Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Galatians 2:3
But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
3. neither Titus ] Better, not even Titus, who, as Paul’s colleague, might have thus had more ready access to the Jews.
being a Greek ] unlike Timothy, Act 16:1-3.
was compelled ] Scholefield renders, “was under any necessity to be circumcised, but only because, &c.” i.e. there was no necessity for his being circumcised, except that pretended necessity which was set up by these false brethren. (Hints for an improved Translation of the N. T.)
“Paul might have suffered Titus to be circumcised; but because he saw they would compel him thereunto, he would not. For if they had prevailed therein, by-and-by they would have gathered that it had been necessary to justification, and so through this sufferance would have triumphed against Paul.” Luther.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
3 5. The construction of this passage is irregular and uncertain, and the meaning of several words and phrases obscure. But the general argument would seem to be as follows: ‘I conferred indeed with the Apostles at Jerusalem, but though I was quite ready to treat them with courtesy and respect, I was not prepared to make to them any concession of principle. That would have been to allow their authority as superior to my own, and would also have been a betrayal of the Gospel. An attempt was made to assert the necessity of obedience to the ceremonial law, as a condition of justification. This attempt took a practical shape, when certain false brethren with sinister motives demanded that Titus, a Gentile, should submit to circumcision. The Apostles were for temporising, in the hope of conciliating these intruders, who were really spies, feigning themselves to be true men and zealous for the law. The question in itself might seem indifferent. [St Paul had himself taken Timothy “and circumcised him on account of the Jews”, Act 16:3. But then Timothy was the son of a Jewish mother.] But when they tried compulsion, I at once made a stand and refused compliance. What I might perhaps have conceded to love, was resisted when it involved subjection to these false brethren: that the Gospel in its purity and fulness might be preserved for you Gentiles. Of that Gospel the observance of the ceremonial law is no condition. To insist upon it, is to pervert the truth of the Gospel, and send men back for salvation to the “weak and beggarly elements” from which Christ by His death hath for ever set us free’.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
But neither Titus, who was with me – Paul introduces this case of Titus undoubtedly to show that circumcision was not necessary for salvation. It was a case just in point. He had gone up to Jerusalem with the express reference to this question. Here was a man whom he had admitted to the Christian church without circumcising him. He claimed that he had a right to do so; and that circumcision was not necessary in order for salvation. If it were necessary, it would have been proper that Titus should have been compelled to submit to it. But Paul that says this was not demanded; or if demanded by anyone, the point was yielded, and he was not compelled to be circumcised. It is to be remembered that this was at Jerusalem; that it was a case submitted to the apostles there; and that consequently the determination of this case settled the whole controversy about the obligation of the Mosaic laws on the Gentile converts.
It is quite evident from the whole statement here that Paul did not intend that Titus should be circumcised; that he maintained that it was not necessary; and that he resisted it when it was demanded; Gal 2:4-5. Yet on another occasion he himself performed the act of circumcision upon Timothy; Act 16:3. But there is no inconsistency in Pauls conduct. In the case of Titus, it was demanded as a matter of right and as obligatory upon him, and Paul resisted the principle as dangerous. In the case of Timothy, it was a voluntary compliance on his part with the usual customs of the Jews, where it was not pressed as a matter of obligation, and where it would not be understood as indispensable to salvation. No danger would follow from compliance with the custom, and it might do much to conciliate the favor of the Jews, and he therefore submitted to it. Paul would not have hesitated to have circumcised Titus in the same circumstances in which it was done to Timothy; but the circumstances were different; and when it was insisted upon as a matter of principle and of obligation, it became a matter of principle and of obligation with him to oppose it.
Being a Greek – Born of Gentile parents, of course he had not been circumcised. Probably both his parents were Greeks. The case with Timothy was somewhat different. His mother was a Jewess, but his father was a Greek Act 16:3.
Was compelled to be circumcised – I think it is implied here that this was demanded and insisted on by some that he should be circumcised. It is also implied that Paul resisted it, and the point was yielded, thus settling the great and important principle that it was not necessary in order for salvation; see Gal 2:5.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Gal 2:3
But neither Titus, who was with me.
