I see a wolf “seeking,” like Satan, “whom he may devour.” (1Pe 5:8.) Ought not my care of the church to swallow up all my thoughts, and lead me to desire that its salvation should be purchased by the destruction of the wolf? And yet I would not wish that a single individual should perish in this way; but my love of the church and my anxiety about her interests carry me away into a sort of ecstasy, so that I can think of nothing else.” With such zeal as this, every true pastor of the church will burn. The Greek word translated “who trouble you,” signifies to remove from a certain rank or station. By using the word καὶ, even, he expresses more strongly his desire that the impostors should not merely be degraded, but entirely separated and cut off. (87)
(87) “But I am so far from inculcating on you the necessity of circumcision, I would even wish that all those, without exception, who endeavour thus to subvert your faith, were wholly cut off from the communion of the Christian church. — I wish that, instead of having hearkened to these seducing teachers, they had been cut off by you, excluded from the church, and disowned as brethren.’ (See 1Co 5:7.) And where he here expresses his wish, that the troublers of the Galatians were cut off, it is only putting them in mind what would have been both their prudence and their duty to have done; not to have hearkened to them, but to have disowned, and refused society with them as Christians. This being the plain and natural sense of the apostle’s words, they cannot be charged with any ill-natured or unfriendly wish.” — Chandler.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(12) I would they were even cut off.The Authorised version is undoubtedly wrong here. The words may mean cut themselves off, i.e., from your communion, but it seems far best to take the words, with all the ancient Greek interpreters and a large majority of modern commentators, including Dr. Lightfoot and Bishop Wordsworth, as referring to an extension of the rite of circumcision, such as the Galatians might see frequently practised by the priests of Cybele, whose worship had one of its most imporant centres in their countryI would they would even make themselves eunuchs. Let them carry their self-mutilation still further, and not stop at circumcision.
The expression is in several ways surprising as coming from St. Paul. We should remember, in some mitigation of it, the fact just alluded to, that the Galatians were themselves familiar with this particular form of self-mutilation; and familiar with it, no doubt, in discourse as well as in act. Christianity, while it has had the effect of putting a stop to such horrible practices, has also banished them even from thought and word. It is less, perhaps, a matter of wonder that we should have to appeal to the difference in standard between the Apostles times and our own, than that we have to appeal to it so seldom. Still, at the best, words like these must be allowed to come some way short of the meekness and gentleness of Christ. We may compare with them, as well for the particular expression as for the general vehemence of language, Php. 3:2 : Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of concision (with a play on circumcision). The Apostle himself would have been the last to claim that he had already attained, either were already perfect. A highly nervous and excitable constitution such as his, shattered by bodily hardships and mental strain, could not but at times impair his power of self-control. It is to be noticed, however, that his indignation, if it sometimes carries him somewhat too far, is always roused in a worthy cause. Such momentary ebullitions as these are among the very few flaws in a truly noble and generous character, and are themselves in great part due to the ardour which makes it so noble.
Which trouble you.A different word from that which is similarly translated in Gal. 5:10. Its meaning is stronger: to uproot and overthrow.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
12. I am so far from preaching circumcision, that I would they might inflict upon themselves excision. There is clearly an antithesis between the circumcision and the excision; but the question is, what excision is meant? A large number of modern expositors understand, with our English translators, excision from the Church. And Bengel sustains the antithesis under this interpretation in words which we shall leave in their original Latin: “Quemadmodum preputium per circumcisionem abscinditur, ut quiddam, quo carere decet Israelitam; ita isti tanquam preputium rejiculum de communione sanctorum rejicientur et anathema erunt.”
But those who best knew the true meaning of the Greek term for this excision the old Greek commentators give another sense of the word; a sense which the decency which Christianity has created in modern times induces many to believe that the apostle could hardly have intended. The same Greek word is in the Septuagint version of Deuteronomy xxiii, 1, for one made a eunuch. The rite of circumcision undoubtedly symbolized the cutting off the sensual from our nature; and it is wonderful that among some heathen the same rite was so increased in severity, perhaps with a similar meaning, at first, as to produce a complete, relentless emasculation. Now in Galatia it was probably no more repulsive to name this excision than to speak of circumcision. The city of Pessinus, capital of Galatia, was the seat of the worship of Cybele, whose priests mutilated themselves as a religious rite. In literature, in public discourse, and in conversation, the thought and the name were familiar. St. Paul, therefore, in language at that time entirely inoffensive, indignantly preferred that these circumcisionists should go the whole extent, and turn excisionists, priests of Cybele, and the salvation of his Church would no longer be endangered. Circumcision was now as useless as this excision; both had better be abandoned to pagans, and Christians abstain from and contemn both alike. And this indignant expression of contempt for both Paul now follows with a lesson of Christian spiritual purity.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘I would that those who trouble you would even cut themselves off.’
NEB puts this in this way, ‘as for these agitators, they had better go the whole way and make eunuchs of themselves’ (i.e. like the eunuch priests of Cybele who might have been well known to the Galatians). For if they made eunuchs of themselves instead of circumcising themselves they would be cut off from their own status under the Law (Deu 23:1). They would become outsiders. If we take it like this, this would represent a sardonic attack on the Judaisers. But, especially in view of what he is to say about love, he is possibly rather simply expressing a wish that they would ‘remove themselves’ (a pun, having their preaching of circumcision in mind where the foreskin is removed), thus ‘cutting themselves off’ from the Galatians.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Gal 5:12. I would they were even cut off which trouble you. Who subvert or unsettle you. It by no means agrees with the gentle genius of Christianity to suppose that this Apostle, who understood it so well, and cultivated it so much, should mean by this to intimate that he wished these troublers dead; or that any bodily evil were inflicted upon them by human violence. All arguments, therefore, which are drawn from this text in favour of persecuting principles, must be veryinconclusive: but when we consider the particular circumstances in which these seducing teachers opposed the Apostle, it will appear that they very well deserved that ecclesiastical censure which he here wishes to be pronounced against them. Some, following a different reading, render this verse, They ought to be cut off, and shall in reality be cut off, who trouble you.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Gal 5:12 . The vivid realization of the doings of his opponents, who were not ashamed to resort even to such falsehood (Gal 5:11 ), now wrings from his soul a strong and bitterly sarcastic wish [232] of holy indignation: Would that they, who set you in commotion, might mutilate themselves! that they who attach so much importance to circumcision, and thereby create commotion among you, might not content themselves with being circumcised, but might even have themselves emasculated! On as a particle , see on 1Co 4:8 . “Omnino autem observandum est, (as to the form , see Interpr. ad Moer . p. 285 f.) non nisi tum adhiberi, quum quis optat, ut fuerit aliquid, vel sit, vel futurum sit, quod non fuit aut est aut futurum est,” Hermann, ad Viger . p. 756. It is but very seldom used with the future , as Lucian, Soloec . 1. See Hermann l.c.; Graev. ad Luc. Sol . II. p. 730.
] the climactic “even,” not that of the corresponding relation of retribution (Wieseler), in which sense it would be only superfluous and cumbrous.
] denotes castration (Arrian, Epict . ii. 20. 19), either by incision of the vena seminalis (Deu 23:1 ) or otherwise. See the passages in Wetstein. Comp. , castrated , Strabo, xiii. p. 630; , Deu 23:1 . Owing to , which, after Gal 5:11 , points to something more than the circumcision therein indicated, this interpretation is the only one suited to the context: it is followed by Chrysostom and his successors, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, Cajetanus, Grotius, Estius, Wetstein, Semler, Koppe, and many others; also Winer, Rckert, Usteri, Matthies, Schott, Olshausen, de Wette, Hilgenfeld, Hofmann, Reithmayr, Holsten; comp. Ewald, who explains it of a still more complete mutilation, as does Pelagius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and others. In opposition to the context, others, partly influenced by an incorrect aesthetical standard (comp. Calovius: “glossa impura”), and sacrificing the middle signification, which is always reflexive in Greek prose writers (Khner, II. p. 19), and is also to be maintained throughout in the N.T. (Winer, p. 239, [E. T. 316]), have found in it the sense: “ exitium imprecatur impostoribus” (Calvin, acknowledging, however, the word as an allusion to circumcision; Calovius, and others); or have explained it of the divine extirpation (Wieseler); or: “may they be excommunicated ” (Erasmus, Beza, Piscator, Cornelius a Lapide, Bengel, Michaelis, Zachariae, Morus, Baumgarten-Crusius, Windischmann, and others); [233] or: “may all opportunity of perverting you be taken from them” (Elsner, Wolf, Baumgarten); or: “may they cut themselves off from you ” (Ellicott).
] stronger than , means here to stir up (against true Christianity), to alarm . Comp. Act 17:6 ; Act 21:38 . The word, used instead of the classic , belongs to the later Greek; Sturz, dial. Mac . p. 146.
[232] According to Hofmann, indeed, it is “ quite earnestly meant,” and is supposed to contain the thought that “their perversity, which is now rendered dangerous by their being able to appeal to the revealed law, would thereby assume a shape in which it would cease to be dangerous.” How arbitrarily the thought is imported! And yet the wish, if earnestly meant, would be at all events a silly one. For a similar instance of a bitterly pointed saying against the Judaistic overvaluing of circumcision, see Phi 3:2 .
[233] Luther, in his translation, rendered it: to be extirpated (thus like Calvin); in his Commentary, 1519, he does not explain it specially, but speaks merely of a curse which is expressed. In 1524, however, he says characteristically: “Si omnino volunt circumcidi, opto, ut et abscindantur et sint eunuchi illi amputatis testiculis et veretro, i. e. qui docere et gignere filios spirituales nequeunt, extra ecclesiam ejiciendi.” On the other hand, in the Commentary of 1538, he says quite simply, “allusit ad circumcisionem, q. d. cogunt vos circumcidi, utinam ipsi funditus et radicitus excindantur.”
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
12 I would they were even cut off which trouble you.
Ver. 12. I would they were even cut ] Not circumcised only, cut round, but cut off, Non circumcidantur modo, sed et abscindantur. (Chrys.)
That trouble you ] That turn you upside down, or that turn you out of house and home.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
12 .] The introduces a climax I would (reff.) that they who are unsettling you would even As to , (1) it cannot be passive, as E. V., ‘ were even cut off .’ (2) It can hardly mean ‘ would cut themselves off from your communion ,’ as the is against so mild a wish, besides that this sense of the word is unexampled. (3) There is certainly an allusion to in Gal 5:7 , so that in reading aloud the Greek, the stress would be, . . . . But (4) this allusion is one only of sound, and on account of the , all the more likely to be to some well-known and harsh meaning of the word, even as far as to which the Apostle’s wish extends. And (5) such a meaning of the word is that in which (agreeably to its primitive classical sense, of hewing off limbs, see Lidd. and Scott) it is used by the LXX, ref. Deut., by Arrian, Epict. ii. 20, by Hesych., , by Philo, de legg. special. ad vi. vii. dec. cap. 7, vol. ii. p. 306, , de vict. offerent. 13, p. 261, . (Wetst.). It seems to me that this sense must be adopted , in spite of the protests raised against it; e.g. that of Mr. Bagge recently, who thinks it “involves a positive insult to St. Paul” (?). And so Chrys., and the great consensus of ancient and modern Commentators: and, as Jowett very properly observes, “the common interpretation of the Fathers, confirmed by the use of language in the LXX, is not to be rejected only because it is displeasing to the delicacy of modern times.”
is used in the N. T. as a mere particle: see reff.: also Hermann on Viger, p. 756 7, who says: “omnino observandum est, nonnisi tunc adhiberi, quum quis optat ut fuerit aliquid, vel sit, vel futurum sit, quod non fuit aut est aut futurum est.” The construction with a future is very unusual; in Lucian, Solc. 1, is given as an example of a solcism. I need hardly enter a caution against the punctuation of a few mss. and editions, by which is taken alone, and the following future supposed to be assertive, as above, Gal 5:10 . The reff. will shew, how alien such an usage is from the usage of the N. T.
, , Hesych. It belongs to later Greek: the classical expression is , Polyb. iii. 81. 6 al.: or , Soph. Antig. 670: and it is said to belong to the Macedonian dialect. Ellic., referring to Tittmann, p. 266: where however I can find no such assertion.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Gal 5:12 . . This adverb occurs also in 1Co 4:8 , 2Co 11:1 , Rev 3:15 . In all three places it expresses dissatisfaction with the actual position, “Would that it were otherwise”. But it acquires this force from its combination with past tenses, like the aorist in Attic Greek. When coupled however with a future as it is here, it does not express a wish, but like the future of declares what ought to be the logical outcome of the present. The clause predicts in bitter irony to what final consummation this superstitious worship of circumcision must lead. Men who exalt an ordinance of the flesh above the spirit of Christ will be bound in the end to proceed to mutilation of the flesh like heathen votaries. . This word was habitually used to describe the practice of mutilation which was so prevalent in the Phrygian worship of Cybele. The Galatians were necessarily familiar with it, and it can hardly bear any other sense. . This word forcibly expresses the revolutionary character of the agitation which was upsetting the peace and order of the Galatian Churches. It is used in Act 17:6 ; Act 21:38 to denounce seditious and riotous conduct.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
were, &c. = even dismembered themselves. Reference to the rite practised by the Phrygians in the worship of Cybele. Compare Mar 9:43, (Revised Version would even cut themselves off)
trouble. Greek. anastatoo. See Act 17:6.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
12.] The introduces a climax-I would (reff.) that they who are unsettling you would even As to , (1) it cannot be passive, as E. V., were even cut off. (2) It can hardly mean would cut themselves off from your communion, as the is against so mild a wish, besides that this sense of the word is unexampled. (3) There is certainly an allusion to in Gal 5:7, so that in reading aloud the Greek, the stress would be, . . . . But (4) this allusion is one only of sound, and on account of the , all the more likely to be to some well-known and harsh meaning of the word, even as far as to which the Apostles wish extends. And (5) such a meaning of the word is that in which (agreeably to its primitive classical sense, of hewing off limbs, see Lidd. and Scott) it is used by the LXX, ref. Deut., by Arrian, Epict. ii. 20, by Hesych., , -by Philo, de legg. special. ad vi. vii. dec. cap. 7, vol. ii. p. 306, ,-de vict. offerent. 13, p. 261, . (Wetst.). It seems to me that this sense must be adopted, in spite of the protests raised against it; e.g. that of Mr. Bagge recently, who thinks it involves a positive insult to St. Paul (?). And so Chrys., and the great consensus of ancient and modern Commentators: and, as Jowett very properly observes, the common interpretation of the Fathers, confirmed by the use of language in the LXX, is not to be rejected only because it is displeasing to the delicacy of modern times.
is used in the N. T. as a mere particle: see reff.: also Hermann on Viger, p. 756-7, who says: omnino observandum est, nonnisi tunc adhiberi, quum quis optat ut fuerit aliquid, vel sit, vel futurum sit, quod non fuit aut est aut futurum est. The construction with a future is very unusual; in Lucian, Solc. 1, is given as an example of a solcism. I need hardly enter a caution against the punctuation of a few mss. and editions, by which is taken alone, and the following future supposed to be assertive, as above, Gal 5:10. The reff. will shew, how alien such an usage is from the usage of the N. T.
