{"id":29114,"date":"2022-09-24T13:07:52","date_gmt":"2022-09-24T18:07:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/exegetical-and-hermeneutical-commentary-of-galatians-511\/"},"modified":"2022-09-24T13:07:52","modified_gmt":"2022-09-24T18:07:52","slug":"exegetical-and-hermeneutical-commentary-of-galatians-511","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/exegetical-and-hermeneutical-commentary-of-galatians-511\/","title":{"rendered":"Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Galatians 5:11"},"content":{"rendered":"

And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offense of the cross ceased. <\/i><\/b><\/h3>\n

11<\/strong>. Another abrupt transition of thought, rendering the connexion obscure and uncertain. It is however evident either that a charge of inconsistency had been brought against St Paul, or that the possibility of such a charge flashed across his mind. He could find no language too strong to condemn those who submitted to circumcision, and yet it was an admitted fact that he had himself circumcised Timothy. Did he not ‘yet’ (still) virtually<\/em> preach circumcision, as he had insisted on it before his conversion? This was a specious, and if unrefuted, a fatal objection. Based on a fact, it must be met by an appeal to fact the fact of persecution. ‘If I still Judaize, why do the Judaizers still persecute me?’<\/p>\n

then is the offence of the cross ceased<\/em> ] This is ironical, ‘I suppose then the doctrine of the cross has utterly ceased to be a stumbling-block; so that there really is no reason why I should suffer persecution’.<\/p>\n

the offence of the cross<\/em> ] The fact that Jesus died on the cross does not in itself constitute ‘the offence of the cross’. It is accepted by many who deny its atoning efficacy. ‘The offence of the cross’ in every age consists in this, that it cuts at the root of human merit in the matter of justification<\/em>, whether in the form of legal observance, or holy dispositions, or good works. The Jews (as Chrysostom points out) accused Stephen not of worshipping or preaching Christ crucified, but of speaking against the law and the holy place. And if St Paul had preached Christ’s death upon the cross as a pattern of humility and submission, he would have escaped persecution. But he preached righteousness by the cross alone<\/em> through faith, and they were offended. No more striking commentary on these words can be adduced than St Paul’s language, Rom 9:31-33<\/span>, ‘Israel following after a law of righteousness, did not attain to a law of righteousness. Why? because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by works of the law. They stumbled at the stone of stumbling (were offended at the rock of offence); even as it is written (Isa 28:16<\/span>), Behold I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence, and he that believeth on him shall not be put to shame’. It is interesting to note that St Peter quotes the same passage of Isaiah in a letter addressed to the strangers of Galatia<\/em> (1Pe 2:6-8<\/span>).<\/p>\n

ceased<\/em> ] entirely done away with<\/em>. The same word which is rendered ‘is become of no effect’ Gal 5:4<\/em><\/span>. Comp. Rom 4:14<\/span>; Rom 7:2<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

And I, brethren – <\/B>Paul here proceeds to vindicate himself from giving countenance to the doctrines which they had advanced there. It is evident that the false teachers in Galatia appealed to Paul himself, and alleged that he insisted on the necessity of circumcision, and that they were teaching no more than he taught. On what they founded this is unknown. It may have been mere slander; or it may have arisen from the fact that he had circumcised Timothy Act 16:3<\/span>, and, possibly, that he may have encouraged circumcision in some other similar cases. Or it may have been inferred from the fact (which was undoubtedly true) that Paul in general complied with the customs of the Jews when he was with them. But his conduct and example had been greatly perverted. He had never enjoined circumcision as necessary to salvation; and had never complied with Jewish customs where there was danger that it would be understood that he regarded them as at all indispensable, or as furnishing a ground of acceptance with God.<\/P>

If I yet preach circumcision – <\/B>If I preach it as necessary to salvation; or if I enjoin it on those who are converted to Christianity.<\/P>

Why do I yet suffer persecution? – <\/B>That is, from the Jews. Why do they oppose me? Circumcision is the special badge of the Jewish religion; it implies all the rest (see Gal 5:2<\/span>); and if I preach the necessity of that, it would satisfy the Jews, and save me from persecution. They would never persecute one who did that as they do me; and the fact that I am thus persecuted by them is full demonstration that I am not regarded as preaching the necessity of circumcision. It is remarkable that Paul does not expressly deny the charge. The reason may be, that his own word would be called in question, or that it might require much explanation to show why he had recommended circumcision in any case, as in the case of Timothy; Act 16:3<\/span>. But the fact that he was persecuted by the Jews settled the question, and showed that he did not preach the necessity of circumcision in any such sense as to satisfy them, or in any such sense as was claimed by the false teachers in Galatia. In regard to the fact that Paul was persecuted by the Jews; see Act 14:1-2<\/span>, Act 14:19<\/span>; Act 17:4-5<\/span>, Act 17:13<\/span>; compare Paley, Hora Paulina, Galat. no. v.<\/P>

Then is the offence of the cross ceased – <\/B>For if I should preach the necessity of circumcision, as is alleged, the offence of the cross of Christ would be removed. The necessity of depending on the merits of the sacrifice made on the cross would be taken away, since then people could be saved by conformity to the laws of Moses. The very thing that I have so much insisted on, and that has been such a stumbling-block to the Jews (see the note at 1Co 1:23<\/span>), that conformity to their rites was of no avail, and that they must be saved only by the merits of a crucified Saviour, would be done away with. Paul means that if this had been done, he would have saved himself from giving offence, and from the evils of persecution. He would have preached that people could be saved by conformity to Jewish rites, and that would have saved him from all the persecutions which he had endured in consequence of preaching the necessity of salvation by the cross.<\/P><\/p>\n

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Gal 5:11<\/span><\/p>\n

And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution?<\/em><\/p>\n

then is the offence of the Cross ceased. <\/p>\n

The perversion of apostolic preaching<\/strong><\/p>\n

There are two attempts or resolves in constant operation as to the Cross. One is mans, to accommodate it to human liking and taste: the second is Gods, to raise human liking and taste to it.<\/p>\n


I. <\/strong>The aim of man. Then is the offence of the Cross ceased. And in such case, there must be its depreciation. It is brought down from its proper excellency. What is to be understood by the Cross? Not the wood. How should we be the better did we possess the very tree on which the Saviour hung and died? The true Cross consists in a fact, the crucifixion of the Son of God: in a doctrine, salvation by atonement: in an influence and moral power, a hatred to sin, a weanedness from the world, a penitential devotedness to the Saviour. The Cross is preached when the sinner is taught how he may be justified, and how he must be born again. In what lies its scandalising property, its offence? It was early declared that Christ should be a sign spoken against, and that in connection with his death, when the sword should pierce through her soul who held the Holy Child. This obnoxious sign was therefore the spectacle of a crucified Messiah. Now the following may be named as the principal exceptions taken to it by those who rejected it.<\/p>\n

1. <\/strong>It was an improbable medium of revelation. For man can talk loudly how God should manifest Himself and His purposes toward us. He is fond of anticipating the Father of lights, would teach Him the path of judgment and show to Him the way of understanding. Is it morally probable that all His dispensations should revolve upon the Cross for their pivot?<\/p>\n

2. <\/strong>It was a stigma on this religion which set it in disadvantageous contrast with every other. It was unheard of that the vilest of all deaths should give its absolute character to a religion, and that this religion of the Cross should triumph over all. Yet this was avowed.<\/p>\n

3. <\/strong>It was a violent disappointment of a general hope.<\/p>\n

4. <\/strong>It was a humiliating test. Ambition, selfishness, insincerity, licentiousness, ferocity, pride, felt that it was encircled with an atmosphere in which they were instantly interrupted and condemned. In what manner did the first preachers of the Cross exhibit it? So ingenuous, so unvarnished, was that manner, that it always prejudiced them: to the Jews a stumbling-block and to the Greeks foolishness. They preached it not only in its integrity of truths, but without gloss and concealment. They refined not on it. But man is desirous of doing this away as a wrongful and unnecessary impression. He would make the offence of the <\/strong>Cross to cease.<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> By fixing it upon some extrinsic authority.<\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> By torturing it into coalition with foreign principles.<\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> By transforming the character of its religious instructions.<\/p>\n

(4)<\/strong> By applying it to inappropriate uses.<\/p>\n

(5)<\/strong> By excluding its proper connections.<\/p>\n

It is not to be viewed as naked and detached, it is a centre to which all that is great and serious spreads out as circumference. While it is alone and single in its incomparableness, it is full of relations and consequences. It declares the righteousness of God. It is the basis of mercy to sinners. It is intended to sanctify as well as to expiate.<\/p>\n


II. <\/strong>The procedure of God. We have seen <\/strong>that the Cross, the true type and pledge of Christianity, may be placed in suck factitious lights and may be contemplated through such false mediums, may be so distorted from its real excellence, and so polished of its real reproach, may be so illustrated and decked, that, instead of offending, it shall be taken into favour. Yet, this is no just reading of Christianity, it is only a fiction, a tale that is told. It evades the actual import of it. It offers nothing of its actual efficacy. It is a god which cannot save. Gods way is therefore to frustrate all these miserable perversions–to set them all aside–to honour the Cross as He knows and unfolds it–to bring the sinner into direct contact with it–to suffer him to interpose nothing–to add nothing of his own–to subtract nothing however offensive to him–that he may be brought under its original power and receive its complete impression. The method is conducted after this sort.<\/p>\n