But neither Titus
1. This incident is introduced by way of evidence, not by way of apology.
2. The circumcision of Titus is inconsistent with individual expressions in the passage.
3. For such a concession, both the time and the person were most inopportune. St. Paul is here indirectly meeting a charge brought against him on the ground of his circumcision of Timothy.
I. Not even Titus, who as my fellow-labourer would be constantly brought in contact with the Jews, and therefore might well have adopted a conciliatory attitude.
II. Not even Titus, although the pressure exerted in his case was great.
III. Why? because he was a Greek; Timothy was a Jew. (Bishop Lightfoot.)
Soul liberty
Paul circumcised Timothy, but would not allow Titus to be, to show that Christianity
(1) is independent of ceremonies,
(2) can exist without them. Soul liberty is–
I. Essentially identified with christ.
II. Is opposed to a ritualistic ministry.
III. Is to be defended with uncompromising determination. (D. Thomas, D. D.)
The gravity of the crisis
Judaism was the cradle of Christianity, and very nearly became its grave. (Paul of Tarsus.)
Narrowness and breadth
In our own country people very often attempt to coerce the minority by calumniating its objects, and one of the commonest words used for this purpose is the term un-English. Now, the nationalist party among the Jews might have called the converts un-Jewish. Heated by a narrow patriotism, they were ready to join the cry of the depraved rabble in the heathen cities, and stigmatise the Christian as the enemy of the human race, because his sympathies were comprehensive. (Paul of Tarsus.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 3. But neither Titus, who was with me] The apostle proceeds to state that his account was so satisfactory to the apostles, that they not only did not require him to insist on the necessity of circumcision among the Gentiles, but did not even require him to have Titus, who was a Greek, circumcised; though that might have appeared expedient, especially at Jerusalem, to have prevented false brethren from making a handle of his uncircumcision, and turning it to the prejudice of the Gospel in Judea.
To spy out our liberty] The Judaizing brethren got introduced into the assembly of the apostles, in order to find out what was implied in the liberty of the Gospel, that they might know the better how to oppose St. Paul and his fellows in their preaching Christ to the Gentiles, and admitting them into the Church without obliging them to observe circumcision and keep the law. The apostle saw that while such men were in the assembly it was better not to mention his mission among the Gentiles, lest, by means of those false brethren, occasion should be given to altercations and disputes; therefore he took the opportunity, by private conferences, to set the whole matter, relative to his work among the Gentiles, before the chief of the apostles.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The apostle brings this as an instance of the apostles at Jerusalem agreeing with him in his doctrine, as to the non-necessity of circumcision; for though Titus was with him, who was a native Gentile, being a Greek, and a minister of the gospel, (and possibly Paul carried him with him for an instance), yet the apostles at Jerusalem did not think fit to impose upon him circumcision; no, not upon a solemn debate of that question. If any shall object that Paul himself circumcised Timothy, who was a Greek, Act 16:1,3; the answer is easy, the same text letting us know that his mother was a Jewess, and that he did it because of the Jews in those quarters. As to the Jews, it was matter of liberty at this time, they might or might not be circumcised. Now in matters of this nature, where men have a liberty, they ought to have regard to circumstances, and to do that which they, from a view of circumstances, judge will be most for the glory of God, the good of others, and give least offence, 1Co 10:28-31.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
3. ButSo far were they fromregarding me as running in vain, that “not even Titus whowas with me, who was a Greek (and therefore uncircumcised),was compelled to be circumcised.” So the Greek should betranslated. The “false brethren,” Ga2:4 (“certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed,”Ac 15:5), demanded hiscircumcision. The apostles, however, constrained by the firmness ofPaul and Barnabas (Ga 2:5), didnot compel or insist on his being circumcised. Thus they virtuallysanctioned Paul’s course among the Gentiles and admitted hisindependence as an apostle: the point he desires to set forth to theGalatians. Timothy, on the other hand, as being a proselyte of thegate, and son of a Jewess (Ac16:1), he circumcised (Ac16:3). Christianity did not interfere with Jewish usages,regarded merely as social ordinances, though no longer having theirreligious significance, in the case of Jews and proselytes, while theJewish polity and temple still stood; after the overthrow of thelatter, those usages naturally ceased. To have insisted on Jewishusages for Gentile converts, would have been to make themessential parts of Christianity. To have rudely violated them atfirst in the case of Jews, would have been inconsistent withthat charity which (in matters indifferent) is made all things to allmen, that by all means it may win some (1Co9:22; compare Rom 14:1-7;Rom 14:13-23). Paul broughtTitus about with him as a living example of the power of the Gospelupon the uncircumcised heathen.