, , Hesych. It belongs to later Greek: the classical expression is , Polyb. iii. 81. 6 al.: or , Soph. Antig. 670: and it is said to belong to the Macedonian dialect. Ellic., referring to Tittmann, p. 266: where however I can find no such assertion.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Gal 5:12. , shall be cut off) Immediately after the reproof concerning the past, Paul entertains [and expresses] good hope of the Galatians for the future; but he denounces punishment against the seducers in two sentences, which, by disjoining in the meantime the particle , are as follows:- , …, . That one concealed troubler, worse than the others, Gal 5:10, who boasted that Paul himself agreed with him about circumcision, is here, cursorily in passing, refuted, Gal 5:11; but the others also, who are disturbing the Galatians about the status of the Gospel [in relation to circumcision and the law], are threatened with being cut off. Thus the particle , and, retains its natural meaning, and these words cohere, — , as well as those, — , 1Co 5:12-13 : is the future middle, which, as often happens, so here, has a passive signification: it corresponds to the Hebrew word , and is a conjugate of the verb , Gal 5:7. Either the whole, when a part is cut off [the whole has the part cut off], or a part cut off from the whole, is said respectively . Some ascribe the former sense in this passage to the zeal of the apostle, so that the mutilation of the body of the circumcised [viz. by taking away not merely the foreskin, but the whole member] may be denoted; and, indeed, the LXX. often translate by , , etc., especially Deu 23:1) 2, where is used for that, which the French here translate more than circumcised; but we can scarcely receive what is said by the apostle but by metonymy, i.e., that as persons cut off they may be debarred from the Church. Deut. as above. The second sense is more consistent with the gravity of the apostle, that he should speak thus: As the prepuce is cut off by circumcision, as a thing which it becomes an Israelite to want, so those shall be cut off, as a worthless prepuce, from the communion of the saints, and shall be accursed (anathema): ch. Gal 1:7, and following verses. With a similar reference to circumcision, Paul, Php 3:2, speaks of , concision; nor is it altogether foreign to the subject, what Apollon. in Philostr. Gal 5:11, says of the Jews, already of old time, they not only cut themselves off from the Romans, but also from all men. Now, what is to be done with the particle ? Most construe ; but , though it is a particle of sufficiently frequent occurrence, is nowhere to be found construed with the future of the indicative. The Complutensian Edition acknowledging this fact, to avoid this difficulty, have given ; but it is unsupported by the copies.[49] There are many imprecations in the sacred writings, and this word is not used in any of their formul: nor would Paul in this passage, after a categorical (unconditional) denunciation, finally make war by a prayer against the disturbers of the peace. , the point, is put after in the sixth Augustan. I think it will be found so in many MSS., if philologers would notice such things; for the comma is certainly in some ancient editions, especially in that of Basle, 1545. Nay, may be very conveniently connected with the preceding words: ; ,-was then the offence of the Cross taken away? I wish it were. is subjoined in reference to a thing desirable (such as is also noticed 1Co 4:8), as , Gal 3:21, is used in reference to a matter by no means pleasant; and as among the Greeks in cases of concession, or esto among the Latins. And, as in ch. Gal 2:17, after is put , so here, after is put . I wish that the Cross were a scandal to no one-I wish that all, along with Paul, may hereafter glory in the Cross, ch. Gal 6:14-15.- ) The same word as at Act 17:6. It denotes, to remove a man entirely from the station which he occupies.
[49] Beng. errs in this. D()G support : and fg Vulg. have abscindantur. But ABC, the weightiest authorities, have , the difficulty of explaining which gave birth to .-ED.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Gal 5:12
Gal 5:12
I would that they that unsettle you would even go beyond circumcision.-It is something of a play on the idea. They insisted in cutting off the foreskin. He would that they, as the useless foreskin, were cut off from them. The punishment spoken of (verse 10) may refer to the action of the congregation in withdrawing fellowship from them, as well as the approval of this act of the church by God in punishing them for dwindling his people. No greater sin than this does God recognize. Paul desired that those who troubled the church in turning away from the truth should be cut off, turned over to Satan.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
cut: Gal 5:10, Gal 1:8, Gal 1:9, Gen 17:14, Exo 12:15, Exo 30:33, Lev 22:3, Jos 7:12, Jos 7:25, Joh 9:34, Act 5:5, Act 5:9, 1Co 5:13, Tit 3:10
trouble: Act 15:1, Act 15:2, Act 15:24
Reciprocal: Gen 30:34 – General 1Sa 26:19 – cursed Mat 26:10 – Why Act 15:19 – that Gal 1:7 – but Gal 2:4 – because Gal 6:17 – let
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Gal 5:12. -I would that they would even cut themselves off who are unsettling you. The verb is defined by Hesychius as . Act 17:6; Act 21:38. The term is of deeper meaning than in Gal 1:7 -not only troubling, but unhinging you. The ordinary classic phrase is . Sturz, De Dialect. Alexandrin, p. 146. Symmachus, however, employs the verb, Psa 59:11 (Psa 58:11); and Aquila, Psa 11:12 (Psa 10:12). Bengel takes quite a peculiar view of the connection. , according to him, should stand by itself, as being a curt answer to the previous clause taken interrogatively-Is then the offence of the cross ceased? I wish it were; he shall bear his judgment, . . . and they who are unsettling you shall be cut off. (Similarly Bagge.) Besides the disjointed construction, the insulation of and the wrong translation of the middle verb forbid this exegesis. is very rarely joined with the future, so that D, F have -an evident emendation. Lucian gives such a connection as an example of a solecism, Pseudosophista, p. 216, vol. iv. Bipont. The word is allied to -. Matthiae, 513; 1Co 4:8; 2Co 11:1; Klotz-Devarius, 516. D3, K, L have . The future is here used virtually for the optative, and the word is treated as a mere particle, Winer, 41; A. Buttmann, 185. In the use of the term in 1Co 4:8, 2Co 11:1, there is a tinge of irony.
