Galatians 5:12Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

And he rightly said, "those who trouble," αναστατούντες. For they compelled them, after leaving their own fatherland, freedom, and heavenly kinship, to seek an alien and unknown fatherland. After driving them out from the Jerusalem above, which is free, they made them wander like captives and strangers. Therefore the Apostle desires their removal.

The meaning of his words is this: "I am not at all concerned for them, since 'a heretical man, after the first and second admonition, reject'" (Titus 3:10). If they wish, let them not only be circumcised, but even cut up their whole body.

What, then, will those now say who dare to mutilate themselves, thereby bringing upon themselves the Apostle's curse and condemning God's ordering? They are allies of the Manichaeans. Yet the Manichaeans only say that the body is malicious and composed of evil matter. These men, by their very deeds, give occasion to their absurd doctrines, cutting off a member as though it were hostile and malicious.

In that case it would be more fitting to pluck out the eyes, since through them lust enters the soul. But neither the eye nor any other member is guilty of this. Only the evil will is guilty.

If you cannot restrain yourself, why do you not cut off the tongue for blasphemy, the hands for robbery, the feet for their movement toward evil, and, one may say, the whole body? Hearing too, delighted by the playing of the flute, often relaxes the soul. The nostrils, when they sense fragrance, enchant the heart and draw it toward pleasure.

Shall we then cut off everything, ears, hands, and nostrils? But this is extreme impiety and satanic madness. One must only correct the disorderly impulse of the soul. For the evil demon, always delighting in murders, could suggest that the very organ must be destroyed, as though the great Craftsman had made a mistake.

"How does it happen," someone will say, "that lust is inflamed by the fatness of the body?" But here again the sin belongs to the soul, since the fattening of the body depends not on the body, but on the soul. If the soul wishes to waste it away, it has full power to do so.

You act like a man who, seeing someone placing burning logs and setting a house on fire, would leave the arsonist completely aside and blame the fire. He would blame it because it had burned so strongly by taking hold of many beams of the house. But the fault lies not with the fire, but with the arsonist.

Fire was given for preparing food, for light, and for many other needs, not for burning houses. In exactly the same way desire was given for the begetting of children and the preservation of life, not for adultery, fornication, and dissipation. It was given so that you might be a father, not an adulterer. It was given so that you might lawfully have communion with your wife, not corrupt her unlawfully. It was given so that you might leave your own seed, not defile what belongs to another.

For adultery depends not on natural desire, but on unnatural lack of restraint, since desire seeks only union, not this particular unlawful union.

I have not said this now without purpose. I am approaching certain contests and beginning the struggle against those who call God's creation evil. They pay no attention to the soul's negligence, but madly rise up against the body and slander our flesh. The Apostle Paul speaks of them further on, accusing not the flesh, but blasphemous thoughts.

"Would that those who trouble you were cut off from communion!" The question is asked: how is Paul a disciple of Him who said, "Bless those who curse you" (Mt 5:44), when he himself also says, "Bless and do not curse" (Rom 12:14), and elsewhere, "Revilers will not inherit the Kingdom of God" (1 Cor 6:10)? Yet in the present case he reviles those who trouble, or had troubled, the churches of Galatia, and he reviles them with a word of wishing: "Would that those who trouble you were cut off from communion!"

The suffering of castration is so abhorrent that those who inflict it on the unwilling are punished by civil laws, and the one who castrates himself is subjected to disgrace. Therefore, they say, if it is true that "Christ lives in me" (Gal 2:20), and again, "Do you seek proof of Him who speaks in me, that is, Christ?" then surely the word of Him who says, "Learn from Me, for I am meek and lowly in heart" (Mt 11:29), cannot be understood as a curse.

For this reason they prefer to think that the Apostle could not restrain himself from Jewish fury and a certain unbridled anger, rather than that he imitated Him who, like a lamb before its shearer, did not open His mouth and did not revile in return those who reviled Him (Isa 53:7), but, condemned, gave Himself over to death.

Whoever answers this objection against Paul should say the following: "The words spoken by him are not so much words of irritation against enemies as words prompted by love for the Church of God. For he saw that an entire region, which he himself had converted by his blood and dangers from idolatry to faith in Christ, had been troubled by an unexpected preaching. In his apostolic grief, in the grief of a father, he could not restrain himself. He changed the form of his speech and spoke angrily to those whom he had previously addressed gently, so that at least by reproaches he might restrain those whom he could not restrain by meekness."

And it is not surprising if the Apostle, as a man still enclosed in the frail dwelling of the body, and seeing in his body another law that takes him captive and draws him away toward the law of sin, once began to speak in the manner in which we often see holy men speaking.

On the other hand, perhaps this too was said, although it seems superfluous to some: Paul was not so much cursing them as praying for them, that they might be deprived of those parts of the body through which they could sin. As it is said in the Gospel that it is better for someone to enter the Kingdom of Heaven without an eye, hand, foot, or some other part of the body than, having the whole body intact. To go into Gehenna (Mt 18:8), so now the Apostle wishes them better to lose one part of the body than to be condemned to eternal fire because the body remained whole.

If this passage ever meets with objection from the pagans, we have indicated above how they should be answered. Now we shall set forth objections against heretics, namely against Marcion, Valentinus, and all who rise up against the Old Testament. On what basis do they accuse God the Creator as a bloodthirsty warrior and see in Him only a judge, while daring to justify these same qualities in the Apostle of the good God?

In my opinion it is beyond doubt that in the old Law no sentence so terrible and bloody was ever pronounced as this: "Would that those who trouble you were cut off from communion," or, "beheaded," or, "castrated." They cannot say that the Apostle prayed for the enemies of Christ who troubled His Churches. That this sentence, breathing indignation and anger, was not pronounced out of love is shown by the very weight of the words.

Therefore, whatever they say to justify the Apostle, all this we shall not refuse to recognize as suitable for the defense of the Old Testament Law.

St. John Chrysostom says: "He did not say, 'you understand,' but, 'you will understand,' that is, you will be corrected. How do we know this? Again, he did not say, 'I know,' but, 'I trust God,' he says. With firm hope he calls upon His help for your correction."

"He spoke with boldness, and did not simply say, 'I have hope concerning you,' but added, 'in the Lord.' It is as though he said: I know my disciples. I know how easily you can be corrected."

"Yet I hope for this through the Lord, Who desires no one's destruction. Through Him I also hope in you, who can easily return to your former state. But at the same time he persuades them to bring their own zeal. It is impossible to receive anything from God if we bring nothing from our side."

"St. Paul urges them to rise up from two sides: by hope in them, and by threat or prediction of punishment for the agitators. He did not simply say, 'he who troubles,' but strengthened the expression by adding, 'whoever he may be.'"

"Since people said of the Apostle himself that he observed Jewish rites and preached uncircumcision hypocritically, see how he showed himself free from this slander, calling them themselves as witnesses. You yourselves know, he says, that the cause of the persecutions against me was that I taught men to leave the Law."

"If I preached circumcision, why would they persecute me? What then? Did I not preach circumcision? Did I not circumcise Timothy? I did. How then does he say, 'I do not preach it'? Note his caution here also. He did not say, 'I do not perform circumcision,' but, 'I do not preach it,' that is, I do not teach men to believe in this way."

Concerning the Apostle's desire for the cutting off of the false teachers, Bishop Theophan says: "One cannot fail to see here the law of life in the body of the Church: to reject and cast out those who do not obey the truth and teach contrary to it."

In Greek it reads, οφελον και αποκοψονται, "Would that they were cut off!" You have been persuaded and will correct the error. But if only you would drive the false teachers away from yourselves, then I would be completely at peace concerning you. As long as they are with you, I shall not cease to fear for you.

