44. “I Would They Were Even Cut Off” (Galatians 5:12)
The “cutting off” here has absolutely
no relevance as a popular catchphrase to justify wholesale excommunication. In
the first place, Paul displays a marked reluctance to be more drastic in action
than necessary: “I would ...” is about as far from a
peremptory command as can be imagined. Coupled with v. 10 — “He
that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he
be” — this passages presents the picture of the inspired apostle
as being far from in a hurry to apply the surgical knife — and this to
one person! Where the rest are concerned, there is no hint of drastic
discipline.
What would Paul say if he were to view the
drastic and unwarranted “cutting off” from fellowship performed by
some “purists” today? Might he not say something like this?:
‘I would they would completely cut off everyone, and then
the rest of us might have some peace for the upbuilding of the
ecclesias.’
But all of this is more or less beside the point,
for it is almost certain that this verse has a very specialized meaning. The
word “cut off” is apokopto, which means “to cut
away”; it is so used of members of the body: “If thy hand offend
thee, cut it off” (Mark 9:43,45); “Then Peter... cut off
his right ear” (John 18:10,26). In Galatians 5:12 the verb is in the
middle voice, thus signifying one of two things: either (a) to cut oneself
off, metaphorically, from the “body” of Christ, or (b) literally
to mutilate one’s own body, by cutting off one’s
members.
The second of these two possibilities is favored
by numerous versions:
“I wish those who unsettle you would
mutilate themselves” (RSV).
“I would they would even mutilate
themselves” (RV margin).
“As for these agitators, they had better
go all the way and make eunuchs of themselves!”
(NEB).
Paul, in his letter to the Galatians, has been
denouncing those who would make circumcision a “test of fellowship”
(vv. 1-4,11).
“Why do they not, says Paul, since they
have such faith in the knife, practice the complete mutilation which was common
among the devotees of Cybele? In modern times this interpretation has been
rejected on the grounds of coarseness, but if we remember that in turning to
Judaism the Galatians were virtually turning back in principle to the rite of
the nature worship of their pagan days... then Paul’s words practically
mean that if the Judaizer were leading them back, then let him consistently go
the whole way and in mutilation of self exhibit in symbol the destruction of
self in the complete sense” (John Carter, The Letter to the Galatians,
p. 123).
So Paul here is not referring to withdrawal of
fellowship, but to castration! (If the idea still seems far-fetched, let it be
noted that an early Christian “bishop”, Origen, in an excess of
zeal, did this very thing!) An angry Paul, reserving his harshest language for
those who would add new criteria for fellowship, is deriding the negative and
destructive policy of “salvation by cutting-off” in the strongest
possible terms. We do well to remind ourselves that the philosophy of
“salvation by separation”, in one form or another, has been
practiced throughout the ages. It is not newly sprung up in the twentieth
century.