And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? Then is the scandal of the cross made void.

“And, of course, it had been meet that the mystery of the passion itself should be figuratively set forth in predictions; and the more incredible (that mystery), the more likely to be "a stumbling-stone," if it had been nakedly predicted; and the more magnificent, the more to be adumbrated, that the difficulty of its intelligence might seek (help from) the grace of God.”

“Observe how clearly he exonerates himself from the charge, that in every place he judaized and played the hypocrite in his preaching. Of this he calls them as witnesses; for ye know, he says, that my command to abandon the Law was made the pretext for persecuting me. "If I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? for this is the only charge which they of the Jewish descent have to bring against me. Had I permitted them to receive the Faith, still retaining the customs of their fathers, neither believers nor unbelievers would have laid snares for me, seeing that none of their own usages were disturbed. What then! did he not preach circumcision? did he not circumcise Timothy? Truly he did. How then can he say, "I preach it not?" Here observe his accuracy; he says not, "I do not perform circumcision," but, "I preach it not," that is, I do not bid men so to believe. Do not therefore consider it any confirmation of your doctrine, for though I circumcised, I did not preach circumcision. That is, if this which ye assert be true, the obstacle, the hindrance, is removed; for not even the Cross was so great an offence to the Jews, as the doctrine that their father's customs ought not to be obeyed. When they brought Stephen before the council, they said not that this man adores the Crucified, but that he speaks "against this holy place and the Law." (Acts vi: 13.) And it was of this they accused Jesus, that He broke the Law. Wherefore Paul says, If Circumcision be conceded, the strife you are involved in is appeased; hereafter no enmity to the Cross and our preaching remains. But why do they bring this charge against us, while waiting day after day to murder us? it is because I brought an uncircumcised man into the Temple (Acts xxi: 29.) that they fell upon me. Am I then, he says, so senseless, after giving up the point of Circumcision, vainly and idly to expose myself to such injuries, and to place such a stumbling-block before the Cross? For ye observe, that they attack us for nothing with such vehemence as about Circumcision. Am I then so senseless as to suffer affliction for nothing at all, and to give offence to others? He calls it the offence of the Cross, because it was enjoined by the doctrine of the Cross; and it was this which principally offended the Jews, and hindered their reception of the Cross, namely, the command to abandon the usages of their fathers.”

“Since he speaks of a stumbling block here, he is reminding them that the principal reason for the Jews' taking offense at Christ was that they often saw him ignoring and disdaining those ceremonial observances which they believed themselves to have for their very salvation. What he says here, then, is as much as to say: "It was therefore in vain that the Jews in their indignation crucified Christ when he disdained these commandments. Now they still try to enjoin such things on those for whom he was crucified."”

“The Apostle has explained according to the teaching, namely, that the yoke of the servitude of the law should not be undergone; here, however, he returns to the first point, showing that they ought to stand firm. And first he sets forth an example of standing; second he removes an impediment to standing, at the words you were running well, etc.; third he assigns the cause of standing, at the words but we, in the Spirit, by faith, etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he sets forth the example of standing; second he assigns its cause, at the words for in Christ Jesus, etc. He says therefore: those who wish to be justified in the law, Christ profits them nothing, because they fall away from grace. But we — namely, the apostles — stand by hope, because, that is, we await the hope of justice, that is, justice and hope, namely, eternal blessedness. 1 Peter 1:3: he has regenerated us unto a living hope, etc. Or, the hope of justice, that is, Christ, through whom there is for us the hope of justice, because through him we are justified. Philippians 3:20: we await a savior, etc. 1 Corinthians 1:30: who is made unto us wisdom, and justice, and sanctification, and redemption, etc. Or the hope of justice, that is, the hope which is concerning justice, namely, that they be justified not by the law, but by faith. Romans 3:28: we reckon that man is justified by faith without the works of the law. Or the hope of justice, that is, the thing hoped for, toward which justice tends, namely, eternal life. 2 Timothy, last chapter: for the rest, there is laid up for me a crown of justice, etc. And this from faith, because the justice of God is through the faith of Jesus Christ, as is said in Romans 3:22. And this faith indeed is not from man, but from the Holy Spirit who inspires it. Romans 8:15: you have received the spirit of adoption of sons, whereby we cry: Abba, Father, etc. Therefore, just as faith is from the Spirit, so from faith is hope, from hope justice, through which we arrive at eternal life. But this hope does not come from circumcision, nor from being a Gentile, because these things contribute nothing to it. And therefore he says for in Christ Jesus, that is, in those who are in the faith of Christ, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision, etc., that is, they are matters of indifference. But faith — not unformed faith, but that which works through love — James 2:26: faith without works is dead, etc. For faith is a knowledge of the word of God, Ephesians 3:17: that Christ may dwell through faith, etc. And this word is neither perfectly possessed nor perfectly known unless there is also possessed the love which it hopes for. Here there are two doubts concerning the Gloss. The first is, that it says that uncircumcision and circumcision are matters of indifference, whereas above it said if you are circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. But it must be said that from the genus of the work they are matters of indifference, namely for those who do not place their hope in them; but from the intention of the one acting they are not matters of indifference. For to those who place their hope in them, they are deadly. The second doubt concerns this, that it says that those who do not believe are worse than the demons, since the demons believe and tremble. I respond. It must be said that they are indeed worse as regards the species of the deed, but not as regards the affection. For it displeases the demons that they believe; nor is there so great a wickedness of will in the man who does not believe as there is in the demon who hates what he believes. Consequently, when he says you were running well, etc., he deals with the impediment to standing. And first he sets down the impediment; second he teaches its removal, at the words let no one persuade you, etc. The impediment to their standing was great and harmful; for a thing is harmful in proportion as it deprives one of a greater good. When, therefore, someone is deprived of many spiritual goods, it is a sign that he has had a great impediment. And therefore, that the Apostle might show that they had a great impediment, he reminds them of the spiritual goods which they had lost, when he says you were running well, etc., namely, through the works of faith formed by charity, which spurs one on to run. Psalm 118:32: I have run the way of your commandments, when you enlarged my heart. And this indeed was formerly in you, but while you were thus running, you were hindered, and therefore he adds: who has bewitched you? Concerning which it was spoken above in chapter 3:1; and therefore I pass over it for the present. Who, then, has bewitched you, that is, hindered you from obeying the truth, namely, the evangelical truth? And this he says fittingly; for to obey is a matter of the will applying itself to the consent of one who commands. And therefore faith is a knowledge of the will and of the intellect. It is necessary, therefore, that the will obey faith; and this consists in willing to believe that the grace of the faith of Christ suffices for salvation without the observances of the law. He excludes the impediment, however, when he says let no one, etc., and this from a threefold source. First on the part of themselves; second on the part of God, at the words I am confident, etc.; third on the part of the Apostle, at the words but I, brethren, etc. On the part of themselves, when he says let no one, etc. Here he first shows what is required on their part, that they might avoid this harm, namely, that they no longer consent to any false apostle. 1 Thessalonians 5:5: let us not be of the night, nor of darkness, etc. Ephesians 5:11: have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, etc., and 2 Timothy 2:17: and their speech spreads like a cancer, etc. From this it is given to understand that they were not yet corrupted, but were being solicited concerning this. Second, he assigns the reason for this when he says for this persuasion, etc. And this is twofold. The first is, that when a man gives himself to someone, he ought to do nothing except what he has judged useful to himself. But you have been handed over to Christ; therefore you ought not to hear or consent except to those things which are from him; therefore this persuasion, by which they wish to send you under the yoke of the law, since it is not from him, namely, from God who called you unto life, but from the devil, insofar, namely, as he is deficient, and therefore you should not consent to them. Or not from him, that is, against him. The second reason is, because it could be said that it is not a great matter if a few consent, since from this there is no danger; and therefore he says that they ought not to consent to them, nor should their snares be despised, but they ought to resist at the beginnings, because a little leaven, etc., that is, those few who are persuading you. Or: this persuasion, small at the beginning, corrupts the whole lump, that is, the congregation of the faithful. Leviticus 2:11: neither shall any leaven or honey be burned in the sacrifice of the Lord. Consequently, when he says I am confident in you, etc., he removes the impediment on the part of God, who supplies help toward this. And he sets down a twofold help: one with respect to those who seduce; the other with respect to those who trouble, at the words but he who troubles you, etc. He says therefore I am confident, etc., as if to say: I have said that you should not consent to a false apostle, and I am confident in you. 2 Corinthians 7:16: I rejoice that in all things I have confidence in you. Hebrews 6:9: but we are confident of you, beloved, better things, and things nearer to salvation. I am confident, I say, in this, namely, that you will taste nothing else than what I have taught you. Above, 1:8: although we, or an angel from heaven, should preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached, let him be anathema. Philippians 2:2: fulfill my joy, that you may taste the same thing, etc. And this from divine help. And therefore he says in the Lord, namely, God working. 2 Corinthians 3:4: such confidence we have through Christ toward God, etc. Because the Lord will give you to taste according to the sobriety of Catholic truth. Psalm 91: it is good to trust in the Lord, etc. But as to those who trouble, he says but he who troubles, etc., that is, who removes you from the due order, so that, namely, you are turned from spiritual things to bodily things, when the contrary ought to be the case. 1 Corinthians 15:46: not first that which is spiritual, but that which is animal, then that which, etc. And since such an order is perverse, as is said above, 3:3: are you so foolish, that whereas you began in the Spirit, etc., therefore he shall bear the judgment, that is, he shall undergo condemnation. For just as one who leads another to good is rewarded, Daniel 12:3: they who instruct many unto justice, shall shine as stars for all eternity, etc., so one who leads another to evil is condemned. Joshua 7:25: because you have troubled us, may the Lord trouble you this day. Deuteronomy 27:18: cursed be he who makes the blind to wander out of the way. And this, whosoever he be, that is, of whatever authority he be, he shall not be spared. But Porphyry and Julian reproach Paul in this matter for presumption, saying that he says this tearing at Peter — since above he wrote that he had resisted him to his face — so that the meaning would be: whosoever he be, that is, even if it were Peter, he would be punished. But, as Augustine says, it is not to be believed that Paul would speak with a curse concerning the prince of the Church, since it is written in Exodus 22:28: you shall not speak ill of the prince of your people. Nor even that Peter had so offended that he was worthy of condemnation. The Apostle, therefore, speaks of a certain other man who, coming from Judea, said that he had been a disciple of the great apostles, and under that authority, together with other false preachers, was corrupting the Galatians. Above, 2:4: because of false brethren unawares brought in, etc. Consequently, when he says but I, brethren, etc., he removes the impediment on his own part. And first he sets down his own excuse; second the rebuke of those who were defaming him, at the words would that they were cut off, etc. He excludes, however, the falsehood that was imputed to him. And first something pertaining to himself alone; second something pertaining to all, at the words therefore the scandal of the cross is made void, etc. It must be known concerning the first that, the false apostles excusing the Galatians for the fact that they did not keep the legal observances — because they had been so taught by the Apostle — they said that the Apostle had deceived them, and that he had persuaded them to this unto their own servitude; and they confirmed this, saying that Paul had preached in Judea, and had taught that the legal observances ought to be kept. And therefore the Apostle excuses himself concerning this, saying but I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, as the false apostles impute to me, why do I still suffer persecution? Namely, from the Jews. 1 Corinthians 4:12: we suffer persecution, etc. For the Jews persecuted Paul especially on this account, that he preached that the legal observances ought not to be kept. Acts 21:21, James says to Paul: they have heard of you that you teach a departure from Moses, those of the Jews who are among the Gentiles, saying that they ought not to circumcise their sons, etc. It is plain, therefore, that what they impute to me is not true, otherwise I would not still be suffering persecutions. That which they impute to me is also false through that which is commonly held among others, because if I preach circumcision, the scandal of the cross is made void. For not only I, but also all the apostles, preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews indeed a scandal, etc., as is said in 1 Corinthians 1:23. And they are scandalized most of all at this, that we preach that through the cross of Christ the legal observances are made void. If, therefore, I preach circumcision, the scandal is made void, that is, there will no longer be a scandal among the Jews concerning the cross. For they would patiently endure — indeed, they would gladly wish — that we should preach that the cross and the legal observances ought to be kept together. Or, according to Augustine, the scandal of the cross is made void, that is, the cross, which is the scandal, is made void, as if he were to say: the cross has lost its effect and its power. Above, 2:21: for if justice were by the law, then Christ died in vain. The Apostle, moreover, says specifically the scandal is made void, etc., to give one to understand that it was on this account that the Jews killed Christ, because he did not keep the legal observances, and taught that they were not to be kept. John 9:16: this man is not from God, because he does not keep the sabbath. Consequently he rebukes the false apostles who had defamed him, saying would that they were cut off, etc., as if to say: they themselves trouble you in this, that they wish you to be circumcised; but would that they were not only circumcised, but wholly castrated. But against this, Romans 12:14: bless, and do not curse, etc. To this there is a twofold response. The first is, that the Apostle did not curse them, but rather blessed them, because he wished for them that they be spiritually castrated, that they might keep spiritual chastity, by cutting away the ceremonial observances, according to that saying of Matthew 19:12: there are certain eunuchs, who have castrated themselves for the kingdom of heaven. Second, that he wishes for them the sterility of offspring which eunuchs have, namely, that they not beget. Whence he says would that they were even cut off, etc., that is, that they lose the power of begetting in you, and in others. And this deservedly, because they beget sons unto error, and reduce them into the servitude of the law. Hosea 9:14: give them a womb without children, and dry breasts.”