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek,…. There was such an agreement between the apostle, and his fellow apostles at Jerusalem, even about this article of the necessity of circumcision, and other rituals of the law of Moses, to salvation; that Titus, whom he brought along with him, an intimate companion of his in his travels, a fellow labourer with him in the ministry, and now upon the spot, though he was a Gentile, an uncircumcised person, yet even not he
was compelled to be circumcised: the elders did not urge it, or insist upon it, as proper and necessary; they looked upon it as a thing indifferent, left him to his liberty, and made use of no forcible methods to oblige him to it; yea, were of opinion, as Peter and James in the synod declared, that such a yoke ought not to be put upon the necks of the disciples, and that those who turned to God from among the Gentiles, should not be troubled with these things.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Being a Greek (H ). Concessive participle, though he was a Greek.
Was compelled to be circumcised ( ). First aorist passive indicative of and first aorist passive infinitive of . Curiously enough some scholars interpret this language to mean that Paul voluntarily had Titus circumcised, instead of being compelled to do it, an impossible view in my opinion in the light of verse 5 and wholly inconsistent with the whole context. Paul means that he stood his ground against compulsion and all force.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Neither [] . More correctly, not even. So far were they from pronouncing my labor in vain, that not even Titus was compelled to be circumcised, although he was a Greek. Though approving Paul ‘s preaching, the apostles might, for the sake of conciliation, have insisted on the circumcision of his Gentile companion.
Being a Greek (%Ellhn wn). Or, although he was a Greek. Const.
closely with sun ejmoi, with me. It was a bold proceeding for Paul to take an uncircumcised Gentile with him to the conference at Jerusalem.
Was compelled to be circumcised [ ] . That is. no constraint was applied by the Jerusalem church and its authorities for the circumcision of Titus. The statement is not that such an attempt was pressed but successfully resisted, but that circumcision was not insisted on by the church. The pressure in that direction came from “the false brethren” described in the next verse.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “But neither Titus, who was with me,” (all’ oude Titos ho sun emoi) “But not Titus who was in close colleague, association with me not even” Titus, my colleague, 2Co 2:13; 2Co 7:13-14; 2Co 8:6; 2Co 8:16; 2Co 8:23; 2Co 12:18.
2) “Being a Greek,” (hellen on) “Being a Greek;” who became a loyal missionary companion of Paul, later a pastor in Crete to whom the book of Titus was written. Tit 1:4-5.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
3. But neither Titus. This is an additional argument to prove that the Apostles held the same views with himself; for he had brought to them an uncircumcised man, whom they did not hesitate to acknowledge as a brother. The reason is assigned why he was not circumcised; for circumcision, being a matter of indifference, might be neglected or practiced as edification required. Our invariable rule of action is, that, if “all things are lawful for us,” (1Co 10:23) we ought to inquire what is expedient. He circumcises Timothy, (Act 16:3,) in order to take away a ground of offense from weak minds; for he was at that time dealing with weak minds, which it was his duty to treat with tenderness. And he would gladly have done the same thing with Titus, for he was unwearied in his endeavors to “support (Act 20:35) the weak;” but the case was different. For some false brethren were watching for an opportunity of slandering his doctrine, and would immediately have spread the report: “See how the valiant champion of liberty, when he comes into the presence of the apostles, lays aside the bold and fierce aspect which he is wont to assume among the ignorant!” Now, as it is our duty to “bear the infirmities of the weak,” (Rom 15:1,) so concealed foes, who purposely watch for our liberty, must, be vigorously resisted. The duties of love to our neighbor ought never to be injurious to faith; and therefore, in matters of indifference, the love of our neighbour will be our best guide, provided that faith shall always receive our first regard.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
TEXT 2:35
(3) But not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: (4) and that because of the false brethren privily brought in, who come in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: (5) to whom we gave place in the way of subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.
