go all the way and] cut themselves off!,” AMPLIFIED and “would not only
get circumcised, but would cut off much more!” CEV COMMENTARY ON GALATIANS
LESSON NUMBER 50
Gal 5:11 “And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do
I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased. 12I would they were even cut off which trouble you.” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(Gal 5:11-12)
A QUESTION AND AN AFFIRMATION
INTRODUCTION
How serious is it to have an incorrect perspective of the cause and nature of salvation? Does it really make any difference how a person perceives they are made acceptable to God? Is it not enough for people to do what they perceive is right, even handing their souls over to teachers who misrepresent the truth? Paul’s epistle to the Galatians answers all of those questions, and others that are similar to them. If Jesus is, in fact, “the Truth” (John 14:6), and if “the love of the truth” is imperative for Divine acceptance (2 Thess 2:10-11), then how can it be possible to be saved independently of the truth itself? If it is the knowledge of the truth that makes men free (John 8:32), then how can believing the truth be optional? These may seem like rather simplistic observations, but they are not commonly embraced among professing Christians. Some people of this generation would have engaged in an effort to unite the Galatians with the rest of the Christian community, rather than address their error. The defection of the Galatian church was ultra serious because they had genuinely believed at the first, were really baptized into Christ, and were running well – making good progress in the faith. To fall from such a condition is infinitely worse than embracing erroneous teaching because the truth was never really heard. That is why Apollos could easily be instructed in “THE WAY of God more perfectly” (Acts 18:26). His ignorance was not owing to a defection from the truth. Galatia, however, was in an entirely different state. They had received the truth, and the one who delivered it to them. That is why Paul speaks so forthrightly to them. When a person turns their backs on the truth, that turn is accompanied by a hardness that never before existed. It is only with great effort, deliberateness, and precision, that such souls can be extracted from the fire. There can be no ambiguity in the proclamation of the truth, even though gentleness and sensitivity are required. Those traits, however, may appear as sternness and inconsideration, even though that is not the case. This kind of tone is found throughout this letter of correction.
WHY DO I SUFFER PERSECUTION
Gal 5:11a “And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution?”
It is apparent in this text that the opposition to Paul was more significant than appears at the first. As it characteristic of Paul, issues concerning his own person were always placed behind the greater issues that related to the salvation of God and the care of His people. It ought to be noted that Paul does not deal with the false teachers in Galatia by name. He did do this at other times – Hymenaeus, Alexander, Phygellus, Hermogenes, Philetus, and Alexander the coppersmith (1 Tim 1:20; 2 Tim 1:15; 2:17). These warnings were issued to Timothy, not because Timothy himself had given heed to them, but to warn him of their activity.
When dealing with churches that had been deceived by teachers, Paul did not mention their names. In Corinth he referred to them as “some among you” (1 Cor 15:12). To the Galatians he wrote of “who” (Gal 3:1), and “they” (Gal 4:17). Jesus referred to a false teacher in Thyatira by their character instead of by their name – “Jezebel” (Rev 2:20). Those holding to false teaching were referred to as “them” (Rev 2:14,15), not by their actual names.
There is a reason for this. When false doctrines have been embraced by the church, who perpetrated the doctrine is not the most critical point. Rather, attention is given to the fact that it has been embraced. The emphasis is focused upon the recovery of those who have embraced an erroneous view of God, Christ, and salvation.
Having established the truth of what he preached among them (chapters 1-2), Paul now speaks of his own person and how men have responded to him.
AND I, BRETHREN. Other versions read, “brothers, if I,” NIV “my friends, why am I,” NRSV “But, if I brethren,” RSV and “as for me, brothers.” CJB
The fact that Paul refers to them as “brethren” confirms that he has not yet written them off. He does not speak to them as he did to certain Jews in Antioch: “seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles” (Acts 13:46). He does not speak as Peter did to Simon: “Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God” (Acts 8:21). Nor does he speak as he did to Elymas: “O full of all subtlety and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness” (Acts 13:10). To be sure, there are people who are to be addressed in such a manner – but not the Galatians. Paul was “in doubt” of them (Gal 4:20), and conceded that they were in danger of falling from grace (Gal 5 :4), and Christ advantaging them “nothing” (Gal 5:2). Yet, there was enough commitment to the Lord that left the door of hope ajar. Therefore he calls them “brethren.”