1. <\/strong>It is necessary, if we would receive the proper influence of the Cross, that we be prepared to hail it as a distinct revelation. It is not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world. It is not some conclusion that the wise, the prudent, the disputer of this world, have reached. It is no gathering up of certain prepossessions and analogies. It is no happy venture in the large field of discovery and experiment. It is the immediate ray from heaven. It is a great declarative act.<\/p>\n

2. <\/strong>When we rightly appreciate the Cross, when it has its full effect upon us, we recognize it as the instrument of redemption. This is not an expedient among many expedients, a safe remedy among remedies equally safe. It stands apart. This is the one vent and vehicle for mercy.<\/p>\n

3. <\/strong>When our mind approves this method of salvation, it finds in it the principle of sanctification. We reverse all our aims and desires. We are called unto holiness. What shall work it in us? Gratitude for the Saviours love, common cause with His mission, sympathy with His design.<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> Mark the process. We had hitherto abided in death. We had continued indifferent to the most mighty interests. Christ was <\/strong>preached, but He was dead in vain. He profited us nothing. We thrilled not with wonder, nor grief, nor joy. But now we are quickened with Him. He liveth in us. Our eyes are opened. It is like another sense. Our ideas are new. Each emotion is strange. We are disabused.<\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> Mark the necessity. Until we be brought nigh to it, until we take hold of it, the doctrine of the Crucified Saviour is an unintelligible and uninteresting thing. He is of none effect to us. It is alienated from holy use. We see it only at a distance, and it scarcely moves the most transient feeling. Until it comes into contact with our mind, it can command no proper influence. It is not a blind agent, operating perforce. It works in no occult manner. It addresses the understanding. It convinces and persuades. It excites the moral dispositions.<\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> Mark the effect. There is a suddenly, though a most intelligently, developed charm. It is the infinite of attraction. All concentrates on it. It absorbs the tenderness and the majesty of the universe. It is full of glory. It combines whatever can make great or constitute greatness. It is the simplest of all simple things–the deepest of all deep things. (R. W. Hamilton,<\/em> D. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The offence of the Cross<\/strong><\/p>\n


I. <\/strong>Wherein lies the offence of the cross?<\/p>\n

1. <\/strong>Its doctrine of atonement offends mans pride.<\/p>\n

2. <\/strong>Its simple teaching offends mans wisdom, and artificial taste.<\/p>\n

3. <\/strong>Its being a remedy for mans ruin offends his fancied power to save himself.<\/p>\n

4. <\/strong>Its addressing all as sinners offends the <\/strong>dignity of Pharisees.<\/p>\n

5. <\/strong>Its coming as a revelation offends modern thought.<\/p>\n

6. <\/strong>Its lofty holiness offends mans love of sin.<\/p>\n


II. <\/strong>How is this offence shown?<\/p>\n

1. <\/strong>Frequently by the actual persecution of believers.<\/p>\n

2. <\/strong>More often by slandering believers, and sneering at them as old-fashioned, foolish, weak-minded, morose, self-conceited, etc.<\/p>\n

3. <\/strong>Often by omitting to preach the Cross. Many nowadays preach a Christless, bloodless gospel.<\/p>\n

4. <\/strong>Or by importing new meanings into orthodox terms.<\/p>\n

5. <\/strong>Or by mixing the truth of Christ with errors.<\/p>\n

6. <\/strong>Or by openly denying the Deity of Him who died on the cross, and the substitutionary character of His sufferings.<\/p>\n

Indeed, there are a thousand ways of showing that the Cross offends us in one respect or another.<\/p>\n


III. <\/strong>What then?<\/p>\n

1. <\/strong>Herein is folly, that men are offended with that which God ordains; with that which must win the day; with the only thing which can save them; with that which is full of wisdom and beauty.<\/p>\n

2. <\/strong>Herein is grace, that we who once were offended by the Cross, now find it to be<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> the one hope of our hearts,<\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> the great delight of our souls,<\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> the joyful boast of our tongues.<\/p>\n

3. <\/strong>Herein is heart-searching.<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> Perhaps we are secretly offended at the Cross.<\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> Perhaps we give no offence to haters of the Cross.<\/p>\n

Many professed Christians never cause offence to the most godless.<\/p>\n

(a)<\/strong> Is this because they bear no testimony to the Cross?<\/p>\n

(b)<\/strong> Is this because they are not crucified to the world?<\/p>\n

(c)<\/strong> Is this because there is no real trust in the Cross, and no true knowledge of Christ? (C. H. Spurgeon.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The slandered apostle<\/strong><\/p>\n


I. <\/strong>The report spread about Paul.<\/p>\n

1. <\/strong>What it was–that he preached circumcision: from whence we see that ministers are subject to defamation, not only in respect of their lives but of their doctrine.<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> This verifies the saying (Ecc 8:14<\/span>).<\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> Ministers must use circumspection both in the manner and matter of preaching.<\/p>\n

(3)<\/strong> Being defamed wrongfully they must be more careful to please God (Psa 119:69<\/span>).<\/p>\n

2. <\/strong>How it came about. Probably by the circumcision of Timothy. Hence we <\/strong>see the fashion of the world to raise reports on light occasions.<\/p>\n


II. <\/strong>Pauls defence.<\/p>\n

1. <\/strong>AS it was more than a mere personal matter, and one that affected the purity and success of the gospel, he was obliged to notice it.<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> Ministers should not be overnice in defending themselves. Character is its best defence.<\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> When their doctrine is impugned let them defend it with all their might, for thereunto are they set.<\/p>\n

2. <\/strong>Paul disproves the charge from the fact that he is persecuted for not doing what he is charged with doing. Hence we see<\/p>\n

(1)<\/strong> that ministers must preach the <\/strong>gospel, whatsoever trouble may follow.<\/p>\n

(2)<\/strong> The fidelity of St. Paul, who, by conceding circumcision, might have gained honour, profit, and pleasure.<\/p>\n

3. <\/strong>Paul proves his innocence by the fact that the offence of the Cross was not abolished. It still offended the lapsed Galatians and their teachers. Hence this charge. (W. Perkins.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

Preach the Cross<\/strong><\/p>\n

Let others hold forth the terrors of hell and the joys of heaven. Let <\/strong>others drench their congregations with teachings about the sacraments and the Church. Give me the Cross of Christ. This is the only lever which has ever turned the world upside down hitherto, and made men forsake their sins. And, if this will not, nothing will. A man may begin preaching with a perfect knowledge of Latin, Greek, and Hebrew; but he will do little or no good among his hearers unless he knows something of the Cross. Never was there a minister, who did much for the conversion of souls, who did not dwell much on Christ crucified. Luther, Rutherford, Whitefield, MCheyne, were all most eminent preachers of the Cross. This is the preaching that the Holy Ghost delights to bless. He loves to honour those who honour the Cross. (Bishop<\/em> Ryle.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

The offence of the Cross<\/strong><\/p>\n

Luther was offered to be made a cardinal if be would be quiet. He answered, No, not if I might be pope, and defends himself thus against those that thought him haply a proud fool for his pains: Let me be counted fool, or anything, so I be not found guilty of cowardly silence. The Papists, when they could not rule him, railed at him, and called him an apostate. He confesseth the action, and saith, I am indeed an apostate, but a blessed and holy apostate–one that hath fallen off from the devil. Then they called him devil; but what saith he? Luther is a devil; be it so: but Christ liveth and reigneth; thats enough for Luther: so be it. Nay, such was the activity of Luthers spirit, that, when Erasmus was asked by the Elector of Saxony why the pope and his clergy could so little abide Luther, he answered, For two great offences–meddling with the popes triple crown and the monks fat paunches. And hence was all the hatred. (Spencer.<\/em>)<\/p>\n

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Verse 11. If I yet preach circumcision<\/B><\/I>] it is very likely that some of the false apostles, hearing of Paul’s having circumcised Timothy, Ac 16:3<\/span>, which must have been done about this time<\/I>, reported him as being an advocate for circumcision, and by this means endeavoured to sanction their own doctrine. To this the apostle replies: Were it so, that I am a friend to this measure, is it likely that I should suffer persecution from the Jews? But I am every where persecuted by them, and I am persecuted because<\/I> I am known to be an enemy to circumcision; were I a friend to this doctrine, the offence of the<\/I> cross<\/I>-preaching salvation only through the sacrifice of Christ, would soon cease; because, to be consistent with myself, if I preached the necessity of circumcision I must soon cease to preach Christ crucified, and then the Jews would be no longer my enemies.<\/P><\/p>\n

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

It should seem by what the apostle saith in this verse, that some of these false teachers had quoted the apostle for them, as if he himself had preached circumcision; possibly taking advantage from his circumcising Timothy, not distinguishing between what was done by Paul as of liberty, and to avoid the offence of the Jews, and what they pressed as necessary to be done (besides believing in Christ) for justification. Now, (saith the apostle), <\/P>

if I yet preach<\/B> up circumision<\/B> as necessary to be observed, <\/P>

why do I yet suffer persecution?<\/B> Why am I then persecuted by the Jews, as one apostatized from their religion? <\/P>