What then is the meaning of ? 1. It cannot bear the passive sense-the abscindantur of the Vulgate, or were cut off of the English version. Winer, 38, 4. The usage, though it occurs in classical writings, does not seem to be found in the New Testament. The Gothic, too, has vainei jah usmaitaindau; and the Syriac has the common idiom, cutting were cut off. Calvin interprets it in the same way-exitium imprecatur impostoribus illis, and he vindicates the exegesis: And yet I should not wish that a single individual perish thus; but my love of the church, and my anxiety for her interests, carry me into a kind of ecstasy-quasi in ecstasin-so that I can think of nothing else. Bagge explains it-cut off from a position of hope that they may ever accept the salvation of Christ. The interpretation of Wieseler and Schmoller is similar to Calvin’s; so Hammond, and Chandler who renders-excluded from the church, disowned by you as brethren;-were themselves cut off from the society of the church with the circumcising knife of excommunication (Boston). But the passive translation is grammatically untenable; and if excommunication were the penalty, the apostle in his plenary authority would have pronounced the sentence himself.
2. Retaining the proper middle signification, the verb has been supposed to mean cut themselves off, or get themselves cut off, from fellowship with you. Generally this view is held by Erasmus, Beza, Piscator, a Lapide, Bengel, Windischmann, Webster and Wilkinson, Ellicott, and Gwynne who renders-that they would even beat themselves away! But this meaning is unusual; the in this case also loses its emphasis; and why in such a crisis did the apostle only wish for the severance and not at once command it, as in 1Co 5:11? There may be an allusion to the of Gal 5:7, both being compounds of the same verb; but the paronomasia will not bear out Gwynne’s idea-Instead of intercepting the progress of others, make away with yourselves, for the again becomes meaningless, and the wish amounts to little. But the words of the apostle are sharp and precise.
3. The meaning is keener than this, that they may be deprived of all opportunity of seducing you (Wolf, Baumgarten), and greatly stronger than that of doing penance-Busse thun.
4. Nor is the meaning merely in a tropical sense, utinam spadones fient propter regnum coelorum, et carnalia seminare cessabunt; the view of Thomas Aquinas, and of Augustine who calls it sub specie maledictionis, benedictio. Some admit in the phrase a reference to circumcision-would execute upon themselves not only circumcision, but excision also (Conybeare). Bengel too: Quemadmodum praeputium per circumcisionem abscinditur, ut quiddam, quo carere decet Israelitam; ita isti tanquam praeputium rejiculum de communione sanctorum abscindentur et anathema erunt.
