Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: [Corpus-Paul] Gal 5:12

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Richard Fellows <rfellows AT shaw.ca>
  • To: Corpus-Paul <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Gal 5:12
  • Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 21:16:23 -0800

Jim wrote:
> If I could trouble you for your interpretation of Gal 5:12.

Paul's coarse language in Gal 5:12 needs to understood in the context of the
preceding verses (5:2-11). In this passage there are clear indications that
the influencers have told the Galatians that Paul himself believed in
circumcision for Gentiles (at least as the final step in the conversion
process). No-one likes being misrepresented and this explains why Paul is
rather agitated in this passage (notice how he uses short sentences). He
uses strong language in 5:12 for the same reason that he uses overstatement
in 5:2, and emphatic language in 5:2-3: he needs to stress that he really
does believe that they should not be circumcised. The Galatians had come to
the conclusion that Paul's initial preaching against circumcision was not
entirely sincere. They thought that he had just been trying to please them
(see Dunn on Gal 1:10). Therefore Paul has reason to be worried that the
readers might think that he is not being sincere in his letter. They might
think that what he writes does not reflect his true beliefs. So in 5:2-12,
and elsewhere, Paul emphasises that he really did oppose circumcision for
Gentiles. In 5:12 he uses coarse language to get the point across: "look, I
really DO oppose what the influencers are saying - I am not just saying it -
I would not embarrass myself by using coarse language if that were not so".
People often raise their voices, or use strong language, when they are
afraid that their audience will not believe that they are being sincere.

In the same way, I wonder whether there is a similar dynamic behind Paul's
use of the Antioch incident. Paul writes "I opposed Peter to his face" in
order that the Galatians would respond, "Gosh, Paul really does oppose
circumcision, otherwise he would not have revealed this un-edifying incident
to us".

Here are some verses that show that the influencers had led the Galatians to
believe that Paul preached circumcision.

In 5:2 Paul writes: "Behold! I, Paul, say to you....", and his choice of
words here has the form of a solemn affidavit" (so Dunn). Paul here is using
emphatic language to counter the misconception that he supported
circumcision. He then continues, "that if you let yourselves be circumcised,
Christ will be of no benefit to you". I think he is here overstating his
position, and that he is doing so as a corrective to the misconception that
he did in fact preach circumcision.

In 5:10b Paul writes, "But whoever it is that is
confusing/disturbing/perplexing (TARASSWN) you, will pay the penalty". The
influencers had confused the Galatians by claiming that Paul himself
supported their position on circumcision, to some degree.

In 5:11 Paul brings up the issue explicitly, "why am I still (ETI) being
persecuted if I am still (ETI) preaching circumcision. The Galatians had
been led to believe that Paul himself preached circumcision.

I believe that 1:7-9 has the same background. The influencers had
misrepresented Paul's position (deliberately or otherwise), and Paul wants
the Galatians to reject what they had come to believe was his own view. That
is why he writes, "But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to
you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you....".

It is not surprising that confusion occurred over what Paul's position
actually was. His policy of accommodation (1 Cor 9:20) and the circumcision
of Timothy (Acts 16:1-3) could easily have been misunderstood.

These are my thoughts right now, but perhaps someone can redirect my
thinking.

Richard






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page