Galatia 5:3

5:3 And I testify again to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey ¹  the whole law.

Galatia 5:6

5:6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision carries any weight – the only thing that matters is faith working through love. ² 

Galatia 5:11-12

5:11 Now, brothers and sisters, ³  if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? ⁴  In that case the offense of the cross ⁵  has been removed. ⁶  5:12 I wish those agitators ⁷  would go so far as to ⁸  castrate themselves! ⁹ 

Kisah Para Rasul 15:1

The Jerusalem Council

15:1 Now some men came down from Judea ¹⁰  and began to teach the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised ¹¹  according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”

[5:3]  ¹ tn Or “keep”; or “carry out”; Grk “do.”

[5:6]  ² tn Grk “but faith working through love.”

[5:11]  ³ tn Grk “brothers.” See note on the phrase “brothers and sisters” in 1:11.

[5:11]  ⁴ sn That is, if Paul still teaches observance of the Mosaic law (preaches circumcision), why is he still being persecuted by his opponents, who insist that Gentile converts to Christianity must observe the Mosaic law?

[5:11]  ⁵ sn The offense of the cross refers to the offense to Jews caused by preaching Christ crucified.

[5:11]  ⁶ tn Or “nullified.”

[5:12]  ⁷ tn Grk “the ones who are upsetting you.” The same verb is used in Acts 21:38 to refer to a person who incited a revolt. Paul could be alluding indirectly to the fact that his opponents are inciting the Galatians to rebel against his teaching with regard to circumcision and the law.

[5:12]  ⁸ tn Grk “would even.”

[5:12]  ⁹ tn Or “make eunuchs of themselves”; Grk “cut themselves off.” This statement is rhetorical hyperbole on Paul’s part. It does strongly suggest, however, that Paul’s adversaries in this case (“those agitators”) were men. Some interpreters (notably Erasmus and the Reformers) have attempted to soften the meaning to a figurative “separate themselves” (meaning the opponents would withdraw from fellowship) but such an understanding dramatically weakens the rhetorical force of Paul’s argument. Although it has been argued that such an act of emasculation would be unthinkable for Paul, it must be noted that Paul’s statement is one of biting sarcasm, obviously not meant to be taken literally. See further G. Stählin, TDNT 3:853-55.

[15:1]  ¹⁰ sn That is, they came down from Judea to Antioch in Syria.

[15:1]  ¹¹ tc Codex Bezae (D) and a few other witnesses have “and walk” here (i.e., instead of τῷ ἔθει τῷ Μωϋσέως [tw eqei tw Mwu>sew"] they read καὶ τῷ ἔθει τῷ Μωϋσέως περιπατῆτε [kai tw eqei tw Mwu>sew" peripathte]). This is a decidedly stronger focus on obedience to the Law. As well, D expands vv. 1-5 in various places with the overall effect of being “more sympathetic to the local tradition of the church at Jerusalem” while the Alexandrian witnesses are more sympathetic to Paul (TCGNT 377). Codex D is well known for having a significantly longer text in Acts, but modern scholarship is generally of the opinion that the text of D expands on the original wording of Acts, with a theological viewpoint that especially puts Peter in a more authoritarian light. The expansion in these five verses is in keeping with that motif even though Peter is not explicitly in view.

[15:1]  sn Unless you are circumcised. These teachers from Judea were teaching that Gentiles could not be saved unless they kept the law of Moses in regard to circumcision. Thus according to them a Gentile had first to become a proselyte to Judaism, including circumcision, before one could become a Christian. This party is sometimes known (collectively) as Judaizers. They did not question that Gentiles could come into the community, but disagreed with Paul and Barnabas on what basis they could do so.