The first part of this verse consists of a conditional clause, “if I still preach circumcision,” and a rhetorical question, “why am I still persecuted?” The conditional clause could reflect either a charge against Paul by his enemies or a hypothetical case: “if I were preaching….” Most translators favor the former position, in which case it is implied that there was a time (“still”) when Paul actually advocated circumcision. To “preach circumcision” is of course to advocate that circumcision is necessary in order for one to be accepted by God (Knox “I preach the need of circumcision”). In order to make it quite clear that Paul no longer was preaching that circumcision was necessary, it may be essential to indicate that this was an accusation brought by some of the Judaizers. The condition may then be translated as “if, as they say, I continue to preach that men must be circumcised.”
The passive expression why am I still being persecuted? may be made active by translating “why do people still persecute me?” or “… cause me harm?”
As in other contexts, my brothers may be understood as “you, my fellow believers,” or “you who also believe in Christ.”
It may be necessary in some languages to relate the phrase as for me somewhat more closely to what follows, for example, “now consider my situation. Why am I still persecuted…?”
The rhetorical question denies the charge contained in the conditional clause. What the whole sentence means is that if it were really true that Paul was still preaching the necessity of circumcision, he would not be persecuted; or, to state it another way, since Paul is still being persecuted, then it is not true that he continues to preach that circumcision is necessary. If one adopts the interpretation that the condition is purely hypothetical and so contrary to fact, it may be necessary to translate it as “if I were continuing to preach that men must be circumcised—but, of course, I am not preaching that—then….”
The condition if that were true must refer not to circumcision being true, but to the preaching concerning the necessity of circumcision. Therefore, if that were true may be rendered as “if I were really doing that,” or “if I really were preaching that.”
A further consequence of Paul’s alleged continuing advocacy of circumcision would be that his preaching about the cross of Christ would cause no trouble. The expression would cause no trouble translates two words, a noun which is traditionally rendered “stumblingblock” and a verb which means “to cease” or “to pass away” (the same verb as in 5.4). The stumblingblock of the cross is that element in the death of Christ that would lead the Jews to oppose the whole event and hinder them from accepting Jesus as the Messiah. This is expressed in various ways (for example, Phillips “the hostility which the preaching of the cross provokes”; Jerusalem Bible “scandal”). Paul does not say explicitly what this stumblingblock is, but it is clearly implied that it is his interpretation of Christ’s death as making it possible for anyone to be accepted by God on simple trust, and not by doing what the Law requires.
What Paul is saying here is that if it were true that he is still advocating circumcision, then his preaching about the death of Christ on the cross would no longer cause any trouble for the Jew. But, since his preaching is still causing trouble, it is not true that he continues to advocate circumcision.
Preaching about the cross of Christ may require some minor amplification in order to indicate that Paul was not merely talking about the cross as an object but about the cross as an instrument of Christ’s death or a symbol of his death, for example, “preaching about Christ’s dying upon the cross,” or “preaching about the meaning of Christ’s death on the cross.”
Quoted with permission from Arichea, Daniel C. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Galatians. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1976. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .