160 WORD STUDIES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. [Cu. V.
discovery that fermentation is a necessary consequence of the activity and growth of living organisms.* A very few of these Judaising intruders are sufficient to corrupt the whole church.
Lump (dvpaya). P°. See on Rom. ix. 21. 10. In the Lord. Const. with I have confidence.
Will be — minded (dpovycere). The word denotes a gen- eral disposition of the mind rather than a specific act of thought directed at a given point. Comp. Philip. ii. 15, 19; iv. 2; Rom. viii. 5; xi. 20; 1 Cor. xiii. 11: and ¢pov- nua mind, Rom. viii. 6, 7,27. In Class. often with ed well, karos honourably, 6p0as rightly, kaxas mischievously. Ta twos dpoveiv is to be of one’s party.
He that troubleth (0 rapdoocwv). Comp. ch. i. 7. Not with reference to any particular individual, as Peter or James (Lipsius), but generally, of any possible person, “ whoever he may be.” The verb is used by Paul only in this Epistle, and refers to disturbance of faith or unity.
11. And |. In sharp contrast with the disturber.
If | yet preach circumcision (ec mepitouhy ett knptoow). Commonly explained as an allusion to a charge circulated by the Judaisers that Paul preached or sanctioned the circum- cision of Gentile converts in churches outside of Galatia, as, for example, in the case of Timothy, Acts xvi. 8. But it is quite unlikely that any such charge was circulated. The Judaisers would not have founded such a charge on an indi- vidual 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 Christ-
* See Dr. William H. Thomson’s admirable little volume, The Parables by the Lake.
1 So Lightfoot, Meyer, Ellicott, Eadie.
Cu. V.] THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. 161
ians; 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 cir- cumcision. 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 J am not a disturber— not your enemy (ch. iv. 16), for I do not preach circumcision; and the proof of this is that Iam persecuted. If I preached circumcision, there would be no offence, and therefore no disturbance; for the cross would cease to be an offence, if, in addition to the cross, - I preached just what the Judaisers assert, the necessity of circumcision.”
Yet (é7z). As in the time before my conversion. The second érz is not temporal but logical, as Rom. iii. 7; ix. 19. What further ground is there for persecuting me ?
Then (dpa). Asa consequence of my preaching circum- cision.
The offence of the cross (76 oxdvdadov Tod ataupod). Comp. 1 Cor. i. 23. For offence, see on offend, Matt. v. 29.
Ceased (xatipynta). Lit. been done away or brought to nought. See on ver. 4. If Paul had preached circumcision as necessary to salvation, the preaching of the cross would have ceased to be an offence, 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 offence of the cross, and conciliated unbe-
VOL. Iv.—1l1
162 WORD STUDIES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. [Cz. V.
lieving Jews by maintaining that the law was binding upon Christians. See ch. vi. 12.