Galatians

I mentioned yesterday that there were those who argued Paul did, in fact, have Titus circumcised. Richard Longenecker mentions early 20th-century theologicans F. C. Burkitt and George S. Duncan, for example.[1] Such commentators accent the word "forced" in verse 3, arguing that if Titus was not forced to be circumcised, that implies he was circumcised voluntarily. How "was not forced" morphs into "did so voluntarily" instead of "refused outright," especially coupled with verse 5's "we did not yield . . . even for a moment," is a mystery.

The issue of Titus does raise a question, though, thanks to this passage:

Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. A disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek. He was well spoken of by the brothers at Lystra and Iconium. Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him, and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek. (Acts 16:1-3)​

Why was Titus not circumcised, when Timothy was?

First, Timothy was Jewish on his mother's side. Tracing matrilineal descent didn't begin in Judaism until the first century, so it may not have been enough at the time to establish Timothy as effectively Jewish as well. Nonetheless, he ''was'' part Jewish and part Greek, while the Greek Titus had no Jewish identity at all.

Second, Paul had Timothy circumcised for the sake of the Jews living in Lystra. They knew Timothy and his family, so they knew he was part Greek. By being circumcised, Timothy was identifying with his Jewish heritage, rather than his Greek. It had nothing to do with the truth of the Gospel itself; rather, it was Paul becoming "to the Jews . . . as a Jew, in order to win Jews" (1 Cor. 9:20). It removed a barrier that might have hindered the Jews from listening to a Gentile.

On the other hand, circumcising Titus would not have been simply respecting a tradition. The very content of the Gospel itself was at issue (Gal. 2:5). Paul was willing to concede a tradition for the sake of the Jews, but not to concede the truth. It defies all logic for Burkitt, Simpson, and others to argue that Paul did concede to the Judaizers on the very point he was opposing, then to proclaim to the Galatians that the integrity of the Gospel was intact.

What we see from this contrast is this: It is all right to compromise on a personal policy for the sake of the Gospel. As a general rule, Paul didn't require Jewish Christians to become more like Gentiles, or vice versa: "each one should remain in the condition in which he was called" (1 Cor. 7:20). But Timothy was both--and so emphasizing his Jewishness to give him credibility with the Jews was an exception to the general rule. A modern-day example of this same principle would be Hudson Taylor, the founder of the China Inland Mission. When he began preaching in the mid-1850s, he retained his British identity and appearance, as was the common practice for missionaries. The Chinese resisted him, because they thought his Western appearance off-putting. So as much as possible for a Christian, Taylor became outwardly Chinese: he dressed like a mandarin, shaved his forehead, grew out his hair and braided it into a queue. By identifying with the Chinese people he wanted to reach, he began to attract an audience.

On the other hand, it is not all right to compromise a point of the Gospel to make it more acceptable. Perhaps by circumcising Titus, Paul might have won more Jews. Who knows? But he would have won them with (and therefore to) a corrupted gospel. In 1997, the evangelical men's ministry Promise Keepers revised their statement of faith. It originally read, "because of sin, [mankind] was alienated from God. That alienation can be removed only by accepting, through faith alone, God's gift of salvation, which was made possible by Christ's death." The revision read, instead: "Only through faith, trusting in Christ alone for salvation, which was made possible by His death and resurrection, can that alienation be removed." (Their present statement of faith is entirely re-written.) The promise keepers removed the tenet of justification by faith alone from their doctrinal standards, because of an increasing number of Roman Catholic men who wanted to get involved. The change allows for the possibility of meritorious works contributing to salvation. That was an unacceptable compromise.

As I said yesterday, I think Paul brought Titus to Jerusalem deliberately, as a test case. He wanted to force the issue and provoke the Jerusalem leadership into debating the issue and making an authoritative pronouncement on it. The Judaizers were saying God only favoured the circumcised. The life and faith of Titus the Gentile Christian belied their assertion.

References

[1] Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, 1990), 50.
 
Carrying on with Galatians. Once again, sorry for the delay. I try to work on this thread on a roughly daily basis, but sometimes Real Life takes up more time than I would like. Thanks for being patient!

And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me. (2:6)​

After a quick digression in vv. 3-5 to talk about Titus, Paul returns to his main narrative: his visit to the church in Jerusalem and his meeting with the apostles.

