Albert Barnes Commentary Galatians 5:11

"But I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? then hath the stumbling-block of the cross been done away." — Galatians 5:11 (ASV)

And I, brethren. Paul here proceeds to vindicate himself from supporting 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 based this claim is unknown. It may have been mere slander, or it may have arisen from the fact that he had circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:3), 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 generally complied with the customs of the Jews when he was with them.

But his conduct and example had been greatly perverted. He had never commanded circumcision as necessary to salvation, and had never complied with Jewish customs where there was any danger that it would be understood that he regarded them as in any way indispensable, or as furnishing a basis for acceptance with God.

If I yet preach circumcision. If I preach it as necessary to salvation, or if I command it for those who are converted to Christianity.

Why do I yet suffer persecution? (Galatians 6:12). That is, from the Jews. Paul’s reasoning is: "Why do they oppose me? Circumcision is the distinctive mark of the Jewish religion; it implies all the rest (Galatians 5:2). 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 persecute me; and the fact that I am thus persecuted by them is clear proof 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 into question, or that it might require much explanation to show why he had recommended circumcision in any case, as in the case of Timothy (Acts 16:3). 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 sense that would satisfy them, or in any sense as was claimed by the false teachers in Galatia. Regarding the fact that Paul was persecuted by the Jews, see Acts 14:1-2, 19 and 17:4-5, 13.

Compare Paley, Horae Paulinae, Galatians, section V.

Then is the offence of the cross eased (1 Corinthians 1:23). "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 1 Corinthians 1:23)—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 abolished."

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 he had endured as a consequence of preaching the necessity of salvation by the cross.