- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,041
- Reaction score
- 2,132
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
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:
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.
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.