“I would they were even cut off which trouble you. These words are a solemn wish of the apostle's with respect to the false teachers, or an imprecation of the judgment of God upon them; that they might be cut off out of the land of the living by the immediate hand of God, that they might do no more mischief to the churches of Christ: this he said not out of hatred to their persons, but from a concern for the glory of God, and the good of his people. The word here used answers to the Hebrew word and which is often made use of by the Jews in solemn imprecations; we read (o) of a righteous man, , "that cut off his children": the gloss upon it is, "he used to say, when he made any imprecation, , "may I cut off my children";'' that is, may they die, may they be cut off by the hand of God, and I bury them; "says R. Tarphon (p), may my children be "cut off", if these books of heretics come into my hands, that I will burn them;'' and says the same Rabbi (q) may I "cut off" my children, or may my children be cut off, if this sentence or constitution is cut off, or should perish. There is another use of this word, which may have a place here, for it sometimes signifies to confute a person, or refute his notion (r). "It is a tradition of the Rabbius, that after the departure of R. Meir, R. Judah said to his disciples, let not the disciples of R. Meir come in hither, for they are contentious; and not to learn the law do they come, but , "to cut me off"; (i.e. as the gloss says, to show how sharp they are that none can stand against them;) to confute and overcome me, by their sentences, or constitutions.'' So the apostle here might wish that the mouths of these false teachers were stopped, their notions refuted, that they might give them no more trouble; to which agrees the Arabic version; "they that trouble you I wish they were dumb"; or that their mouths were stopped, as such vain talkers should be; see Tit 1:10 or the sense of the apostle is, that it was his will and desire that these men should be cut off from the communion of the church; with which views he mentions the proverbial expression in Gal 5:9 with which compare Co1 5:6 or that they would cut themselves off, by withdrawing from them, going out from among them, and leaving them as these men sometimes did. (o) T. Bab. Bava Metzia, fol. 85. 1. (p) T. Bab. Sabbat, fol, 116. 1. (q) T. Bab. Sabbat, fol. 17. 1. Misn. Oholot, c. 16. sect. 1. & Maimon, in Bartenora in ib. (r) T. Bab. Kiddushin, fol. 52. 2. Nazir, fol. 49. 2.”

