I have had someone ask this question and it reminded me of a series I did for the Breaking News magazine in JPCC years ago in Jakarta. So I thought I would resurrect these old articles to share with the person who asked recently and all of you who read the Nuggets as well. As usual, the verse in Galatians 6:17 is complicated; after all it was Paul who wrote it. It has multiple meanings.
From now on, don’t let anyone trouble me with these things. For I bear on my body the marks that show I belong to Jesus.
Gal 6:17
Behind the translation are the Greek words [τὰ στίγματα] which transliterated are the Stigmata. When translated there are different ways in which the word stigmata is translated and yet all are correct: the Stigmata, the marks, the scars, the brandings, branded on my body, brands and wounds. There are many ways to look at what the Stigmata signify.
Do you have marks on your body? Scars or wounds which are permanent reminders of past scarring? Most of us do as a result of the things that have happened to us through the course of life. Can any of them be interpreted as being scars which indicate you are a disciple of Jesus? Are any of them sufficiently clear proof that you are a follower of Jesus? Are any one of them enough to convict you of being a Christian? I.e. Have you been branded? What is Paul meaning in this verse by using the word [στίγματα] “stigmata”? It is the multiple meaning behind this verse that I am going to investigate over the next series of Nuggets. There are seven different ways of interpreting what Paul was referring to by using the word Stigmata.
The Mark of Circumcision
The first is the Mark of Circumcision.
Are you saying Ian that I have to be circumcised in order to be a Christian, a follower of Jesus? Is that really the meaning of this verse? Well, according to the prime interpretation of the context of the Paul’s letter to the Galatians that is the first option from what has been written. The letter was written by Paul to the Galatian Christians to address the issue of whether they had to be circumcised or not. If you read the whole of Paul’s letter to the Galatians that indeed is the context of the letter and the prime issue Paul is discussing in the letter. Anytime we seek to interpret the intention of an author of any piece of writing we must always look at the sentence, the statement or the verse in the context in which it was written. The Galatian letter is about circumcision, pure and simple. It is clear that the first meaning in Paul’s mind in writing those words is ‘circumcision’. Most commentators and preachers recognise that ‘circumcision’ is the first interpretation the readers would get from this letter.
However, let me state categorically from the outset that Paul was NOT intending to promote circumcision. He was not a member of the Judaisers, who were pro-circumcision and insisting that all who wanted to follow Christ needed to be circumcised. Rather Paul made it clear that the issue was not whether to be circumcised or not. Certainly Paul made it clear it was not a matter of being circumcised in the traditional Jewish way; it was more a matter of being circumcised of heart. (Romans 2:25-29) Was the traditional mark of circumcision a sign of being a true person of faith? Paul said, “No”. Was it a sign of being a true son or daughter of Abraham? Again “No”.
But how did this happen? Was he counted as righteous only after he was circumcised, or was it before he was circumcised? Clearly, God accepted Abraham before he was circumcised! Circumcision was a sign that Abraham already had faith and that God had already accepted him and declared him to be righteous—even before he was circumcised. So Abraham is the spiritual father of those who have faith but have not been circumcised. They are counted as righteous because of their faith. And Abraham is also the spiritual father of those who have been circumcised, but only if they have the same kind of faith Abraham had before he was circumcised.
Romans 4:10-12
I just wish that those troublemakers who want to mutilate you by circumcision would mutilate themselves.
Gal 5:12
Paul makes it very clear from the above quote from the letter to the Galatians that he was opposed to those troublemakers who were pushing circumcision on the new converts in Galatia. Paul was brutal and scathing in his condemnation of the Circumcision Brigade. In fact if they wished to push circumcision, they needed to go off and mutilate themselves. I will leave the details of Paul’s intent without graphic description. Paul was making a play words between two Greek words [peritomē] and [katatomē] related to the degree of cutting and what was to be cut. You go figure what he meant by the difference between those two words.
The conclusion from all of this is that Paul was opposed to circumcision as a practice for new Christian converts. Paul was not an advocate of the physical, traditional practice of circumcision to be forced on this new faith, the followers of The Way. Rather any change needed to take place in the heart of men and women. Not any kind of physical heart operation but a change of heart in terms of proof that the convert had undergone a change of life orientation and allegiance to Christ. The change which occurs when repentance takes place as a result of the work of the Holy Spirit within. That is the true sign or mark of a Christian. The evidence of a change of heart that is deeper than merely cutting the outer body to show you follow Jewish traditions. While it is true, the entire letter to the saints in Galatia was written to address the issue of circumcision, Paul’s comment that ‘he bore on his body the marks of Jesus’ was not intended to be interpreted as meaning circumcision. Paul was using the references to circumcision ironically while meaning something else.
What else could he have been meaning?
I will leave you to contemplate what else lay behind Paul’s use of the words “I bear on my body the marks of Jesus”. I will say at this point that Paul’s intent was deep and meaningful and likely as not he had seven different meanings in mind when he wrote these words. We have covered the first and concluded that it was most certainly not the mark of circumcision that Paul intended. Stay with me for the next six Nuggets to see what else lay behind this use of the word Stigmata.
These Nuggets can often be based on questions my readers ask or recent discoveries which substantiate the veracity of the Word of God in an age when many question the relevance or truth of the Bible. These next six Nuggets will unfold the answers to a question asked but will also demonstrate yet again the incredible depth behind the words of the Bible.
In approaching the Tanakh exactly as the rabbis do, singling out each word or phrase to extract every ounce of significance, Paul’s attention is on ‘marks’ (Gal 6:17); in verses 12-13 and 15 it is on circumcision.