And from those who seemed to be influential: This phrase, at face value, seems to be somewhat disparaging of the apostles, as though they seemed to be something they were not. That's not what Paul is suggesting. He's saying they were reputed to be persons of importance, but he's not insinuating that they weren't important.

what they are makes no difference to me, God shows no partiality: This is similarly difficult at face value. It appears that Paul is saying the rank of the apostles does not matter. But clearly that's not the meaning--after all, he specifically sought a meeting with them because of their rank in the church. Rather, I think he's talking about the past versus the present. The apostles had walked with Jesus, learned from him, and organized his church after his ascension, whereas Paul had been breathing threats and murder against Christians. Nonetheless, Paul is asserting the validity of his own credentials as an apostle. Despite his past, he is the equal of Peter and James.

those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me: Paul had an agenda for his meeting with the apostles, which was to discuss the gospel of justification by faith with them, and receive their endorsement. Similarly, the Judaizers (who also presented themselves before the church) also had an agenda, which was to add circumcision and the works of the Law to the Gospel. It looks like Paul won that particular battle: the apostles "added nothing," that is, to his message--meaning they didn't require him to preach circumcision.
 
Carrying on with Galatians. Once again, sorry for the delay. I try to work on this thread on a roughly daily basis, but sometimes Real Life takes up more time than I would like.

Bashing Ruckman and UGC is time-consuming.

Enjoy the Galatian's thread, though.
 
On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles), and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do. (2:7-10)​

This is a long passage, but in the ESV, at least, it consists mostly of one long sentence. Certainly it's one continuous thought, so it deserves to be treated as a unit.

On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised: This, to me, is further evidence that Paul and Barnabas brought Titus with them to Jerusalem to provoke discussion on the issue. Titus was a Gentile, yet the grace of God and the presence of the Holy Spirit was evident in his life. The Gospel was no longer for the "lost sheep of the house of Israel" alone; it was for the world. And Paul was the chief instrument by which the Gospel had gone out to the Gentiles.

just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised: Similarly, Peter's ministry (as well as that of the rest of the Twelve) was primarily to Jews in and around Jerusalem.

It's not that these roles were rigidly defined, of course. After relating the conversion of Saul, Luke's narrative focuses on Peter, and arguably the centrepiece of that story is the conversion of Cornelius the centurion, a proselyte, and the Holy Spirit falling on the Gentiles (Acts 10). Conversely, upon his conversion, Paul first preached the Gospel to Jews in the synagogues, which became his habit even on his missionary journeys. But generally speaking, there was a division of labour, with the Pauline group (Paul, Barnabas, Timothy, Silas, etc.) preaching and establishing churches in Asia Minor and Greece, and Peter and the other Twelve remaining around Palestine and ministering to the church there.

for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles: This is a lot of words to say that Peter and Paul weren't in competition: the same Holy Spirit worked in both of them to carry out their respective tasks.

and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars: As with "those who seemed to be influential" in verse 6, this looks at first glance to be derogatory. Again, he's just reporting what their reputation was. James and John, sons of Zebedee, and Peter were the "inner circle" of Christ's disciples. It's not surprising that John and Peter should have risen up and become the most senior leaders of the Jerusalem church (John's brother James having already been martyred, and James the Lord's brother apparently taking his place).

perceived the grace that was given to me: I find it interesting that Paul does not explicitly refer to himself as an "apostle" in this passage. In verse 8 he says the Holy Spirit enabled Peter in his "apostolic ministry" just as he enabled Paul in "mine." The ESV can be read to imply "my apostolic ministry," but several English translations (e.g. the KJV, NKJV, or NASB) don't allow for even that. Here in verse 9, he says the apostles recognized that he had received grace for ministry, but he does not say they recognized him as a fellow apostle. Of course, Paul does not shy away from proclaiming ''himself'' one, and there's no reason to doubt it. They clearly recognized the Holy Spirit working through him and the divine origin of his ministry. I think he is just being careful not to claim more of an endorsement from the Twelve than they actually gave him.

they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised: Nevertheless, Paul got the endorsement from the Twelve that he sought. Paul and Barnabas were directed to continue to spearhead the ministry of the Gospel to the Gentiles. The Twelve, on the other hand would continue to minister to the Palestinian Jews.

Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do: In fact, if I am harmonizing Acts and Galatians correctly, it was to convey a collection for the poor that brought Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem (Acts 11:27-30). Paul always remembered the poor in Judea. All of his teaching on giving is in the context of collecting for the poor. He was bringing another collection to Jerusalem when he was arrested and brought to trial (Acts 21).
 
Paul had an advantage among all the apostles. He had been a student of the Scriptures his entire life. Groomed for excellence among the Pharisees. The other apostles were ignorant and unlearned men that had nothing more than a rudimentary understanding of the Scriptures. Yes. Jesus Christ changed their lives and gave them the Spirit but they only had limited experience with handling the "Word of God". Many things were new to them. Yet, Paul had contemplated God's words for a far greater period of time.
 
Last edited:
Top