5. Another and literal sense has been given, which some brand as indelicate, which Bagge calls a positive insult to St. Paul, which Gwynne stigmatizes as a filthy witticism, and of which even Le Clerc writes, Imprecatio scurrae est non Pauli, viz. I would that they would not only circumcise, but even castrate themselves;-Chrysostom saying, , ; and Jerome as decidedly, non solum circumcidantur sed etiam abscindantur-would not only circumcise, but eunuchize themselves. Now, 1. this is the proper meaning of the term, to hew off limbs-, , : Iliad, 9.241; Odyss. 10.127; Rost u. Palm sub voce. 2. This verb and its noun are the technical terms employed for this act: Arrian, Epictetus, 2.20. , Hesychius; Lucian, Eunuchus, p. 210, vol. v. Opera, Bipont. 3. The word bears the same meaning in the Septuagint: , Deu 23:1; also Philo, De Leg. Spec. 7; De Victis Offer. 13. See Wetstein in loc. A portion of the passage quoted by Bentley (Critica Sacra, p. 48) from Dio Cassius is a various reading. Dio Cassius, lib. 79:11, p. 448, vol. ii. Op. ed. Dindorf. 4. Both the name and the thing were familiarly known in Galatia, especially in the town of Pessinus, where, on Mount Dindymus, Cybele had her shrine, which was served by emasculated priests. Lucian, Cronosolon, 12, p. 16, vol. ix. Op. Bipont. Justin Martyr also uses the verb of the priests of the mother of the gods: I. Apolog. p. 70, E, p. 196, vol. i. Opera, ed. Otto. See also Bardesanes, Cureton’s Spicileg. Syr. p. 32. Strabo also mentions the , 13:4, 14, p. 87, vol. iii. Geograph. ed. Kramer. Reference may also be made to the wild wail of the Carmen, lxiii. of Catullus. Diodorus Siculus, 3:31, p. 247, vol. i. Opera, ed. Dindorf. Such a mutilation must have been so well known in the province of Galatia, that the apostle’s words in connection with the of the previous verse could scarcely have conveyed any other allusion to a Galatian reader; and this reconciles us to this third interpretation. The verb could not have the same hard sound to them as it has to us. 5. The in this way preserves its ascensive force-not only circumcise, but even eunuchize themselves. In a similar spirit and play of terms, the apostle says, Php 3:2-3 : . Circumcision to a Gentile was a mere bodily mutilation of the same kind as that of the priests of Cybele. See under Php 3:2. Such an was quite on a level with their : let them show their extravagant attachment to the rite by imitating the degraded ministers of Cybele. Luther writes, Allusit ad circumcisionem, q. d. cogunt vos circumcidi utinam ipsi funditus et radicitus excindantur. Such is the view of all the Greek fathers, of Jerome, Ambrosiaster, Augustine, and of Winer, Matthies, Schott, Olshausen, Usteri, De Wette, Hilgenfeld, Alford, Ewald, Jowett, and Prof. Lightfoot. It is needless to apologize for the apostle’s words, as springing either from Judaicus furor, as Jerome says, or, as he further hints, from human frailty, since the apostle was a man adhuc vasculo clausus infirmo. Nor does it serve any purpose to call the imprecation simply prophetic (Pareus) or ecstatic (Calvin). It is a bitter sarcasm on the fanatical fondness for circumcision, and the extravagant estimate of its value, which these Judaistic zealots cherished, and which they were putting into prominence with persistent vehemence-a scornful and contemptuous estimate of the men, and of the mere mutilation for which they had such a passion.
Fuente: Commentary on the Greek Text of Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians and Phillipians
Gal 5:12. They were even cut off all comes from the Greek word APOKOPTO, which Thayer defines, “to cut off, amputate,” and he explains it to mean, “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).” Robinson defines the word as does Thayer, and also gives the following explanation: “Would that for themselves they would (not only circumcise but) even cut off the parts usually circumcised, i. e. make themselves eunuchs.” Strong defines and explains the word virtually the same as Thayer and Robinson. The idea of Paul is that the Judaizers were making so much of circumcision that they deserved “an overdose of their own medicine.”
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Gal 5:12. I wish that they who are unsettling you would even go on to abscission; that the circumcisers would not stop with the half measure of circumcision, but go beyond it even to abscission or mutilation (make themselves eunuchs), like the priests of Cybele. A severe irony similar to the one in Php 3:2-3, where Paul calls the boasters of circumcision the concision. Self-mutilation was a recognized form of heathen worship, especially in Pessinus in Galatia, and therefore quite familiar to the readers. Thus by glorying in the flesh the Galatians relapsed into their former heathenism. The words may be explained: cut themselves off from your communion, but the interpretation above given agrees best with the meaning of the verb, and the even (which points to something more than circumcision), and is maintained by the Greek fathers and the best modern commentators. The translation of the E. V. were even cut off, i.e., excommunicated, is ungrammatical (the Greek verb is in the middle, not the passive mood), and due to false delicacy. Christianity has abolished the revolting practice of self-mutilation, so that even the word is offensive; but in the days of Paul it was still in full force in Galatia, and is continued among Mohammedans who employ many eunuchs (especially in harems). Paul had evidently the dangerous power of sarcasm, but he used it very sparingly, and only in a worthy cause.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
The apostle’s meaning is, “That it were very fit, were it seasonable, that those which had thus seduced them, should be excommunicated and and cut off from the church’s communion.
Where note, 1. How implicity and interpretatively St. Paul compares these seducers to rotten members, which are and ought to be cut off, lest the gangrene overspread the whole body: I would they were cut off; implying, that like rotten members they deserved it, and the church’s safety called for it, would her then circumstances admit of it.
Note, 2. That in the very expression here used by St. Paul, of cutting off, there seems to be an allusion to the practice of circumcision, which is a cutting off the foreskin of the flesh, and throwing it away.
Now, says the apostle, I wish that these judaizing teachers, that urge you to be circumcised, that is, to cut off and cast away the foreskin of your flesh, I wish that they might be cut off as superfluous flesh, and cast out of the fellowship and communion of the church.
Yet, note, 3. The apostle doth rather declare what such seducers deserve, than actually inflict the censure itself; he satisfied himself with an affectionate wish, lest the number of the seduced being great, and perhaps the seducers not a few, they should be hardened rather than reformed, and the ordinance itself exposed; I would they were even cut off, &c.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
I would that they that unsettle you would even go beyond circumcision. [If those who trouble you insist on mutilating themselves, I wish they would go further and cut themselves entirely off from the church. Having fully established the liberty of the gospel, the apostle now turns to correct any false antinomian theories which might have arisen out of a misconception of his words. Liberty is permissible, but not license. The liberty of a son is infinitely larger than that of a ward, and yet the son is not wholly without restraint.]
