Galatians 5

[SirEwenii]

Galatians 5, referring to those who were trying to insist that people had to be circumscised according to the old law, says,
“I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. 4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified[a] by the law; you have fallen away from grace.”

What was it that was so bad about the Judaizers that makes him say you will be cut off from grace? The act of circumcision or of following he old law may not have been effective for salvation, but surely it was not mortal sin? And it seems to be in direct contrast with Romans 14 where St Paul seems to be telling people to follow their consciences in some matters (14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean.)
Why is circumcision so drastically different that St Paul says that you will be cut off from Christ?

 

[Usagi]

I suppose it would be a mortal sin if one were to do it as an act of denial or serious doubt of the grace of God to save you without that action. The sin, of course, would lie in the mindset/act of will behind the action, and not the circumcision itself. I would not conclude, for example, that the millions of boys who were circumcised for (supposed) medical reasons when that was “the done thing” are cut off from Christ.

Heck, even Paul mentions that his protege Timothy was circumcised specifically to avoid giving offense to fellow Jews, so the offense has something specifically to do with the Judaizers rather than with anyone who circumcises.

Usagi

 

[JM3]

Confusion comes from our own minds. St. Paul did not say that circumcision would cut you off from Christ, but that those who would be justified by the law would be cut off from Christ.

Romans 3:20 Because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified before him.

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P6Y.HTM

 

[oldcelt]

Slightly more text from a NIV: 2 Mark my words!** I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ;** you have fallen away from grace. 5 But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

I don’t know, it sounds pretty straight-forward in every version I read. I do think this: since circumcision is now done most often for health reason, maybe those of us who were circumcised as infants without our permission get an out. Paul certainly did not offer one here: “3 Again I declare to *every *man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.”

 

[SirEwenii]

St. Paul did not say that circumcision would cut you off from Christ, but that those who would be justified by the law would be cut off from Christ.

I agree, but what is the difference here with those saying that you need to follow the law of circumcision to be justified (who are told they are cut off from Christ) to those who are scandalized at people eating unclean meat in Romans 14 who are not only not cut off from Christ but St Paul advises the people to make sure they do not scandalise those who think that to eat this meat is wrong and go along with the idea.

It seems contradictory to me? What is so much different about circumcision?

 

[Kliska]

Circumcision is specifically connected with the Old Covenant. If a person were circumcised because of the Mosaic Law, they would be putting themselves into the old covenant instead of the new. In effect, Paul is speaking to those already in the new covenant and telling them to not try to go back to the old. You can’t be under the law and be under grace at the same time.

Paul teaches that he became like one under the law so that he could reach them and teach them for the sake of the gospel, I’m assuming Timothy did the same thing. If I’m not mistaken, to go into the synagogues and teach, Timothy would have had to have been circumcised.

 

[SirEwenii]

Circumcision is specifically connected with the Old Covenant. If a person were circumcised because of the Mosaic Law, they would be putting themselves into the old covenant instead of the new. In effect, Paul is speaking to those already in the new covenant and telling them to not try to go back to the old. You can’t be under the law and be under grace at the same time. /QUOTE]

Thanks! I have a friend who- (almost apologetically) cites Galatians 5 as the reason why she thinks Catholics can’t be saved, ("all the Judaizers added was circumcision- you guys add so much!). But, while I disagree that Catholics “add” anything I’m hoping Romans 14 should console her. If it is true that what Catholics do is “add” at least they are not rejecting the New Covenant of grace, I think it would be more proper to think of it in terms of in the book of Romans where they were eating “unclean” meat. They might have been adding but they were not damning themselves by doing so.
Prayers to Mary the sacraments etc do not reject the covenant of grace so it works well for me.
Anyway so your answer was very helpful to me

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Thomas Aquinas gives the following answer in his Summa Theologiae:

All ceremonies are professions of faith, in which the interior worship of God consists. Now man can make profession of his inward faith, by deeds as well as by words: and in either profession, if he make a false declaration, he sins mortally. Now, though our faith in Christ is the same as that of the fathers of old; yet, since they came before Christ, whereas we come after Him, the same faith is expressed in different words, by us and by them. For by them was it said: “Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son,” where the verbs are in the future tense: whereas we express the same by means of verbs in the past tense, and say that she “conceived and bore.” In like manner the ceremonies of the Old Law betokened Christ as having yet to be born and to suffer: whereas our sacraments signify Him as already born and having suffered. Consequently, just as it would be a mortal sin now for anyone, in making a profession of faith, to say that Christ is yet to be born, which the fathers of old said devoutly and truthfully; so too it would be a mortal sin now to observe those ceremonies which the fathers of old fulfilled with devotion and fidelity. Such is the teaching Augustine (Contra Faust. xix, 16), who says: “It is no longer promised that He shall be born, shall suffer and rise again, truths of which their sacraments were a kind of image: but it is declared that He is already born, has suffered and risen again; of which our sacraments, in which Christians share, are the actual representation.”
newadvent.org/summa/2103.htm#article4

Paul is not speaking about circumcision, for he was circumcised himself and he had Timothy circumcised on account of the Jews. Rather, by circumcision he is speaking of the observance of the law in general. As Thomas says, observance of the law of Moses is basically a profession of faith contrary to Christ. Paul is saying that the law cannot save anyone; it only pointed forward to salvation in Christ. Paul continues in chapter five, “For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.”