Then is the offence of the cross ceased:<\/I> by the cross, <\/I>he eihter means the cross of Christ; then the sense is: It is my opposing the observance of their law, that more offendeth them than my preaching of Christ crucified. Or else he meaneth the afflictions which he suffered for the sake of Christ and the gospel; (in which sense the term is used, Mat 16:24<\/span>; Luk 9:23<\/span>; 14:22<\/span>); then the sense is, that all sufferings for the owning and preaching of Christ are at an end; let us but yield the Jews that point, (that Christians are obliged to the observance of the law of Moses), the great quarrel between them and us is at an end; but their daily persecuting of me is a sufficient demonstration that I do not preach up circumcision. <\/P> <\/p>\n

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

11.<\/B> Translate, “If I amstill preaching (as I did before conversion) circumcision, why am Istill persecuted?” The Judaizing troubler of the Galatians hadsaid, “Paul himself preaches circumcision,” as is shown byhis having circumcised Timothy (Ac16:3<\/span>; compare also Ac 20:6;21:24<\/span>). Paul replies by anticipation of their objection, Asregards myself, the fact that I am still persecuted by the Jews showsplainly that I do not<\/I> preach circumcision; for it is justbecause I preach Christ crucified, and not the Mosaic law, as thesole ground of justification, that they persecute me. If forconciliation he lived as a Jew among the Jews, it was in accordancewith his principle enunciated (1Co 7:18<\/span>;1Co 7:20<\/span>; 1Co 9:20<\/span>).Circumcision, or uncircumcision, are things indifferent inthemselves: their lawfulness or unlawfulness depends on the animus<\/I>of him who uses them. The Gentile Galatians’ animus in circumcisioncould only be their supposition that it influenced favorably theirstanding before God. Paul’s living as a Gentile among Gentiles,plainly showed that, if he lived as a Jew among Jews, it was not thathe thought it meritorious before God, but as a matter indifferent,wherein he might lawfully conform as a Jew by birth<\/I> to thosewith whom he was, in order to put no needless stumbling-block to theGospel in the way of his countrymen. <\/P>

then<\/B>Presuming that Idid so, “then,” in that case, “the offense of(stumbling-block, 1Co 1:23<\/span>occasioned to the Jews by) the cross has become done away.” Thusthe Jews’ accusation against Stephen was not that he preached Christcrucified, but that “he spake blasphemous words against thisholy place and the law.<\/I>” They would, in some measure,have borne the former, if he had mixed with it justification in partby circumcision and the law, and if he had, through the medium ofChristianity, brought converts to Judaism. But if justification inany degree depended on legal ordinances, Christ’s crucifixion in thatdegree was unnecessary, and could profit nothing (Gal 5:2<\/span>;Gal 5:4<\/span>). Worldly Wiseman, of thetown of Carnal Policy, turns Christian out of the narrow way of theCross, to the house of Legality. But the way to it was up a mountain,which, as Christian advanced, threatened to fall on him and crushhim, amidst flashes of lightning from the mountain [BUNYAN,Pilgrim’s Progress<\/I>] (Heb12:18-21<\/span>).<\/P><\/p>\n

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision<\/strong>,…. The apostle was traduced by the false teachers, as a preacher of circumcision himself in some places; and this they did partly to show him to be a variable and inconsistent man, who preached one doctrine in one place, and another in another place, and so not to be attended to; and partly with others, to draw them into their scheme upon his authority: what might give them the handle, or at least what they improved to this purpose, might be his circumcising of Timothy; but though he did this as a thing indifferent, and for the sake of the Jews, to make them easy; yet he never preached it after his conversion, and much less as necessary to justification and salvation, as these men did. This calumny he refutes by putting the following question or questions;<\/p>\n

why do I yet suffer persecution<\/strong>? as is clear he did, for being against it, and preaching it down; great part of the persecutions the apostle endured was from the Jews, and that on account of his teaching them everywhere, that were among the Gentiles, to forsake Moses, and that they should not circumcise their children, and walk after the customs of their nation; a clear point this, that he did not preach it; had he, persecution from this quarter would not have followed him; and he could have done it with a good conscience, he must act a very weak part in suffering persecution on that account. The Arabic version gives the words a very different turn, and yet furnishes an answer to the calumny; “why do I persecute him that uses it?” that is, if I am a preacher of it, why am I so warm and violent an opposer of those that submit to it? these things are so opposite that there is no reconciling them; to the same purpose is the Ethiopic version: “then is the offence of the cross ceased”. The last mentioned version reads it, “the cross of Christ”; and so the Alexandrian copy; meaning not the cross of affliction, reproach, and persecution, which Christ has enjoined every follower of his to take up and bear for his sake, and is offensive to the carnal man; nor the cross on which he suffered, or the sufferings of the cross; but the doctrine of salvation by a crucified Christ, which was an offence and a stumblingblock to the Jews; now if the apostle had preached circumcision as necessary to salvation, the other doctrine must have been dropped, and consequently the offence taken at it must have ceased, whereas it was not. The Syriac version reads by way of question, “is the offence of the cross ceased?” no it is not, a plain case then is, that the apostle did not preach circumcision, but only a crucified Christ, as necessary to salvation. Moreover, the Jews that believed would not have been so offended as they were at his preaching, had he preached the one as well the other; their offence was not that he preached Christ crucified, but that he preached, that, by the cross of Christ, circumcision and the other rituals of the ceremonial law were now abolished.<\/p>\n

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Why am I still persecuted? <\/B> ( ?<\/SPAN><\/span>). Some of the Judaizers even circulated the slander that Paul preached circumcision in order to ruin his influence. <\/P> <\/p>\n

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

And i. In sharp contrast with the disturber. <\/P>

If I yet preach circumcision [ ] <\/SPAN><\/span>. Commonly explained as an allusion to a charge circulated by the Judaisers that Paul preached or sanctioned the circumcision of Gentile converts in churches outside of Galatia, as, for example, in the case of Timothy, Act 16:3<\/span>. 8<\/span> 3<\/span> But it is quite unlikely that any such charge was circulated. The Judaisers would not have founded such a charge on an individual case or two, like Timothy’s, especially in the face of the notorious fact that Paul, in Jerusalem and Antioch, had contested the demand for the circumcision of Gentile Christians; and Paul ‘s question, “Why do I suffer persecution?” would have been pertinent only on the assumption that he was charged with habitually. not occasionally, preaching circumcision. Had the Judaisers actually circulated such a charge, Paul would have been compelled to meet it in a far more direct and thorough manner than he does here. He would have been likely to formulate the charge, and to deal incisively with the inconsistency in his preaching which it involved. The course of his thought is as follows : “He that troubleth you by preaching circumcision shall bear his judgment; but I am not a disturber – not your enemy (chapter Gal 4:16<\/span>), for I do not preach circumcision; and the proof of this is that I am persecuted. If I preached circumcision, there would be no offense, and therefore no disturbance; for the cross would cease to be an offense, if, in addition to the cross, I preached just what the Judaisers assert, the necessity of circumcision.” <\/P>

Yet [] <\/SPAN><\/span>. As in the time before my conversion. The second epi is not temporal but logical, as Rom 3:7<\/span>; Rom 9:19<\/span>. What further ground is there for persecuting me? <\/P>

Then [] <\/SPAN><\/span>. As a consequence of my preaching circumcision. <\/P>

The offense of the cross [ ] <\/SPAN><\/span>. Comp. 1Co 1:23<\/span>. For offense, see on offend, Mt 5:29<\/span>. <\/P>

Ceased [] <\/SPAN><\/span>. Lit. been done away or brought to nought. See on verse 4. If Paul had preached circumcision as necessary to salvation, the preaching of the cross would have ceased to be an offense, because, along with the cross, Paul would have preached what the Judaisers demanded, that the Mosaic law should still be binding on Christians. The Judaisers would have accepted the cross with circumcision, but not the cross instead of circumcision. The Judaisers thus exposed themselves to no persecution in accepting Christ. They covered the offense of the cross, and conciliated unbelieving Jews by maintaining that the law was binding upon Christians. See chapter Gal 6:12<\/span>.<\/P> <\/p>\n

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

1) “And I, brethren,”<\/strong> (ego de adelphoi) “But I brethren,” an expression of Spiritual affinity, which Paul sought to use frequently in his writings, to reflect his sincere love for brethren in the churches, when in the right or in the wrong, Joh 13:35<\/span>.<\/p>\n

2) “If I yet preach circumcision,”<\/strong> (ei pepitomen eti keausso) “if I still proclaim circumcision;” Because Paul had required that Timothy, his missionary companion in travel from Galatia, be circumcised to avoid offence to the Jews upon going into their synagogues to preach, some seemed to have accused Paul of requiring circumcision for Salvation, Act 16:13<\/span>; 1Co 9:20<\/span>.<\/p>\n

3) “Why do I yet suffer persecution?”<\/strong> (ti eti diokomai); “Why am I still being persecuted?” Why would the Jews persecute me if I were preaching circumcision for the same purpose that they do, he asked, Gal 4:29<\/span>; Gal 6:12<\/span>.<\/p>\n