Why does the Apostle seem to act so weakly? He does not cut off the seducers, but only expresses the desire that they be cut off by the Galatians themselves. Perhaps Saint Paul expected that they too would turn to the truth, and therefore he spoke so indecisively. If they remained stubborn and continued to seduce, perhaps he reserved to himself the freedom to make an arrangement afterward.

Or perhaps he was certain that the Galatians themselves would do this. They would drive them away, break communion with them, and not allow them to come near. By his cry, "Would that!" he wished only to show that this was not contrary to his desire, and that his apostolic prayer was also for this.

In every way one cannot fail to see here a law of the life of the Body of the Church: to reject and cast out those who do not submit to the truth and who teach contrary to it.

Saint Chrysostom sees apostolic severity in these words: "See what severity the Apostle expresses here toward their deceivers. At first he rebuked the deceived, more than once calling them foolish. But after sufficiently teaching and admonishing them, he now turns to their deceivers. Here too you must notice the Apostle's wisdom. He admonishes and persuades the Galatians as his children, and as still capable of correction. But he cuts off their deceivers as strangers and incurably sick. He points to the latter when he says, 'He shall bear his sin, whoever he may be.' He points to the former when he threatens them, saying, 'Would that those who trouble you were cut off.' And he rightly said. 'those who trouble you,' that is, those who stir you to depart from the order and discipline of Christ's Church, which is the new fatherland of your spirit. For they compelled them, after leaving their own fatherland, freedom, and heavenly kinship, to seek an alien and unknown fatherland. After driving them out from the Jerusalem above, which is free, they made them wander like captives and strangers. For this reason the Apostle rises up against them. The meaning of his words is this: I am not at all concerned for them. 'Reject a heretical man after the first and second admonition'" (cf. Titus 3:10).

In Saint Chrysostom's time there were people who tried to justify self-castration by the Apostle's word "cut off." For eunuchs were also called αποκοποι, and the Apostle says, οφελον και αποκοψονται. Saint Chrysostom does not strain himself to refute such an interpretation, because its falsity is already obvious after the opinion he has just expressed.

But he uses this occasion to rebuke eunuchs and to prevent senseless self-castration. One sees in him the thought that, even if the Apostle were understood to indicate castration, this would still be a penalty, punishment, and curse. Those who dare to mutilate themselves bring the Apostle's curse upon themselves.

Then he says: "The Manichaeans only say that the body is malicious and composed of evil matter. But these men give occasion for their absurd doctrines by their very deeds, cutting off a member as though it were hostile and malicious. It would be far better to pluck out the eyes, because through them lust enters the soul. But neither the eyes nor any other member is guilty of this. Only the evil will is guilty. If you cannot restrain yourself, why do you not cut off the tongue for blasphemy, the hand for robbery, the feet for their movement toward evil, and, one may say, why not cut off the whole body? For hearing too, when flute music is played, often relaxes the soul. The nostrils, when they sense fragrance, enchant the heart and draw it toward pleasure. Let us then cut off everything, ears, hands, and nostrils. But this is extreme impiety and a satanic prompting. One must only correct the disorderly impulse of the soul. The evil demon, always delighting in murders, alone could suggest that the very organ must be destroyed, as though the great Craftsman had made a mistake. How, someone will say, does lust flare up from the fatness of the body? But here too the sin belongs to the soul. The fattening of the flesh depends not on lust, but on the soul. If the soul wishes to waste it away, it has full authority to do so. But you do the same as someone who sees a man laying on fire and setting a house ablaze, yet blames for the fire not the arsonist, but the fire itself, as though it burned so strongly because by itself it embraced many beams of the house. The fault lies not with the fire, but with the arsonist. Fire was given for preparing food, for light, and for many other needs, not for burning houses. Likewise desire was given for the begetting of children and the preservation of the race, not for adultery, fornication, and sensuality. It was given so that you might be a father, not an adulterer. Adultery depends not on natural desire, but on unnatural frenzy."

It has not been considered superfluous to copy this passage, because these tares also exist among us.