“If I yet preach circumcision - it is very likely that some of the false apostles, hearing of Paul's having circumcised Timothy, Act 16:3, which must have been done about this time, reported him as being an advocate for circumcision, and by this means endeavored 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 am known to be an enemy to circumcision; were I a friend to this doctrine, the offense of the cross - 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.”

“Translate, "If I am still preaching (as I did before conversion) circumcision, why am I still persecuted?" The Judaizing troubler of the Galatians had said, "Paul himself preaches circumcision," as is shown by his having circumcised Timothy (Act 16:3; compare also Act 20:6; Act 21:24). Paul replies by anticipation of their objection, As regards myself, the fact that I am still persecuted by the Jews shows plainly that I do not preach circumcision; for it is just because I preach Christ crucified, and not the Mosaic law, as the sole ground of justification, that they persecute me. If for conciliation he lived as a Jew among the Jews, it was in accordance with his principle enunciated (Co1 7:18, Co1 7:20; Co1 9:20). Circumcision, or uncircumcision, are things indifferent in themselves: their lawfulness or unlawfulness depends on the animus of him who uses them. The Gentile Galatians' animus in circumcision could only be their supposition that it influenced favorably their standing before God. Paul's living as a Gentile among Gentiles, plainly showed that, if he lived as a Jew among Jews, it was not that he thought it meritorious before God, but as a matter indifferent, wherein he might lawfully conform as a Jew by birth to those with whom he was, in order to put no needless stumbling-block to the Gospel in the way of his countrymen. then--Presuming that I did so, "then," in that case, "the offense of (stumbling-block, Co1 1:23 occasioned to the Jews by) the cross has become done away." Thus the Jews' accusation against Stephen was not that he preached Christ crucified, but that "he spake blasphemous words against this holy place and the law." They would, in some measure, have borne the former, if he had mixed with it justification in part by circumcision and the law, and if he had, through the medium of Christianity, brought converts to Judaism. But if justification in any degree depended on legal ordinances, Christ's crucifixion in that degree was unnecessary, and could profit nothing (Gal 5:2, Gal 5:4). Worldly Wiseman, of the town of Carnal Policy, turns Christian out of the narrow way of the Cross, to the house of Legality. But the way to it was up a mountain, which, as Christian advanced, threatened to fall on him and crush him, amidst flashes of lightning from the mountain [BUNYAN, Pilgrim's Progress] (Heb 12:18-21).”