4) “Then is the offence of the cross ceased,”<\/strong> (ara katergetai to skandalon tou staurou) “Then the offence of the cross has been nullified,” or annulled, 1Co 15:20<\/span>. Has the stumbling-block of the cross been removed by my preaching, Paul would inquire, or explain. If Jesus saves by circumcision, He does not save by His death on the cross, see? 1Co 1:23-24<\/span>; Gal 6:14<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

11. And I, brethren. This argument, is drawn from the final cause. “It would be completely in my power,” he says, “to avoid the displeasure of men, and every kind of danger and persecution, were I only to mix ceremonies with Christ. The earnestness with which I oppose them is not on my own account, nor for my own advantage.” But does it therefore follow that his doctrine is true? I answer, proper feelings and pure conscience, when manifested by a teacher, have no small share in obtaining confidence. Besides, it cannot be believed that any man would be so mad as to take measures, of his own accord, for bringing distress upon himself. Lastly, he throws upon his adversaries the suspicion, that, in preaching circumcision, they were more disposed to consult their own ease than to be faithful in the service of Christ. In short, Paul was at the farthest remove from ambition, covetousness, or regard to personal interest, since he despised favor and applause, and exposed himself to the persecutions and fury of the multitude rather than swerve a hair’s-breadth from the purity of the gospel. <\/p>\n

Then is the offense of the cross ceased. Willingly does Paul, in speaking of the gospel, call it the cross, or the preaching of the cross, when he wishes to bring its poor, simple style, into contrast with the “great swelling words” (Jud 1:16<\/span>) of human wisdom or righteousness. For the Jews, puffed up with an ill-founded confidence in their righteousness, and the Greeks, with a foolish belief of their wisdom, despised the meanness of the gospel. When therefore he says that now, If the preaching of circumcision be admitted, the offense of the cross will no longer exist, he means that the gospel will meet with no annoyance from the Jews, but will be taught with their entire concurrence. And why? Because they will no longer take offense at a pretended and spurious gospel, gathered out of Moses and out of Christ, but will look with greater indulgence on that mixture which will leave them in possession of their former superiority. <\/p>\n

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

(11)And I, brethren.<\/strong>Rather, But I, brethren.<\/em> Another abrupt transition. We should naturally infer from this passage that St. Paul had at one time seemed to preach, or at least to permit,<\/em> circumcision. Thus, in the Acts, we should gather, from the account of the conference at Jerusalem in Acts 15<\/span>, that he did not insist strongly upon this point, and on taking Timothy with him upon his second missionary journeythe very journey in which he first visited Galatiahis first step was to have him circumcised. It was only natural that the progress of time and of events should deepen the Apostles conviction of the radical antagonism between the ceremonial Judaism and Christianity. This he is now stating in the most emphatic manner, and he feels that he is open to a charge of something like inconsistency. The Galatians might say that he preached circumcision himself. His answer is, that if he really preached circumcision he would not be so persecuted by the Judaising party. And he has also a further answer, which is conveyed in an ironical form: If I do<\/em> preach circumcision, and if I have ceased to lay stress on that one great stumbling-block, the cross of Christ, I may assume that there are no more hindrances in the way of my teaching. Circumcision is taken as occupying, in the Judaising system, the same place that the cross of Christ occupied in that of St. Paul. The two things are alternatives. If one is taught there is no need for the other.<\/p>\n

Ceased.<\/strong>Done away;<\/em> the same word as that which is translated become of no effect in Gal. 5:4<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

11<\/strong>. <\/strong> And I, brethren<\/strong> In antithesis to the above whoever<\/strong>. <\/p>\n

If I yet I <\/strong> preach circumcision<\/strong> As charged by this whosoever<\/strong>. The original charge was probably at first based on the case of Timothy. See notes on Act 16:3<\/span> and Gal 2:3<\/span>. Paul’s policy of becoming, in nonessentials, all things to all men even a Jew to Jews treating the mere act of circumcision, where it involved no vital concession, as admissible enabled the Judaist to pretend that in the other Pauline Churches Paul preached circumcision. <\/p>\n

Yet<\/strong> Since my conversion, as I did before my conversion. <\/p>\n

Why suffer persecution<\/strong> His endurances and scars were ample proof that he was a most consistent and uncompromising opponent of the foundation rite of Judaism. <\/p>\n

Yet<\/strong> Continually, while I am continually preaching circumcision<\/strong>. <\/p>\n

Then<\/strong> In case I preach justification by circumcision I make the cross a mere appendage. <\/p>\n

Offence ceased<\/strong> There is no ground for all these hostilities of Judaism toward me. The attacks of these Judaizers are my defence. They persecute me, and, therefore, they are untrue when they say that I preach circumcision elsewhere than in Galatia.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

‘But as for me brothers, if I still preach circumcision why am I still persecuted? Then the stumblingblock of the cross has been done away.’<\/p>\n

Some may have pointed at cases like Timothy’s where he had allowed circumcision. And he no doubt still allowed Christian Jews to circumcise their sons if they wished to. But they then accuse him of ‘preaching circumcision’ by his actions. Thus he is at pains to defend himself. He points out that he suffers persecution precisely because he preaches the message of the cross as the only way of salvation, and rejects anything else as necessary for salvation. That is the stumblingblock of the cross, the fact that it does away with all merit and all deserving, that it brings all under the curse of God. It is that it tells us that the only way that we can be put in the right with God is by looking to One Who died on a cross, openly under God’s curse. It requires submission on the basis of total unworthiness. It rejects any attempt by men to contribute to their own salvation. The reason that the cross is a stumblingblock is because by it all else, and especially circumcision, is put in its proper place as not being essential. From a salvation point of view it is irrelevant, no matter what it is. It says that all must be accepted as cursed. Thus all ordinances and good works are excluded as contributing to salvation. Such ordinances, including circumcision, may be all right for those whose customs they are, as long as that is all that they make of it, but they must not be magnified into something supremely important, something essential to being saved. As Paul tells us elsewhere, what he is saying may be foolishness to men (1Co 1:18<\/span>; 1Co 1:21-25<\/span>) but in it is revealed the wisdom of God.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

The service of love as opposed to the service of the flesh:<\/p>\n

v. 11<\/strong>. and I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? Then is the offense of the Cross ceased.<\/strong><\/p>\n

v. 12<\/strong>. I would they were even cut off which trouble you.<\/strong><\/p>\n

v. 13<\/strong>. For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.<\/strong><\/p>\n

v. 14<\/strong>. For all the Law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.<\/strong><\/p>\n

v. 15<\/strong>. But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.<\/p>\n

<\/strong> Paul here finds it necessary to deny a charge of the false teachers that he himself was still preaching circumcision. It may be that the resolution of the meeting at Jerusalem was deliberately misconstrued, Act 15:1-41<\/span>, or the opponents were making the best of the fact that Paul had circumcised Timothy, Act 16:3<\/span>. But the apostle finds little difficulty in refuting the charge: If I am still preaching circumcision, if that be true that I am insisting upon this rite as a prerequisite for salvation, why is it that I am yet persecuted? Why should the Jews and the Jewish teachers continue their attacks upon him? What reason would they have for such behavior? Then the offense of the Cross has been entirely removed; or: Has the stumbling block of the Cross, then, been put away? No Jew would then have to be offended any more at the Savior’s death on the cross, at the message that Christ’s death was the only ground of salvation, for Paul’s own preaching would have been retracted, then he would have admitted that the Jewish ceremonies were still necessary for justification.<\/p>\n

But so offensive is this very thought to the apostle that he cries out: Would that they had even made themselves eunuchs that cause you to rebel! Since they overemphasized the rite of circumcision, Paul wishes that they might go a step farther and proceed to the mutilation of the flesh like that practiced by many heathen in that region of Galatia, who made this a practice in honor of the goddess Cybele. For then they would be excluded from the Jewish community, Deu 23:1<\/span>, and there would be some hope of their accepting the gracious liberty of the Gospel, or at least of no longer hindering such as put their trust in the Gospel.<\/p>\n

But as for the Galatian Christians, Paul reminds them: For you were called to liberty, brethren; only (use) not your liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but through love serve one another. The condition of the false teachers was that of servitude to the Law, and their endeavor aimed at foisting this bondage upon the Christians; for them, therefore, the apostle has only a malediction. But the condition of the believers is that of liberty, of the freedom of the Gospel, to which they have been called, into which they have been brought. It is the glorious liberty of the children of God. But liberty is not identical with license. And so the believers will not place their liberty into service in such a way as to offer an opening for sin. The freedom of the Gospel does not permit a person to do as he pleases, does not sanction indulgence in sinful lusts. The liberty which the believers enjoy should rather be treated as an opening for loving service toward one another. A true Christian will subordinate all selfish desires to the eager desire to be of service to his neighbor; a true Christian is the freest person in the world, and yet, by his own free will, he is never without service. And thus, as a believer, as a partaker of the freedom of the Gospel, the Christian is enabled to do what he could never have done while in bondage to the Law: he can practice love, which is the fulfillment of the Law: The entire Law is fulfilled in that one sentence, namely, in this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, Love is the substance of the Law, and therefore by showing perfect love we fulfill the Law. The precept of Lev 19:18<\/span> gives a summary of the Law, showing that the keeping of the Law must proceed from the right condition of the heart; for then the external works will follow as a matter of course. “For that reason we are called to liberty, we fulfill the entire Law, when we, in case our neighbor needs it, serve him alone through love. ” But if, on the other hand, people calling themselves Christians bite and devour each other, as Paul expresses it, then they may well take heed lest the result be that they consume each other. If the spirit of Christian love does not prevent believers from preying upon one another, they are in danger of utter destruction. This may well have been the case in the Galatian congregations, when the contrast between Jewish and Gentile Christians was brought out by the agitation attending the message of the false teachers. Note: This is always the result of factions and divisions within the Christian congregations; if no party is willing to act according to the great principle of love and all are disposed to supplant the rest, the end often shows a wasting away of the entire organization.<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Gal 5:11<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>Persecution?<\/em><\/strong><\/strong> The persecution <\/em>which St. Paul was still under, was a convincing argument that he was not for circumcision and subjection to the law; for it was from the Jews, upon that account, that at this time arose almost all the persecutions which the Christians suffered;as may be seen throughout the history of the Acts: <\/em>nor are there wanting clear footsteps of it in several other places of this Epistle, as ch. Gal 3:4<\/span> Gal 6:12-14<\/span>. <\/p>\n

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Gal 5:11<\/span> . But I<\/em> , on my part. The Judaistic teachers, whom the apostle thus confronts, had (see Chrysostom), as is evident from our passage with the view of weakening the hindrance, which among Pauline churches they could not but encounter in the authority of the apostle opposing them alleged (perhaps making use of Timothy’s circumcision, Act 16:3<\/span> , for this purpose) that Paul himself still (in other churches) preached circumcision;<\/em> that is, that, when Gentiles went over to Christianity, they should allow themselves to be circumcised. This calumny (comp. also Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschr<\/em> . 1860, p. 216 ff.) was sufficiently absurd to admit of his dismissing it, as he does here, with all brevity, and with what a striking experimental proof! But if I am still preaching circumcision, wherefore am I still persecuted?<\/em> For the persecution on the part of the Jews was based on the very fact of the antagonism to the law<\/em> , which characterized his preaching of the Crucified One<\/em> . See the sequel.<\/p>\n

] Paul might also have said, . . , . . , for he means what objectively<\/em> is not a real<\/em> matter of fact. But he transfers himself directly into the thought of his opponents<\/em> , and just as directly shows its absurdity; he assumes the reality of what his opponents asserted<\/em> , and then by the apodosis annuls it as preposterous: hence the sense cannot be, as it is defined by Holsten, that his persecution on account of no longer preaching circumcision had not, possibly, the alleged pretext of making the Gentiles complete members of the theocracy, but only the one motive of national vanity and selfishness, to annul the offence of the cross. [230]<\/p>\n

The emphasis is laid on ; but <\/em><\/strong> , still<\/em> (see Schneider, ad Plat. Rep<\/em> . p. 449 C), does not convey the idea that Paul, as apostle<\/em> , had formerly preached circumcision. For although the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit produced in none of the apostles at once and absolutely the laying aside of all religious error previously cherished, but led them forward by gradual and individual development into the whole truth (see Lcke’s apt remarks on John ii. 10, p. 501); yet in the case of Paul especially, just because he was converted in the midst of his zealotry for the law, the assumption that he had still preached the necessity of circumcision for salvation, and had thus done direct homage to the fundamental error opposed to the revelation of God in him (Gal 1:15<\/span> ), and to His gospel which had been revealed to him (Gal 1:11<\/span> f.), would be quite unpsychological<\/em> . And in a historical<\/em> point of view it would be at variance with the decidedly antinomistic character of his whole apostolic labours as known to us (comp. Act 21:21<\/span> ), as well as with the circumstance that the requirement of circumcision in the case of the Gentile Christians, Act 15<\/span> , came upon the apostolical church as something quite new and unheard of, and therefore produced so much excitement, and in fact occasioned the apostolic conference. In a purely exegetical point of view, moreover, such an assumption is not compatible with , because we should thereby be led to the inference that, so long as Paul preached circumcision, he had not<\/em> been persecuted; and yet at the very beginning of his Christian labours he was persecuted by the Jews (Act 9:24<\/span> f.; 2Co 11:32<\/span> f.). Rckert (comp. Baumgarten-Crusius and de Wette) is of opinion that in using they only mean to say that Paul, although he preached Christ, required that, notwithstanding this, they should still allow themselves to he circumcised<\/em> . Comp. Olshausen, who refers to the inferiority of the tendency<\/em> . But in Olshausen’s view, the reference to an earlier still remains unremoved; and in that of Rckert, the <\/em><\/strong> is unwarrantably withdrawn from the apostle and passed over to the side of those to whom he preached. Even if (with Hofmann [231] ) we understand the as in contradistinction to the earlier time, when the preaching of circumcision had been of general occurrence and had been in its due place<\/em> , the reference of this is transferred to a general practice of the earlier time<\/em> , although, according to the words of the apostle, it clearly and distinctly assumes his own<\/em> previous . The correct<\/em> view is the usual<\/em> one, adopted also by Winer, Usteri, Matthies, Schott, Hilgenfeld, Ewald, Wieseler, that points back to the period before the conversion of the apostle<\/em> . Certainly the objection is made (see Reithmayr and Hofmann), that Paul at that time, as a Jew among Jews, and coming in contact with Jewish Christians only, had no occasion at all to preach circumcision. But looking at our slight acquaintance with the circumstances of the apostle’s pre-Christian life, this conclusion is formed much too rashly. For, as for God and the law (Act 22:3<\/span> ; comp. Gal 1:14<\/span> ; Phi 3:5<\/span> ), Saul, who was an energetic and (comp. Act 22:4-5<\/span> ) esteemed Pharisaic Rabbi, might often have had occasion enough to preach and to defend circumcision, partly in the interest of proselytizing, and partly also in polemic conflict with Christians in and beyond Judaea, who maintained that their faith, and not their circumcision, was the cause of salvation.<\/p>\n

;<\/em> ] This also, which by most (including de Wette and Wieseler) is taken as logical<\/em> , as in Rom 3:7<\/span> ; Rom 9:19<\/span> , cannot without arbitrary procedure be understood otherwise than as temporal:<\/em> “Why am I yet always<\/em> persecuted?” Why have they not yet ceased<\/em> to persecute me? They could not but in fact have seen how groundless this was!<\/p>\n

. . .] is, as always, igitur, rebus sic se habentibus<\/em> (if, namely, I still preach circumcision). Paul gives information concerning the foregoing question, how far, namely, there no longer existed any cause, etc.: thus therefore is the offence of the cross done away<\/em> , that is, the occasion for the rejection of the gospel, which is afforded by the circumstance that the death of Christ on the cross is preached as the only ground of salvation (1Co 1:23<\/span> ; Phi 3:18<\/span> ). If Paul had at the same time preached circumcision also as necessary to salvation, then would the Jew have seen his law upheld, and the cross would have been inoffensive to him; but when, according to his decisive principle, Gal 2:21<\/span> , he preached the death of the cross as the end of the law (Gal 3:13<\/span> ; Rom 10:3<\/span> , et al<\/em> .), and rejected all legal righteousness then the Jew took offence at the cross, and rejected the faith. Comp. Chrysostom and Theophylact. To take it as an interrogation<\/em> (Syr., Bengel on Gal 5:12<\/span> , Usteri, Ewald, and others) with which the accentuation might have been (comp. on Gal 2:17<\/span> ) appears logically not inappropriate after , but yields a less striking<\/em> continuation of the discourse.<\/p>\n

[230] Holsten has, in a special excursus ( z. Evang. d. Paul. u. Petr<\/em> . p. 337 ff.), acutely explained his interpretation, and endeavoured to vindicate it. At the close he puts it in this shape: “Paul wishes to denounce to the Galatians the secret<\/em> , unexpressed ground of his persecution on the part of his opponents: ‘ I, dear brethren, am only persecuted because I no longer preach circumcision; for, if I still preach it as the divine will, why am I still persecuted? Thus indeed is the offence of the cross annulled!<\/em> ’ ” But still Paul must have had some special inducement for positing, in . . ., a notoriously non-real case as a logical reality; and this inducement could only be found in the corresponding accusation of his opponents. Otherwise it would be difficult to see why he should not have thrown his language into such a form, that the protasis should have begun either with and the imperfect or with ( because<\/em> ), and the expression of the apodoses should have undergone corresponding modification. According to Holsten’s view, the words have a dialectic enigmatical obscurity, which, looking at the simplicity of the underlying idea, would be without motive.<\/p>\n

[231] According to Hofmann, the apostle’s meaning is, “that they would have no longer any cause for persecuting him, so soon as his preaching of Jesus Christ should be that, which it is not a continuance of the preaching of circumcision at the present time.” This is also unsuitable, because would introduce a sumtio ficti<\/em> , and that indeed in the view of Paul himself. Certainly with the present indicative might be so put; but in the apodosis the optative with must have been used, as is the case in the passages compared by Hofmann himself (Xen. Anab<\/em> . vii. 6. 15, v. 6. 12. See also Memor<\/em> ii. 2. 3; Bornemann, ad Sympos<\/em> . 4. 10, 5. 7; Klotz, ad Devar<\/em> . p. 487).<\/p>\n

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

DISCOURSE: 2081
OFFENCE OF THE CROSS<\/strong><\/p>\n

Gal 5:11<\/span>. Then is the offence of the cross ceased<\/em>.<\/p>\n

THE Gospel, in the first ages, was an object of hatred and persecution both amongst Jews and Gentiles: to the Jews it was a stumbling-block, and to the Greeks foolishness [Note: 1Co 1:23<\/span>.]: and it was the one constant labour of them both to corrupt it; the one by their traditions; the other by that which was falsely called philosophy. Hence, whilst those opposite parties felt the utmost contempt for each other, they united their efforts against Christianity; as Herod and Pontius Pilate had done for the destruction of its Founder.<\/p>\n

In the passage before us, St. Paul is guarding his converts against the attempts of the Judaizing teachers; who sought to bring back their brethren to a dependence on the law, and who laboured even to subject the Gentile converts also to an observance of the Mosaic ritual. Circumcision, in particular, was that which these teachers insisted on as ordained of God and as of perpetual obligation. St. Paul tells the Galatians, that the whole of the Mosaic ritual was abrogated; and that they must never suffer any one to bring them into subjection to it [Note: ver. 1.]. If he would have consented that the Jews should blend the Law with the Gospel, they would have been well pleased with him and with his doctrines too: If, says he, I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? for then is the offence of the cross ceased.<\/p>\n

From these words I will endeavour to shew,<\/p>\n

1.<\/p>\n

Whence it is that the doctrine of the cross gives offence<\/p>\n

The doctrine of the cross is simply that declaration, that Christ died upon the cross for our redemption, and that through his obedience unto death we must obtain favour with God
Now this doctrine uniformly gives offence to those who hear it, whether they be Jews or Gentiles. For it is,<\/p>\n

1.<\/p>\n

An humiliating doctrine<\/p>\n

[It brings down all men upon a level; so far, at least, that they must renounce all dependence on themselves, and seek for salvation solely through the righteousness of another. It leaves no room for any man to boast, or to glory in any thing that he possesses. The best, as well as the worst, must owe their salvation simply and entirely to Christ, from first to last ]<\/p>\n

2.<\/p>\n

An unaccommodating doctrine<\/p>\n

[It will not bend to mens prejudices or passions: nor must its advocates give way to any one, no, not for an hour. Moral works, as well as ceremonial, must be excluded utterly from the office of justifying the soul; and the whole glory must be given to Christ alone ]<\/p>\n

3.<\/p>\n

A peremptory doctrine<\/p>\n

[It appeals not to our reason, but demands assent to its dictates. It requires the most perfect submission to all that it inculcates; and threatens with eternal damnation every one who withholds his assent from its truths, or his obedience to its commands. Its plain declaration is, He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved; and he that believeth not shall be damned.
On these grounds, I say, it is hated. It is esteemed licentious, bigoted, severe: licentious, as denying any merit to works, and therefore cutting off all motives for the performance of them; bigoted, as admitting of no relaxation, but binding all persons to receive it simply as it is; and severe, as denouncing such heavy judgments on all who cannot bring their minds to embrace it.]
The Apostle clearly supposes that this character is essential to the Gospel; and that it will, to the remotest ages, give the same offence. We inquire therefore,<\/p>\n

II.<\/p>\n

Why it can never cease to do so<\/p>\n

Two reasons may be assigned;<\/p>\n

1.<\/p>\n

The Gospel must ever remain the same<\/p>\n

[No alteration has ever taken place in it, or ever can take place. It is a revelation of the way which God has devised for the salvation of fallen man. He gave up his only-begotten Son to die for us, and by his own blood to make an atonement for our sins. The Lord Jesus Christ has executed this great work, and become obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. That cross we preach, as the one only means of reconciling man to God: and all the servants of God have but this one testimony to bear; namely, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them [Note: 2Co 5:18-20<\/span>.]. We have nothing to announce about the merits of man: we are not authorized to make any distinction between one man and another: we are to bear the same testimony to all, whether Jews or Greeks, bond or free: and without hesitation must we declare to all, that no other foundation of hope for sinful man can ever be laid, than that which God has laid, which is Jesus Christ [Note: 1Co 3:11<\/span>.]; and that there is no other name given under heaven whereby any man can be saved [Note: Act 4:12<\/span>.].<\/p>\n

Now, if this could admit of any change, or any modification, we might hope to please men: but we are shut up to this: we can preach nothing else; and they must hear nothing else: and if they will not receive this, there is no alternative left them: perish they must, and under an accumulated condemnation too: for they will be judged, not only as transgressors of the law, but as despisers of the Gospel also; and, consequently, will have a far sorer punishment to bear, than if they had never heard of the salvation provided for them.]<\/p>\n

2.<\/p>\n

Human nature ever remains the same<\/p>\n

[Men are born into the world with all the same propensities as they were in the apostolic age. Man has, by nature, the same pride of heart, that rises against the humiliating doctrines before specified. Every one wishes to have within himself some ground of glorying. To be stripped naked, as it were, without so much as one rag of righteousness, as the Scripture expresses it, to cover him [Note: Isa 64:6<\/span>.], is more than he can endure. To be nothing<\/em>, that Christ may be all<\/em>, is a hard lesson.<\/p>\n

Again: the heart of man is as worldly as ever: it affects not the things that are above, but the things only of time and sense. But the same Gospel which requires such self-renunciation in its principles<\/em>, requires no less self-denial in its practice<\/em>. We must live not in any degree to ourselves, but wholly and unchangeably unto Him who died for us, and rose again. To this our carnal hearts will not submit: and until the heart be changed by grace, it will ever quarrel with these appointments, as unreasonably precise. In no point of view whatever is the Gospel palatable to the carnal mind: let a new heart be given to a man, and all will be well: but, whilst the heart of man continues what it is, the offence of the cross can never cease.]<\/p>\n

Address
1.<\/p>\n

Let none reject the Gospel on account of the offence attaching to it<\/p>\n

[Many conceive the doctrine of the cross must be erroneous, because it is everywhere spoken against. But, if this is any argument against the doctrine now, it was so equally in the apostolic age; for the enmity of mankind against it was most inveterate and universal. I will certainly grant, that the existence of enmity against any doctrine will not of itself prove that doctrine to be true; for then the most pernicious tenets of the wildest enthusiasts would have a claim to our belief. But this is certain, that any Gospel which gives no offence, must be false<\/em>. There are multitudes who hear what they call<\/em> the Gospel, and are extremely well pleased with it: the worldly approve it: the self-righteous approve it: even the most profligate find no fault with it. Can that<\/em>, I ask, be the Gospel which Paul preached? It is impossible. I know, indeed, that there is a way of preaching even truth itself without offence: but the<\/em> truth, the whole<\/em> truth delivered with authority as the truth of God<\/em> must give offence. Men have no alternative left them, but to be offended with the preacher, or with themselves. And the very offence which they take is so far from being an argument against the doctrines they have heard, that it is a presumptive argument in their favour. If, then, you hear the doctrine of the cross firmly stated, and find that it gives offence, take it and compare it with the doctrine which St. Paul delivered: and, if you find that it accords with his, then embrace it, and hold it fast, and glory in it; saying, God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ; by which the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world,]<\/p>\n

2.<\/p>\n

Let none cause others to reject it, by giving any needless offence<\/p>\n

[Many who have embraced the Gospel are sadly inattentive to the feelings and prejudices of those around them. They will run into many absurdities, without ever considering what stumbling-blocks they lay in the way of their unconverted brethren. Some give great offence by the crude and partial statements which they make of the Gospel; and others, by the harsh, uncharitable, and contemptuous way in which they speak of those who do not accord with their views. It is a great misfortune to the world to have such persons connected with them; because they are almost of necessity led to impute to the Gospel itself the indiscretions and absurdities of those who profess it. Let these incautious professors consider what evil they do, and what guilt they contract: for if there is a woe to the world because of offences, there is a double woe to those by whom the offence cometh. As for those who cause the way of truth to be evil spoken of by their inconsistent conduct, by their neglect of their own proper calling; for instance, by a want of truth in their words, or integrity in their dealings; let them look to it; for evil is before them: and the very Gospel which they so dishonour will plunge them into tenfold perdition. Let all who profess the Gospel see to it, that they give no needless offence in any thing. Let them rather be far more observant of the whole of their duty, that they may give no occasion to the enemy to speak reproachfully: and let it be their one continued care to adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.]<\/p>\n<\/p>\n


<\/strong><\/p>\n

Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

11 And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

Ver. 11. Why do I yet suffer persecution<\/strong> ] From the Jews zealous of the law. It is well observed that the nearer any are unto a conjunction in matters of religion, and yet some difference retained, the deeper is the hatred. a<\/em> A Jew hates a Christian worse than he doth a Turk or Pagan. A Papist hates a Protestant worse than he doth a Jew, &c.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

a<\/em> Dr Day upon1Co 16:9<\/span>1Co 16:9<\/span> . <\/p>\n

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

11<\/strong> .] The connexion appears to be this: the Apostle had apparently been charged with being a favourer of circumcision in other churches; as shewn e.g. by his having circumcised Timothy. After the preceding sharp denunciation of , and , it is open to the adversaries to say, that Paul himself was one of their , by his inconsistency. In the abruptness then of his fervid thoughts he breaks out in this self-defence. <\/strong> , emphatic as before.<\/p>\n

<\/strong> has the chief emphasis, as the new element in the sentence, and not <\/strong> , as Chrys. ( , , , , ), al., its position not allowing this. The first <\/strong> is best understood, as referring, not to any change in his preaching as an Apostle (for he appears always to have been of the same mind, and certainly was from the first persecuted by the Jews), but to the change since his conversion, before which he was a strenuous fautor of Judaism. Olsh. objects to this, that could not be used of that period. But this (even if it be necessary to press . so far into matter of fact) cannot be said with any certainty: the course of Saul as a zealot may have often led him even to preach, if not circumcision in its present debated position, yet that strict Judaism of which it formed a part.<\/p>\n

<\/strong> .<\/strong> ] <\/strong> is logical, as in reff. (De W.): i.e., what further excuse is there for my being<\/strong> (as I am) persecuted<\/strong> (by the Jews) ? For<\/strong> , if this is so, if I still preach circumcision, , then is brought to nought<\/strong> , is done away, the<\/strong> OFFENCE (reff. stumbling-block, . has the emphasis) of the cross<\/strong> because, if circumcision, and not faith in Christ crucified, is the condition of salvation, then the Cross has lost its offensive character to the Jew: , . , , . . Chrys.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Gal 5:11<\/span> . It seems strange in view of Paul’s later career that he should have needed to repudiate, however briefly and scornfully, the charge of still preaching circumcision as he had before his conversion. After his open breach with the synagogue, indeed, at Corinth and at Ephesus it would have been hardly possible to advance such a plea. But he had recently, before writing this Epistle, taken two steps open to this misconstruction on which agitators could fasten. He had deposited with the Galatians for their guidance the resolution adopted by the Church at Jerusalem which recommended scrupulous regard for the Law in certain matters, and he had himself circumcised a Galatian convert whose father had been a Greek. Paul contents himself with pointing for answer to the persecutions which he was still enduring at the hands of Jews, probably those which befel him in Macedonia. . The interrogative is far more appropriate to the context than the inferential . The Apostle, being accused of currying favour with the Jews, points indignantly to the persecutions he was suffering from them and exclaims, “Hath the stumbling-block of the Cross been done away?”<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

if Greek. ei. App-118. <\/p>\n

preach. Greek. kerusso. App-121. <\/p>\n

do I, &c. = am I still persecuted. <\/p>\n

offence. Greek. skandalon. See 1Co 1:23. <\/p>\n

ceased. Greek. katargeo. See Gal 5:4. <\/p>\n

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

11.] The connexion appears to be this: the Apostle had apparently been charged with being a favourer of circumcision in other churches; as shewn e.g. by his having circumcised Timothy. After the preceding sharp denunciation of , and , it is open to the adversaries to say, that Paul himself was one of their , by his inconsistency. In the abruptness then of his fervid thoughts he breaks out in this self-defence. , emphatic as before.<\/p>\n

has the chief emphasis, as the new element in the sentence, and not , as Chrys. ( , , , , ), al.,-its position not allowing this. The first is best understood, as referring, not to any change in his preaching as an Apostle (for he appears always to have been of the same mind, and certainly was from the first persecuted by the Jews), but to the change since his conversion, before which he was a strenuous fautor of Judaism. Olsh. objects to this, that could not be used of that period. But this (even if it be necessary to press . so far into matter of fact) cannot be said with any certainty:-the course of Saul as a zealot may have often led him even to preach, if not circumcision in its present debated position, yet that strict Judaism of which it formed a part.<\/p>\n

.] is logical, as in reff. (De W.): i.e., what further excuse is there for my being (as I am) persecuted (by the Jews)? For, if this is so, if I still preach circumcision, , then is brought to nought, is done away, the OFFENCE (reff. stumbling-block, . has the emphasis) of the cross-because, if circumcision, and not faith in Christ crucified, is the condition of salvation, then the Cross has lost its offensive character to the Jew: , . , , . . Chrys.<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Gal 5:11. [48]) still [as yet], ch. Gal 1:10.-, I preach) Hence we gather what had been said by this turbulent person, that Paul himself preached circumcision; and perhaps he took as a pretext the circumcision of Timothy; and yet the reason for his having done so in the case of the latter, a long while back, was quite different [from the grounds on which it was advocated by the disturber].-, I suffer persecution) They persecuted Paul, because he did away with circumcision. It was now a useless rite, which, if Paul would have conceded to his opponents, there would have been immediate peace; but he did not yield. See how keenly the truth should be defended.-, then) If I were to preach circumcision, he says, there would at present be no offence of the Cross; but the offence still burns hotly. Therefore it is a false assertion, that I am a preacher of circumcision.-, an offence) among carnal men.- , of the Cross) the power of which is inconsistent with circumcision; ch. Gal 6:12; Gal 6:14. The Cross of Christ itself is intended. There was a great blending together of Jews and Judaizers. Many more easily endured the preaching of the Cross of Christ, by mixing it up with circumcision and the preaching of circumcision. They thus still retained something.<\/p>\n

[48] This particle in the larger Ed. is reckoned rather as an uncertain reading, but by the margin of the 2d Ed. it is considered among the more certain, and therefore also in the Germ. Vers. It is twice expressed in this verse.-E. B.<\/p>\n

D corrected later, Gfg, omit . But AB Vulg. and Rec. Text retain it. C has .-ED.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Gal 5:11<\/p>\n

Gal 5:11<\/p>\n

But I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision,-The persecutions which Paul endured were instigated by the Jews, greatly because he refused to require the Gentiles to be circumcised. This is especially true of the persecutions which arose against him in the Gentile countries. There is some obscurity as to the bearing of this. Many think that these false teachers had accused Paul of inconsistency in circumcising Timothy and not forbidding the Jews to circumcise their children, so that he taught one way with the Jews, another with the Gentiles, seeking to please both.<\/p>\n

why am I still persecuted? then hath the stumbling-block of the cross been done away.-If this be so-if Christ be preached and at the same time circumcision be taught-the preaching of the cross has ceased to be an offense; because, as said before, the chief ground of offense to the Jews was that Paul preached that the law was done away in Christ.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

if: Gal 2:3, Act 16:3 <\/p>\n

why: Gal 4:29, Gal 6:12, Gal 6:17, Act 21:21, Act 21:28, Act 22:21, Act 22:22, Act 23:13, Act 23:14, 1Co 15:30, 2Co 11:23-26 <\/p>\n

the offence: Isa 8:14, Rom 9:32, Rom 9:33, 1Co 1:18, 1Co 1:23, 1Pe 2:8, 1Pe 2:9 <\/p>\n

Reciprocal: Mat 5:30 – offend Mat 11:6 – whosoever Act 15:19 – that Gal 2:18 – General Eph 3:1 – for Phi 1:10 – without 1Th 2:16 – Forbidding<\/p>\n

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Gal 5:11. , , , ;-But I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? The first is omitted in some MSS. The difficulty of the temporal allusion may have suggested the omission. He never or at any time preached circumcision since he became an apostle. The is again emphatic in position and expression-as for me; and the is not transitional simply, but indicates a contrast. There were troublers among them, and they shall bear their judgment. Such a crimination did not apply to him, though he had been unjustly charged. It would seem that some of these troublers alleged his patronage, and were sheltering themselves under his example. He had circumcised Timothy; nay, to Jews he became as a Jew; and his practice, misunderstood, might be quoted in favour of Judaizing inconsistency. But, in direct opposition to all arguments and apologies, he says, As for me, if I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? -if I preach-if it be a fact that I preach. See under Gal 1:9. The refers to a period prior to his conversion, when, of course, circumcision was a prominent article of his creed and advocacy. He may have taken the word from his present form of labour, and applied it, though not with perfect accuracy, to his previous maintenance of Judaism in its integrity (Gal 1:14). The present tense is used, as if borrowed from the allegation of his opponents-he preaches yet circumcision,- having the stress. To preach circumcision is to maintain the observance of it to be necessary to salvation, and that all Gentile converts should submit to it as essential to their admission to the church, and their hope of final acceptance. <\/p>\n

The apostle’s reply to the charge of preaching circumcision is decisive- -why am I still persecuted? This second may be regarded, but not necessarily, not as temporal, but as logical- Rom 3:7; Rom 9:19 -If I preach circumcision, what reason is there that I should be persecuted? The fact of his being persecuted by the Jews and Judaists was surely a proof that he was neither preaching circumcision, nor was regarded by them as preaching it. Had he been preaching circumcision, would not they have joyfully clung to him? The conclusion is inevitable- <\/p>\n