IF I YET PREACH CIRCUMCISION. Other versions read, “if I still preach circumcision,” NKJV “if I am still preaching that circumcision is necessary,” CJB and “if I still preach circumcision [as some accuse me of doing, as necessary to salvation].” AMPLIFIED
Why does Paulo make a statement like this, particularly after he has made such a strong case against the necessity of circumcision? It appears that some had said he was preaching circumcision, even as others had said he preached “Let us do evil, that good may come” (Rom 3:8). Beneath the surface it seems the suggestion was that Paul preached an inconsistent message, possibly speaking differently to the Jews about circumcision than he did to the Gentiles. I can see how some would have appealed to Pauline statements, attaching a meaning to them that was not intended. Some of these statements were “unto the Jews I became as a Jew” (1 Cor 9:20), “I am made all things to all men” (1 Cor 9:22), and “I have committed nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers” (Acts 28:17).
However, Paul’s doctrine was absolutely unvarying. He did not represent Christ one way to some, and another way to others. He did not command some people to do this, while forbidding others to do it. Whether to Jew or Gentile, Paul preached and expounded the same Gospel.
WHY DO I SUFFER PERSECUTION? Other versions read, “still suffer persecution,” NKJV “still being persecuted,” NIV and “why am I still being attacked.” BBE
Much of the persecution that Paul endured was from the Jews (Acts 9:23; 13:50; 14:2; 17:13; 21:21,27,28,31; 22:21,22; 23:13,15; 25:3; 2 Cor 11:24; 1 Thess 2:14). In fact, with the exception of the Demetrius and the craftsmen in Ephesus (Acts 19:24-29), and the men who were using the woman with the spirit of divination in Ephesus (Acts 16:16-24), nearly all of the persecution leveled against Paul came from the Jews.
And why was Paul so vigorously opposed? It was not because of his manner of life, but because of what he preached. His message is what caused men to rise up against him. Yet, if he had been preaching circumcision, no opposition wold have come from the Jews, for that was one of their theological touchstones. Whoever suggested that he preached circumcision had lied.
Paul was not maligned, opposed, and persecuted for the way he spoke, but for what he said. It was his teaching that stirred people, who thought and taught differently, against him. This confirms that the truth of the message is the issue, not the tone, not the place, but the message.
THE OFFENCE OF THE CROSS
5:11b “ . . . then is the offence of the cross ceased.”
Here is a scenario in which the effects of catering to the whims of people is affirmed. In the realm of religion, any and every attempt that is made primarily to please men voids the intended effects of the cross of Christ,
THEN. Other versions read, “in that case,” NIV and “If that were the case.” CJB That is, if Paul was preaching and condoning circumcision as a means to God’s acceptance, then the following conclusion would follow.
THE OFFENCE OF THE CROSS. Other versions read, “the stumbling block of the cross,” NASB “the shame of the cross,” BBE “the scandal of the cross,” DARBY “slander of the cross,” GENEVA “the offensiveness of the cross,” MRD “obstacle which is in the cross,” NJB “the embarrassment of the cross,” IE and “the hindrance done by the cross.” WILLIAMS
The cross is for crucifixion – the crucifixion of the flesh (Gal 5:24). It is where self is denied (Matt 16:24), and where the “deeds of the body” are mortified (Rom 8:15; Col 3:5). It is where we “deny ungodliness and worldly lusts” (Tit 2:12), “keeping under” our body, and bringing “it into subjection” (1 Cor 9:27). This is where we “put off the old man” (Col 3:9), laying aside “every weight, and the sin that doth so easily beset us” (Heb 12:1). “The cross” is where we “cast off the works of darkness” (Rom 13:12), and “put off” sinful expressions (Col 3:8). Here, at the cross, is where we lay aside “all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings” (1 Pet 2:1). It is where we “cleanse ourselves of all filthiness of flesh and spirit” (2 Cor 7:1), and present our bodies “a living sacrifice” unto God (Rom 12:1). The flesh, “with the affections and lusts” are to be nailed to this cross (Gal 5:24).
But none of this can done while men are catering to the religious whims of others, and preaching a gospel that ignores the demands of the cross. Jesus said men were to take up the cross in order to follow Him, and do it every day (Lk 9:23).
There is no religious deed or activity that can compensate for a failure to take up the cross, deny self – refusing to cave in to sin, and backing away from total commitment. Nothing, absolutely nothing, can offset avoiding the offense of the cross. Yes, it is humiliating to the flesh, embarrassing to the carnal mind, and a cause for persecution. However, the cross stands between now and then, time and eternity, and here and there.
A convenient religion that caters to the flesh is one that seeks to avoid “the offence of the cross.” It is an effort to be more comfortable in this world than in the presence of the Lord, which is an inevitability for all men – to stand before the Lord, bereft of a single fleshly resource.
It is what God requires of men that proves offensive to them. As long, for example, as a person can “go to church,” be received by the people of God in a tolerating sort of way, offer a prayer now and then, and perhaps seek for assistance from God if they fall into a circumstance they cannot control, some think that is acceptable. But it is not, for it ignores the cross, which is part and parcel of life in Christ Jesus. The provision of salvation was wrought out on Christ’s cross, and working out your own salvation with fear and trembling is done on your cross.
The blight of the purported Christianity of our time is that it is crossless. The cross has been conveniently removed in order to make the message more palatable to those who prefer sin to righteousness, and their own will to the will of God. But God will have no part in such a system, for it contradicts both the nature and the purpose of God Almighty.
It is written, “Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution” (2 Tim 3:12). The “afflictions” we encounter because of our faith are “appointed” by God. As it is written, “That no man should be moved by these afflictions: for yourselves know that we are appointed thereunto” (1 Thess 3:3). They are offences that come from taking up our cross.
It was what God requires of men that often offends them. He requires them to turn about, leaving the world, repent, and embrace the Son. If men will not do this, no matter who they are, they will not be saved. As Jesus twice said, “I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish” (Luke 13:3,5). God “now commandeth all men every where to repent” (Acts 17:30). That is the beginning of taking up the cross in order to follow Christ.
CEASED. Other versions read, “abolished,” NASB “removed,” NRSV “done away,” ASV “made void,” DOUAY “neutralized,” IE and “ceased to be a stumbling block and is made meaningless (done away).” AMPLIFIED
The point here is that if the offence of the cross is ceased, under those compromising circumstances, the cross of Christ has no power. For that person, the death of Christ counts for nothing. It will not cover his sins, deliver him from the world, or rescue him from the ravages of the devil. If men refuse to take up their cross, they, by that very decision, have nullified the power of Christ’s cross toward them. Instead of the cross being the means of triumph, for them it will become the means of condemnation, for they will be charged with crucifying the Son of God afresh, and putting Him “to an open shame” (Heb 5:6). How dreadful is such a condition!
I WOULD THAT THEY WERE CUT OFF
5:12 "I would they were even cut off which trouble you.”
Now Paul turns his attention to those who are troubling and agitating the Galatians – moving them further and further away from the God who has called them into the grace of Christ. How does he respond to such teachers, and what is his desire for them. He makes this quite clear.
I WOULD. Other versions read, “I could wish,” NKJV “would that,” NASB “I wish,” NRSV “my desire is,” BBE “would to God,” GENEVA “O that even they,” YLT and “I only wish.” LIVING
The word from which “I would” is translated is used four times in Scripture. Each of them expresses an especially strong desire. It is not a mere oratorical expression. ‘Now ye are full, now ye are rich, ye have reigned as kings without us: and I would to God ye did reign, that we also might reign with you” (1 Cor 4:8). “Would to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly: and indeed bear with me” (2 Cor 11:1). “I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot” (Rev 3:15). In every case, including our text, the situation being addressed was not a pleasant one, and therefore required drastic action. In the first, the Corinthians thought they were greater than they really were. In the second, the Corinthians were squeamish about Paul himself, In our text, the Galatians were being led into a most serious place. In the last, the church at Laodicea was on the verge of being disassociated from Christ. This is, then, a most sober statement, and is to be pondered with great graveness.
Paul will express no concern for these teachers. He will not ask the church to pray for them, or to seek their recovery. If they had not been teaching, that would have been a different situation. But they were teaching, and there is no time to await them recovering from their delusion. The longer they remain, the more contamination and spiritual endangerment will spread.
THEY WERE EVEN CUT OFF. Other versions read, “would even cut themselves off,” NKJV “would even mutilate
themselves,” NASB “would emasculate themselves,” NIV “would castrate themselves,” NRSV/CJB/CSB/GWN/NAB/NET/EMTV/MESSAGE “go beyond
circumcision,” ASV “were separated from you,” TNT “would [
go all the way and] cut themselves off!,” AMPLIFIED and “would not only
get circumcised, but would cut off much more!” CEV
This is a troublesome text for many people, but there is no need for it to be. Whatever it means, it is obviously a very strong desire, and it is uttered in the interest of the body of Christ. Defection in the church is a serious matter. It can lead to damnation. Indeed, it will surely do that unless it aborted. Spreading contamination must be dealt with immediately, lest it leaven the entire church with wickedness. Thus Ananias and Sapphira were cut off from the church, their lives ending suddenly (Acts 5:5-6,9-10). Some in Corinth were also judged in this manner for contaminating the environment of the table of the Lord (1 Cor 11:30). With that in mind, let us briefly examine the passage.
The word “cut off” is translated from a word meaning “amputate,” THAYER ”cut off bodily limbs or parts cut off,” FRIBERG and “to cut in such a way as to cause separation.” LOUW-NIDA Some versions ascribe this action to the teachers themselves – i.e. they cut themselves off (“themselves”). However, this is not what the text says, either in Greek of English. The point is that Paul wishes these teachers were cut off, and the phraseology indicates that the action was performed by someone other than themselves.
Some assume this means the Galatians were to excommunicate them from the church, as Corinth did the fornicator. However, this does not seem to be an appropriate view, for these teachers were already leading the people, and the contamination had gone too far.
The action, in my judgment, should be seen as being performed by the Lord Himself. It could mean that the Lord would remove them from the earth altogether, in a swift and effective judgment. It could mean that He would force them to leave Galatia. This, however, does not seem likely, for then they would continue spreading their doctrine elsewhere. God could also make them repulsive to other men, like He did with Cain (Gen 4:15), thereby drying up their influence.
I take it that Paul left the matter in the hands of the Lord as to how the cutting off would be accomplished. Any way you view it, it was too dangerous for the church to have these men continuing among them, whether it was the church in Galatia or elsewhere. Already the churches in that area had heard the letters written from Jerusalem concerning things that could not be imposed upon the Gentile churches (Acts 15:23-24; 16:4-6). Still, they had been deceived.
WHICH TROUBLE YOU. Jesus said that in the world His followers would have tribulation. But He did not intend for this to be normal in the church itself. When the saints are troubled, agitated, and disrupted, it is a serious matter, and woe to that individual who takes it upon himself to cause such trouble. The “fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace” (James 3:18) – not make peace with the wicked, but among the brethren. Brethren are exhorted to “keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph 4:3). Where this is not taken seriously, and flesh is foisted upon the body, whether in doctrine of demeanor, the Head of the body will rise to do something about it. Men are not to touch the apple of His eye (Zech 2:8).