PARAPHRASE 2:35
3 However, that the apostles to whom I communicated my gospel, acknowledged it to be the true gospel of Christ, is evident from this, that not even Titus, who was with me, though a converted Gentile, was compelled to be circumcised.
4 On account even of the secretly introduced false brethren of the Jewish nation, who, pretending to be Christians, came in privily to our meetings at Jerusalem, to find out and condemn our freedom from the law of Moses, which we Gentiles have obtained by Christ Jesus gospel, that they might bring us into bondage under the law.
5 To these false brethren I did not give place, by subjecting Titus to the law of Moses, not even for an hour. This fortitude I shewed, that the truth of the gospel concerning the freedom of the Gentiles from that law might remain with you and all the Gentiles.
COMMENT 2:3
not even Titus . . . was compelled to be circumcised
1.
The apostles were gathered and this was their decision, when the Pharisees said, It is needful to circumcise them and to charge them to keep the law of Moses. Act. 15:5
a.
Peters word: Now therefore why make ye trial of God, that ye should put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers, nor we were able to bear? Act. 15:10
b.
James word: Wherefore my judgment is that we trouble not them that from among the Gentiles turn to God. Act. 15:19
c.
The brethrens plan: They selected men out of their group to take a letter and to return to Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia. For it seemeth good to the Holy Spirit and to us, to lay no greater burden than these necessary things. Act. 15:28
2.
This was the apostles big opportunity to condemn Pauls gospel but they did not; rather, they verified it.
3.
Reasons why Paul then had Timothy circumcised: Act. 16:1-3
a.
Titus was pure GentileTimothy was half Jew.
b.
A background of Jewish religion made this problem a serious one. Now they could not use this as a stumbling block to this preaching.
c.
Paul was a Jew and did not need to renounce all that was Jewish, for that would repel his people.
d.
He became all things . . . to win some. 1Co. 9:20-23
COMMENT 2:4
And that because of the false brethren
1.
Catholic Bible has a clearer reading: although it was urged. on account of false brethren.
2.
The Pharisees no doubt had a part, for they followed Christ and Paul everywhere to make trouble.
privately brought in
1.
Certainly the Apostles did not bring them in. No!
2.
The troublemakers brought them in in secret.
to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ
1.
The Christian has freedom from the law of the O.T.
a.
Paul in Romans uses the illustration of the woman whose husband dies: Wherefore my brethren, ye also were made dead to the law through the body of Christ; that ye should be joined to another. Rom. 7:3-4 Read also Gal. 5:1, Eph. 6:8, Gal. 5:13.
2.
Observe that liberty is in Christ only.
3.
The Jews never gave up, for in later years Paul (in Jerusalem) took a vow with four others. Act. 21:21-26
That they might bring us into bondage
1.
The law was bondage compared to freedom in Christ. Gal. 4:3-5
2.
Instead of escaping from bondage, they wanted to bring others into it.
FALSE BRETHREN 2:47
False doctrines and false teachers interrupt the sweet spirit that prevails when men follow only the truth. Sham Christians acted as spies.
Paul stated that they had stolen in to spy upon the liberty we enjoy in the fellowship of Christ Jesus (Gal. 2:4). These could not stand the message of righteousness by faith in Christ Jesus. They had to bring the believers under law. They insisted upon circumcision so they could glory in the flesh. Paul said, These men wanted to bring us into bondage, but not for one moment did I yield to their dictation.
Circumcision had no part in the Gospel.
Justification, as Paul uses the term, is not by faith and something else. It is by faith in Christ and nothing else!
