sion of tl,r jnrl.c::c upon his conduct;, nnd (1) thnt his persecutions were mninly oo• the oonscq11c11t punishment. The apostle casioned by the hostility of the Jews; nnd thrcntens that be will bring into exercise (2) _that th_e h?stility _ot' the Jews ma.inly the "power" which, as he says in 2 Cor. xiii. ongmated m his teachrng the doctrine tho.t 10, the Lord bad given him for the edifi- the cross of Christ put ciroumcision toge- cetion of his people, and tho use of which ther with the observance of the Lo.w of would be accompanied by consequences Moses, nside as terms of aoccptnnce with prol'ing that "Christ was speaking in him" God .. The first point is fully ~orne out by (ibid., 2, 3). Instances of its exercise are the history of the Acts nnd various allusions seen in 1 Cor. v. 4, 5; 1 Tim. i. 20; Acts in the Epistles, showing that the faet wns xiii. 11. How grievous was this offender's so, both before and after the time when this guilt has been strongly declared by the letter was written. The second is perfectly "anathema" of eh. i. 7-9. consistent with the history, and alone fully Ver. 11.-And I, brethren (,;,w 'til, a.'li,:\.- explains it. Then is the offenoe of the oro&1 <tf,o[) ; but in respect to myself, brethren. The ceased (lfpa. ICa-r,!p;,11-ra, TO /1'1Cav'lia.;\or, 'l'Oii personal pronoun is again accentuated. It trTavpoii); then the stumbling-block of the CTOBI 11eems tbe,t it had been affirmed by some one, lUtth been done aicay. The stumbling-block most probably that individual" troubler" of of the cross is that which ma.kes the cross the preceding verse (on which account the a stumbling-block. In 1 Cor. i. 23 "Christ point i;; just here mentioned), that the crucified" is designated as "to the Jews a apostle did himself "preach circumcision." stumbling-block;" while to Gentiles it sim• The compellation "brethren" has a tone of ply seemed "folly." "Then" follows up :Pathos in it: it appeals, not merely to their an ar.~ument ~ absuTdo, as in I Cor. xv. 141 knowled.~e of his experience of persecution, 18. The apostle means that the cross but to their sympathy with him under it. would not be to Jews the stumbling-block He is grappling to himself, as it were, the that it was if it had been preached in con- better-minded of those he is writing to. If junction with the obligatoriness of circum- I yet preach circumcision ( •• ,,.,p1-roµ11v ¥-r, cision together with the observance of the if I am still preaching circum- llf1pv11'tr"'); ceremonial law, upon those who believed cision. The phrase, " preach circumcision," in Christ. If, then, he had preached Christ is like that of "preaching the baptimi of crucified thus, he could not have been so repentance" in Mark i. 4; it denotes openly offensive to the Jews. But it wns all other- declaring that men should be circumcised. wise. It has been supposed that the notion The force of fr, is best explained by enppos- of a crucified Messiah was offensive to ing that the apostle is quoting the assertion Jewish feeling, merely because it ran of this gainsayer-" Why, Paul himself up counter to their conception of the Christ as ,to this hour still preaches circumcision, just a secular king nnd conqueror. St. Po.ul'e os he did when he followed Judaism." And words show that this was not the case. taking it thus, we may discern o. shade of That preconception of the Jews no doubt :irony in the apostle's repeating the f-r, in made it difficult to them to believe in the ·his reply: "Why, then, am I still per- Jesus whose worldly career hnd been closed secuted up to this hour?" He had begun by an early violent death ; even as before to be the object of persecution as soon as he our Lord's passion it ho.d mo.de it difficult began to preach Christ, os he pathetically to the apostles to believe that he was thus 1·eminds the Corinthians (2 Cor. xi.. 32; of. to die. But after the question whether the Acts ix. 24). In trying to imagine how this Christwo.s predestined to beasuffering Christ gninsayer could have given the least colour (Acts xxvi. 23) had been discussed, and it of probability to so audacious an assertion, had been shown from the Old Testament we may supJJOse that he would point to St. that the Messiah was to suffer before he Paul's behaviour at Jerusalem,and no doubt should reign, it had yet to be determined in elsewhere, when he" to the Jews became as what .relation the particular form of Jesus' a Jew; to those under the Law as under death stood with respect to the Mosaic Law. the Law" (1 Cor. ix. 20); and in all pro- Gentiles would naturally think ot the cross bability, as Chryso&tom and others have chiefly, indeed solely, as a sign of extremest obeen-ed, cited the well-known fact of his ignominy; they thought scorn of the Chrio• ci.rcumcisiug Timothy ; aud there doubtless tians who looked for life from " this Master were other foots of a similar complexion, of theirs, who was crucified" (Lucian), all which, with a little distortion, might But to Jews, with the habits of feeling to enable an unscrupulous or a mel'ely very which they had been trained in the school of eagr:r opponent to dress up a statement like Moses' Law, the cross was more than a sign of that br:fore Ill! with a certain amount of extremest ignominy-to them it wns a sign. , plausibleness. Why do I yet a111fer per- also ofextr<Jmest poJJutedness. Now, to the-
secution 1 (-rl fn li10,Koµa.1 ;) ; why am I stiU Apostle Paul it had been given to see, with ;p~r•ecuted , Tho apostle distinctly implies more distinctness the general body of than OJI, V, l-2G.J 'flIE EPISTLE TO ·rnE GALATIANS. 247