GALATIANS 5:12 

Stephen M. Reynolds, Ph. D.

o;felon kai. avpoko,yontai oi` avnastatou/ntej u`ma/jÅ 

I could wish that they would even be cut off who are troubling you.
(An alternate translation for o;felon is O that or 1 could wish.¹) 

A note should be added to the Purified Bible to be published by the Lorine L. Reynolds Foundation defending this translation which is quite similar to that of the King James Version. The Foundation should be forthright in opposing most modern versions which have the Apostle Paul wishing his opponents would emasculate themselves. Thus the New International Version, which is typical of the modern tendency in translation, has it, "As for these agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!" 

It is true that the verb avpoko,ptw, of which avpoko,yontai is the third person plural future indicative middle voice, has as its basic meaning to cut off, to amputate. In the grammatical form in which it appears in this verse it may be taken in a figurative sense and be passive rather than reflexive. This would mean that Paul could wish that these troublemakers would be cut off from the Church, that is, excommunicated. This is doctrinally and grammatically acceptable. 

It is true that grammatically considered it could mean that Paul could wish that they would cut off their male organs, or would be emasculated by others, or that this expression merely is intended to express Paul's intense displeasure at their doctrinal position, a kind of joke or hyperbole, but not to be taken literally. All of these grammatically possible translations are unacceptable for reasons set forth below; and since they are found in so many modem versions,² it is necessary to put a note in A Purified Bible giving the reasons they must be rejected. 

These reasons are partly philological, partly based on Old Testament usage, but most importantly based on the harmony between the translation proposed and the whole counsel of God, the general harmony of all the parts of Scripture. 

The consent of all the parts of the Bible, exemplified throughout the Scriptures and especially in the inspired writings of the Apostle Paul, teaches us that love should dominate all our dealings. See I Corinthians 13, for example. When a professed believer sins grossly and is unrepentant, Paul commands that he be handed over to Satan (that is, cut off from communion with the saints); but this should be done in love in the hope that this discipline may be the means of restoring him and that he may be saved (I Cor. 5:1‑5). This sinner had sinned sexually, but Paul does not express the wish that he might be castrated and thus be forever barred not only from sexual sin but from holy matrimony as well. 

If any suppose that the Apostle did not intend in any way to be taken seriously but referred to the emasculation of the Judaizers as a kind of crude joke, this idea should be rejected as being totally incompatible with the whole counsel of God. Inspired writers of the Holy Bible never joked about serious things. 

It is altogether in harmony with the way Paul spoke of the sinner of I Corinthians 5 that he should wish the agitators of Galatians to be cut off from the Body of Christ (the Church) by a Church court, but not that they should die in their sins. As he hopes for the restoration of the sinner of I Corinthians 5, he must have hoped for the restoration of these Judaizers to Christian orthodoxy. It is not right that anyone should trouble the Church by teaching falsehoods, especially one so divisive as that all Christian males should be circumcised.   

The Old Testament never permits the castration or emasculation of any human being and the ethics of Christ and the apostles was surely even more protective of human dignity and physical wholeness than were those of the Old Testament. This is a good reason that Paul would never suggest the self‑mutilation of an opponent however troublesome he might be. 

Readers have a right to know arguments in support of the idea that Paul was referring to castration or emasculation. Here follows such a supportive article. It is part of a definition by Gustav Stahlin in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament edited by Gerhard Kittel, vol. 3, p. 852 ff The title of the definition is "avpoko,ptw" and it is believed to be fairly selected as a better than average defense of this idea. 

"In G1. 5:12, Paul is obviously expressing a sharp rejection of emasculation: o;felon kai. avpoko,yontai oi` avnastatou/ntej u`ma/jÅ What is he really wishing for those men who disrupt the peace of the Galatian Churches? Attempts have been made to show that avpoko,ptomai is here used in a figurative sense of `to separate themselves.' This is how the Reformers and Erasmus took it. Not even as a curse could Paul envisage the supreme brutality and impiety of the literal act. But if we concede that the apostle was not fastidious in his choice of linguistic media, and that at a time like this the strongest expressions in current speech seemed to be the best adapted to his purpose, we must also grant that this overwhelming force of his argument is lost if we weaken the sense of this dramatic term to segregari. Above all the kai is deprived of all meaning, since it obviously points to a climax as compared with what has gone before. But this climax depends on the contrast between perite,mnesqai (v. 2:ff. cf. v. 11) and avpoko,pte,sqwsan, as Chrysostom already perceived and brought out when he expounded in terms of perikopte,sqwsan as the counterpart to peritemne,sqwsan. VApoko,ptein is a radical surpassing of perite,mnein which changes the legalism into contradiction of the Law since it incurs the verdict of Dt. 23:2.³ This is the very point that Paul wishes to make. In the light of Dt. 23:2 there is also a subsidiary thought of self-excommunication. By self‑emasculation they would shut themselves out of the Church of God, as in truth they have already been outside for long enough. Indeed, selfemasculation is an acute relapse into paganism, for it was at the heart of the Cybele cult which had its home in Galatia." 