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
DIVISION III CHRISTIAN MORALS.
CHAPTERS 5:13-6:18
SECTION 20. LOVE TO OUR NEIGHBOUR IS THE SUM OF THE LAW.
CH. 5:13-15.
Ye were called for freedom, Brethren. Only use not your freedom. for an occasion for the flesh: but through love be servants one to another. For the whole Law has been fulfilled in one word, in this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself (Lev 19:18.) But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed lest one by another ye be consumed.
After doctrinal exposition follows, as its needful complement, moral teaching. Cp. Rom 12:1 ff. Indeed, Pauls exposition of the Law would be perilously incomplete if he did not show that it produces the highest morality. Oversight of this has again and again led, on the one hand to immorality, and on the other to rejection or mutilation of the teaching of Paul by those whose moral instinct assures them that morality is imperative. Hence Paul is compelled to add to the doctrinal teaching of DIV. II. the moral development of it in 20, 21. To this he adds in 22 sundry applications of the same. In 23 he closes the Epistle by a few words from his own hand about its chief matter.
Gal 5:13 b. Pauls passing wish in Gal 5:12 that the disturbers would join the ranks of heathenism, he justified in Gal 5:13 a by recalling his teaching in 18 that God designs His servants to be free. He did this that in 20 he may defend Christian freedom from its most serious abuse. The word freedom thus becomes a stepping stone to his exposition of Christian morality.
Only; as in Gal 1:23; Gal 3:2; Gal 6:12, gives special prominence to one thing. Cp. Php 1:27.
The freedom: this definite liberty, to which God has called you.
An occasion: as in Rom 7:8; Rom 7:11; 2Co 5:12; 2Co 11:12; a point of departure for a course of activity.
The flesh: the material constitution of our bodies, which determines in great measure our present bodily life, and seeks to rule us entirely; this looked upon collectively and in the abstract as one definite and active power. See note under Rom 8:11. The flesh ever seeks to gratify its own desires and to avoid what it dislikes. Paul warns us not, on the ground that obedience to law is no longer to us a means of obtaining Gods favour, to surrender ourselves to the guidance of the flesh, as we shall do if we follow our own inclinations. He thus exposes a subtle foe ever present with us, and a very frequent and terrible abuse of justification by faith. This reference to the flesh prepares a way, as Pauls wont is, to the teaching of 21. Moreover, gratification of bodily desires is essentially and utterly opposed to love, and indeed lies at the root of all selfishness. Therefore, before introducing the Law of Love, Paul warns against the greatest obstacle to it.
By love be-servants: exact opposite of an occasion for the flesh.
Love: as in Gal 5:6, where it is an outflow of faith.
Be servants: same word in Gal 4:25; Rom 6:6; Rom 7:6; Rom 7:25; Rom 14:18; Rom 16:18. It denotes both the position, and the action, of a servant or slave. See under Rom 1:1. As ordinarily used, the word combines the ideas of bondage and of work done for another, both ideas being exemplified in the numerous slaves of Pauls day. Of these two ideas one or other frequently absorbs sole attention, leaving the other almost or quite out of sight. Hence the apparent variety in the use of the word and the apparent contradiction here. God has called us to Himself that we may be absolutely free, i.e. not hemmed in by outward restraint. Yet we love our brethren: and, prompted by this, we cannot but use all our powers for their good, as much as if we were their slaves. Such bondage is perfect freedom: for it is an unrestrained outflow of our own inmost and highest will. The apparent contradiction results from the poverty of human language. Only by using contradictory terms can we mark out the limits of our thoughts, and thus guard them from overstatement. Compare carefully similar language, evidently familiar to Paul, in Rom 6:18; Rom 6:22; 1Co 9:19; 1Pe 2:16.
Gal 5:14. The whole Law: of Moses, which contains Lev 19:18.
Has been fulfilled: or made-full: same word in Rom 13:8; Rom 8:4; Mat 1:22, etc. Obedience to the whole Law has been embodied in one word, so that he who has obeyed this one precept has rendered all the obedience the Law requires. For all the commands of the Law are prohibitions of something contrary to love. (Cp. 1Ti 1:5.) This implies that even the ritual of the Mosaic Law is subordinate to this great command. And, to work in us love, which is the essence of God and involves all blessedness, is the ultimate aim (cp. Rom 8:4) of both the Law and the Gospel.
Gal 5:14 is a summary of Rom 13:8-10 : see my note. That Paul twice quotes Lev 19:18, reveals its importance to him. It is the complement of the twice quoted words in Hab 2:4, The righteous man will live by faith. This precept is also quoted in Jas 2:8, thus forming a link between James and Paul; and in Mat 22:39; Mar 12:31; Luk 10:27, thus connecting the teaching of Paul and James with the recorded words of Jesus.
That the fulfilment of THE LAW is here given as a motive for conduct, proves that in some real sense the Law has abiding validity. This agrees with Rom 8:4, which says that fulfilment of the Law was a purpose of the mission of the Son of God. For, if so, the Law is an embodiment of Gods will about us; and therefore a rule of life to His servants. This is true specially of the deep underlying principles of the Law of Moses, such as that now before us. The mass of moral precepts belongs rather to the alphabet of morality. The ritual has abiding value as an expression of Gospel truth. Therefore, as in this verse, the Law may be quoted as a motive for Christian conduct.
All this does not contradict Pauls teaching in Rom 7:4; Rom 7:6; Rom 6:14; Gal 3:25 that we are dead to the Law and no longer under its power. For, obedience to law is no longer to us the condition, and means of obtaining, the favour of God. Else we should never obtain it. For until God smiles upon us we cannot obey Him aright. In the midst of our sins and our moral helplessness we obtain pardon simply by belief of the good news of Him who died for sinners. Pardon is followed by the gift of the Holy Spirit to be in us the motive-power of a new life in harmony with the will of God, and therefore with the Law. Yet, as a condition of the favour of God and consequently an iron gate excluding us from it, the Law has utterly lost its power. In this sense it has completely passed away. The barrier has been broken down by Him who bore our curse and burst for Himself and us the bars of death.
On the other hand, the authority of the Law, which is strengthened immensely by the transcript of it in our hearts, prevents us from believing intelligently that God smiles upon us while we do what He forbids. Consequently, without obedience there can be no abiding faith; and therefore no abiding smile of God. But obedience is a result of His favour; and therefore cannot be a means of obtaining it. Between these views of obedience there is an infinite practical difference.
We see therefore that the Law is no longer a dread taskmaster under whose rule we tremble, but our Fathers voice guiding our steps. And every precept is a promise of some good which our Father will work in us by His Spirit. Upon the ancient writing which condemned us has fallen light from the Cross of Christ: and the brightness of that light has changed its condemnation into promises of infinite blessing. It is now a lamp to our feet and a light to our path: and its statutes are our songs in the house of our pilgrimage.
To the advocates in Galatia of the abiding validity of the Law of Moses, this verse would come with special force.
Gal 5:15. Conduct exactly opposed to love. That the readers were in danger of it, this warning proves.
Bite: like dogs or wild beasts.
And devour, or eat-up: a further stage. Same word in 2Co 11:20; Mar 12:40; Rev 11:5.
Consumed: ultimate destruction. Same word in Luk 9:54. [The Greek present tenses describe the process; and the aorist, the result.] This verse suggests that the Judaizers had caused (cp. Act 15:2) bitter contention between church-members; and reveals the need of the moral teaching of Gal 5:13-14. Paul warns his readers that, if they so far forget the Law of love as to act like wild beasts, they will thereby destroy their spiritual life and themselves.
Fuente: Beet’s Commentary on Selected Books of the New Testament
I would they were even cut off which trouble you.
This could relate to one of two things. That something outside the church would cut off the Judaizers access to them, or that they would remove the Judaizers from their midst. Paul uses a future tense here thus they have not been cut off as yet, but his desire is clear – that they WOULD be cut off.
I think from his illustration of Hagar and Ishmael that his desire is for the people of the Galatian church to cut off these false teachers. In the church, only the church can cut off false teaching – unless the Lord might intervene and take care of the problem, by physically removing the person in some manner.
Fuente: Mr. D’s Notes on Selected New Testament Books by Stanley Derickson
5:12 {11} I would they were even cut off which {g} trouble you.
(11) An example of a true pastor inflamed with the zeal of God’s glory, and love for his flock.
(g) For those that preach the Law cause men’s consciences to always tremble.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
The Judaizers had gone too far with circumcision. Paul’s wish that the Judaizers who were so keen on circumcision would mutilate (i.e., castrate) themselves reflects his deep feelings about the seriousness of their heresy. If God granted Paul’s wish, they could not produce converts, figuratively speaking. Priests of the Cybele cult in nearby Phrygia practiced castration. [Note: Barclay, p. 48; George, pp. 371-72.] Paul regarded his legalistic rivals as no better than pagan priests.
". . . for Paul to compare the ancient Jewish rite of circumcision to pagan practices even in this way is startling. For one thing, it puts the efforts of the Judaizers to have the Gentiles circumcised on the same level as abhorred pagan practices. For another, it links their desire for circumcision to that which even in Judaism disbarred one from the congregation of the Lord (Deu 23:1)." [Note: Boice, p. 491.]
Thus Paul’s desire for the false teachers seems to have been that they would cut themselves off from the company of believers. [Note: Fung, p. 242.]
"Most often Galatians is viewed as the great document of justification by faith. What Christians all too often fail to realize is that in reality it is a document that sets out a Christ-centered lifestyle-one that stands in opposition to both nomism and libertinism. Sadly, though applauding justification by faith, Christians frequently renounce their freedom in Christ by espousing either nomism or libertinism, and sometimes (like the Galatians) both. So Paul’s letter to the Galatians, though directly relevant to the Galatian situation, speaks also to our situation today." [Note: Longenecker, p. 235.]