-then the offence of the cross is done away with. 1Co 1:23. A and C, 39, 40, add , and so Jerome with the Coptic and AEthiopic versions. The addition is an exegetical emendation. The Syriac version takes the clause interrogatively, and Knapp and Vater so point it. Bengel is not disinclined to it, and Usteri and Ewald adopt it. But there is no necessity for it, and the statement by such a turn becomes feebler in character. The particle leads to a somewhat unexpected conclusion (Klotz-Devarius, ii. p. 160. See under Gal 2:17; Gal 2:21)-those things being so-then after all, ergo in the Latin versions. The noun occurs often in the New Testament and the Septuagint, and properly is not offence, but that at which one stumbles or takes offence-found with its literal meaning, Lev 19:14 – , but only tropically in the New Testament. Morus and others understand figuratively, as denoting suffering on account of Christ. But this sense weakens the declaration, for the apostle speaks directly of Christ’s cross as involved in the controversy, and in the phrase adduced from Mat 16:24 it is his own cross that a man is asked to take up. The offence of the cross is the offence which the Jews took at the idea of salvation through the Crucified One, and Him alone: Gal 6:12; 1Co 1:17; Php 2:8. Salvation by the blood of the cross was a sore stumblingblock to their national pride-an open affront to their cherished theology; for He that died on Calvary had been rejected by their people, and doomed for blasphemy and treason to a public execution. To speak of that instrument of shame and agony as the means of salvation inflamed their bitterest prejudices, and chafed them into an unscrupulous and malignant hostility, which plumed itself on doing God service when it put down and thwarted in every way, even unto death, the preachers and disciples of a crucified Messiah. 1Th 2:15. <\/p>\n

Fuente: Commentary on the Greek Text of Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians and Phillipians<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Gal 5:11. Some Judaizers charged that Paul was practicing or advocating circumcision as a religious rite. A pretex for such a false claim may have been drawn from the fact that he had Timothy circumcised (Act 16:3), disregarding the fact that he had Jewish blood in his veins, and thus had a right to it from a national standpoint. In our present verse Paul shows the foolishness of such a claim. Circumcision was the main issue between him and the Judaizers, and they were also the ones who were persecuting the apostle. If he was advocating the practice of circumcision, then nothing would be left in connection with the religion coming from the cross that would be so offensive to the Jews.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Gal 5:11. If I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? Then hath the offence (or stumbling block) of the cross been done away. The first still refers to the time since his conversion from Judaism. If circumcision is preached as a condition of salvation, then the cross, that is, the crucifixion, the doctrine of salvation by the atoning death of Christ, has lost its offensive character to the Jews, and there is no further reason for persecution by the Jews. The false teachers had probably spread the malicious report that Paul himself preached circumcision, because he practised it in the case of Timothy who had a Jewish mother (Act 16:1-3); but this was exceptional and a measure of expediency and charity, not a surrender of the principle.<\/p>\n

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Our apostle, in these words, signifies to us, that some of the judaizing teachers had suggested to the Galatians, as if he himself had preached elsewhere the doctrine of circumcision, and also practised the duty of circumcision, (by circumcising Timothy,) which here he opposes. “True, he did circumcise Timothy, but it was only to avoid offending the weak Jews, not out of any opinion which he had touching the necessity of circumcision: therefore, to discover to them the falsehood of that suggestion, he declares, that if he would have preached circumcision, he might have escaped persecution; the Jews were his persecutors, looking upon him as an apostate from their holy religion, for preaching up the abolishment of the Mosaic law.” <\/p>\n

Where observe, That the Jews, who looked upon themselves to be the people, yea, the peculiar and only people of God, and accounted all others contemptible and profane, were yet far greater persecutors of Christ and his apostles than the blind and barbarous Heathen, and all this out of zeal for God and his law: Why do I yet suffer persecution? implying, that the Jews did persecute him, that his not preaching circumcision was the cause why they did so.<\/p>\n

He adds, Then is the offence of the cross ceased.<\/p>\n

By the cross, may be understood either, 1. The doctrine of the cross, the doctrine of the gospel; and then the sense is, the Jews would not have taken such offence at my preaching the doctrine of the gospel as they do, were it not because by it circumcision, and the whole frame of the old legal administration, are laid aside.<\/p>\n

Or else, 2. By the cross, may be understood the afflictions and sufferings which he underwent for the sake of Christ and his holy religion; and the sense then is, Verily, all my suffering had long since been at an end, would I but have yielded the Jews this point, that Christians are obliged to circumcision, and to yield obedience to the law of Moses; would I grant them this, my sufferings would soon be at an end; but my daily persecutions are evident demonstrations that I do not preach up circumcision; for had I so done, the offences of the cross had long since ceased.<\/p>\n

Learn hence, That the faithful ministers of Jesus Chrsit, will not, dare not, conceal any part of the necessary truth, when the imminent hazard of people’s salvation calls for the preaching of it, though the embittered enemies of religion should raise against them the fiercest persecution for the same: If I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution?<\/p>\n

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Gal 5:11-12. And I, brethren If, as my enemies insinuate; I yet preach circumcision As necessary to salvation, and urge it upon the believing Gentiles; why do I yet suffer persecution From the Jews, as one apostatized from their religion? Probably the person that troubled them took occasion, from Pauls having circumcised Timothy, to affirm that he preached the necessity of submitting to that rite. Then is the offence of the cross ceased The grand reason why the Jews were so offended at his preaching Christ crucified, and so bitterly persecuted him for it, was, that it implied the abolition of the ceremonial law. Yet St. Paul did not condemn the conforming, out of condescension to the weakness of any one, to that law; but he did even absolutely condemn those who taught that this was necessary to justification. I would they were even cut off From your communion; cast out of your church; that thus trouble you It by no means agrees with the gentle genius of Christianity, to suppose that the apostle should mean by this, that he wished them dead, or wished that any bodily evil were inflicted upon them by human violence. All arguments, therefore, which are drawn from this text, in favour of persecuting principles, must be very inconclusive. Doddridge.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

But I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? then hath the stumbling-block of the cross been done away. [It is evident that in this verse Paul defends himself against the charge of having taught the necessity of circumcision by having circumcised Timothy. His answer is that false brethren might misconstrue his act for the purpose of founding false teaching upon it, but that the Jews, the real parties in interest, placed a truer construction upon the act, for they still continued to persecute him as an enemy to circumcision. If Paul had preached circumcision, the stumbling-block of the cross would have been done away. Paul taught that the whole Jewish system of ordinances perished at the cross, and that on the cross Jesus made the one and only atonement for sin. Such teaching was a stumbling-block to the Jews. Had Paul rejected the doctrine of the cross and preached circumcision, as these Judaizers contended that he did when they wished to countenance their errors with his authority, he would have been a hero among the Jews.] <\/p>\n

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Verse 11 <\/p>\n

It would seem from this passage that Paul had himself been charged with adhering to the necessity of circumcision.–Persecution; that is, from the Jews.–Is the offence–ceased; it would cease.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased. <\/p>\n

He has already alluded to the fact that those of bondage persecute those of freedom and grace, and he states clearly that he is persecuted, implying that it was coming from the Judaizers. Evidently someone had accused Paul of preaching obedience to the law and he logically dispels this rumor. <\/p>\n

Fuente: Mr. D’s Notes on Selected New Testament Books by Stanley Derickson<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

5:11 {10} And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased.<\/p>\n

(10) He wishes them to consider that he seeks not his own profit in this matter, seeing that he could avoid the hatred of men if he would join Judaism with Christianity.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n

Evidently some people were saying Paul advocated circumcision. He may have preached it before his Damascus road conversion, but since then he had stopped. Probably Paul meant that the accusation of his critics that he preached circumcision when it suited him was not true (cf. 1Co 7:18). [Note: Boice, p. 490.] <\/span> Paul thought it wise for some Christians, such as Timothy, to undergo circumcision for the sake of effective ministry (Act 16:3). However, he did not teach that it was necessary for salvation.<\/p>\n

Paul’s point here was that if he taught circumcision was necessary for salvation the Judaizers would not have persecuted him. If people need circumcision, they do not need the cross of Christ. The legalists opposed Paul’s preaching of the Cross because it implied that people are unable to please God themselves.<\/p>\n

"The skandalon<\/span> [stumbling block] of the cross, for Jews (cf. 1Co 1:23), lay in the curse which it involved for one who was hanged on it (cf. Gal 3:13). That one who died such a death should be proclaimed as Lord and Christ was intolerable. In the eyes of Gentiles the idea that salvation depended on one who had neither the wit nor the power to save himself from so disreputable a death was the height of folly. But there is a more general skandalon<\/span> attached to the cross, one of which Paul is probably thinking here: it cuts the ground from under every thought of personal achievement or merit where God’s salvation is in view. To be shut up to receiving salvation from the crucified one, if it is to be received at all, is an affront to all notions of proper self-pride and self-help-and for many people this remains a major stumbling-block in the gospel of Christ crucified. If I myself can make some small contribution, something even so small as the acceptance of circumcision, then my self-esteem is uninjured." [Note: Bruce, pp. 237-38.] <\/span><\/p>\n

In short, Paul’s gospel was a stumbling block for two reasons: it presented a crucified Messiah and it advocated a way of salvation apart from circumcision and the Law.<\/p>\n

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offense of the cross ceased. 11. Another abrupt transition of thought, rendering the connexion obscure and uncertain. It is however evident either that a charge of inconsistency had been brought against St Paul, or that the possibility of … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Galatians 5:11”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-29114","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29114","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=29114"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29114\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=29114"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=29114"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=29114"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}