There are a number of fallacies in the arguments of Stahlin and his conclusion must be rejected. The Reformers were men guided by the Holy Spirit and Erasmus was a great scholar. Their conclusions must be regarded with respect. 

Stahlin asks us to concede that the apostle was "not fastidious in his choice of linguistic media." Whatever we may think of Paul's alleged lack of fastidiousness, we ask those who agree with Stahlin to cite any instance (just one!) where Paul suggested that any one, even one teaching heresy, should add to his offense by committing an act of impiety. 

It is not correct to say that kai is deprived of all meaning if what follows is selfexcommunication rather than self-emasculation. To excommunicate oneself is a dreadful thing to do, and Christians should view it with horror. 

Stahlin appears to be accusing Paul of committing the sin of attributing guilt by association in linking the teaching of the Judaizers (who were teaching that Gentile Christians should be circumcised) with the Cybele cult whose priests were emasculated. The people who were teaching that adult male Gentile Christians should be circumcised were probably persons of Jewish origin who had been circumcised on the eighth day after their births and were far from having any sympathy with Cybele worship. It is utterly without warrant to suppose that Gentile Christians who may have been influenced by the Judaizers and were considering having themselves circumcised had ever belonged to the Cybele cult and that this act would be "an acute relapse into paganism." Although savoring of a Jewish practice it would not make them Jews in the rabbinical sense. 

In fact Stahlin rather than Paul is found in this instance to be "not fastidious in his choice of linguistic media." Paul was not accusing the Judaizers or those influenced by them of being connected with Cybele worship, nor was he failing to be "fastidious in his choice of linguistic media." He did not say that people who were teaching that Christians should be circumcised should have themselves emasculated. Remember that Paul himself had the Christian Timothy circumcised (Acts 16:3). The conditions of course were different, but there is not anything intrinsically evil in being circumcised. Paul had no intention of having himself emasculated because he had Timothy circumcised. 

Dr. Stahlin asks us "to grant that the overwhelming force of (Paul's) argument is lost if we weaken the sense of this dramatic term to segregari." 

On the contrary, translations and commentaries which teach that Paul was writing of dismemberment of human bodies either literally or figuratively destroy the real sense of how Paul was seeking both to protect the Church and to provide for the possible restoration of the Judaizers to be wholesome members of the Body of Christ, that is, of the true Church. The Church and these misguided agitators would be well served if the latter were summoned before a church court, permitted to defend their position, see it condemned, and then if they should refuse to accept the decision of the court be excommunicated, but not without love, and with the door of restoration being left open upon their repentance. 

If what was done to them fell short of this it would fall short in Christian charity. If they were emasculated but permitted to remain in the Church they could still teach their false doctrine. If they were told that they should leave the Church voluntarily without a formal trial they would be deprived of the possible spiritual benefits to be derived from a trial. If they were told that the self‑castration Paul was writing about meant that they should live totally celibate lives, it would be an unscriptural ruling, and it would do the Church no good. They could accept this, say to other Christians, "See, we are living lives totally without sexual activity. We do not ask you to do the same; we only ask that male members of the Church be circumcised." The Church would still be torn by controversy, and these Judaizers would have been forced into a position of denial of a normal life style. This would be contrary to the consensus of Scripture. 

Finally, the great martyr translator, William Tyndale, translated without ambiguity: "I wolde to God they were seperated from you, which trouble you." This is almost certainly what Paul meant, and Tyndale is to be commended for understanding Paul's meaning, but it must be admitted that there was a Greek word for to be separated and Paul chose to use the word meaning to cut themselves off or to be cut off. Tyndale paraphrased a little, but those who labor under the rules of the LLR Foundation are committed to seek to render the original by words as nearly as possible the exact equivalents of what the inspired author wrote. Our rule is not to make use of what we may assume, rightly or wrongly, is a "dynamic equivalent." If the original is ambiguous the most we can do is to present our interpretation modestly in a marginal note. 

1. The New King James or NKJV has translated avpoko,yontai in the reflexive and thus differs from the KJV.    Ov,felon meaning O that is an interjection and is usually translated as though it were a verb. The NKJV rendering I could wish may be better in modern English than I would or O that. These are merely matters of style, but how avpoko,yontai is understood is a matter of ethics 

2.  Among the versions which have Paul wishing these agitators to do to themselves or have done to them an operation never sanctioned in Scripture are these (identified by well-known abbreviations): RV, RSV, NAS, New English Bible, NRS, Jerusalem Bible and  NIV. The task of bringing Bible readers to the truth that Paul was not sanctioning a wicked operation is therefore a difficult but necessary one. 

3. Deuteronomy 23:1 speaks of emasculation, 23:2 of excommunication.