One did not hold another gospel merely because he was circumcised. He advocated another gospel only when he affirmed that circumcision was necessary for justification, that is, to assume a right relationship with God. Now certain persons who had come down from Judea began to teach the brotherhood that those who were not circumcised in accordance with Mosaic practice could not be saved Act. 15:1. That was another gospel.
What was wrong with the new gospel was that it predicated salvation upon another principle than absolute trust in Jesus Christ.
We must be careful in interpreting this idea of a new gospel into too many of our religious discussions.
One can be mistaken about a lot of things without perverting the gospel. Faulty understanding of some point of doctrine, a warped view of interpretation of an apostolic passagethese in no sense constitute another gospel.
Those who are not free in Christ to make mistakes are not free at all.
Men upon both sides of some matters in the realm of opinions have obeyed the same gospel. To accuse one of advocating another gospel because he disagrees with a position upon one of the items, where the scripture has not spoken, may speak much more forcibly about our ignorance than about his. The one who is in danger of projecting another gospel is the one who makes fellowship dependent not upon our relationship to God through the Spirit, but upon agreement with his faction upon some point of theological deduction not found in the word.
COMMENT 2:5
did not give way to subjection
1.
Paul had Timothy circumcised because it was expedient in order to win the Jews. Act. 16:3
2.
Here at Jerusalemthe action would set a precedent for all time.
3.
The Gospel can not be compromisedwe can not give way, or give place when it is Gods place.
a)
Neither give place to the devil. Eph. 4:27
b)
Stand against the wiles of the devil. Eph. 6:11
c)
Give not that which is holy unto the dogs. Mat. 7:6
That the truth of the gospel might continue with you
1.
Either you have to become a Jew to become a Christian, or you do not. Paul said you do not, and stood his ground.
2.
Either you are dead to the law or subject to it. Paul said you are not subject and would not give in.
a.
Wherefore my brethren ye also were made dead to the law through the body of Christ. Rom. 7:4
b.
So that the law is become our tutor to bring us unto Christ. Gal. 3:24
STUDY QUESTIONS 2:35
148.
How was Titus received?
149.
Where is the subject of circumcision discussed more fully?
150.
Why was Timothy circumcised?
151.
Who was brought in?
152.
Who would have done this?
153.
Were they publicly brought in?
154.
What is liberty in Christ?
155.
Find other verses that deal with the subject.
156.
Did the spies have evil motives?
157.
What does Paul teach concerning bondage?
158.
Did Paul compromise while in Jerusalem?
159.
Did Paul ever give in to pressure?
160.
Why was he so set in Jerusalem?
161.
What is involved in the truth of the Gospel?
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(3) But neither Titus . . .This and the two following verses are parenthetical. The result of the private conference with the Judaic Apostles is not given till Gal. 2:7; but without waiting for this, the Apostle turns aside to give one emphatic piece of evidence that his practice in regard to the Gentile converts was not interfered with. The question of principle was raised in the case of Titus, and there he stood his ground, in spite of the pressure that was put upon him.
In addition to its bearing upon the main argument, there is probably a special reason for this mention of the case of Titus. At the beginning of his second missionary journey, on taking with him his youthful convert Timothy, St. Paul made so much of a concession to Jewish prejudices as to have him circumcised (Act. 16:3). We shall see later that this gave rise to a charge of inconsistency, which the Judaising party in Galatia were not slow to make use of. (See Gal. 5:11, and Notes there.) There was indeed some real inconsistency, but not more than any one who is engaged in the struggles of active life will constantly find himself drawn into. The meeting at Jerusalem was a crisis in the history of the Church. The question of principle was at stake. Concession herein would have been ruinous and fatal, and the Apostle stood firm. On the other hand, the circumcision of Timothy was merely a practical compromise to smooth the way for the preaching of the gospel in new regions. The Apostle was too wise to incur needless opposition, which would bar the way to essential truths on a point which, though in some of its aspects involving principle, was yet in others of quite minor importance. Besides, there is this to be noticed, that whereas Titus was by descent wholly a Gentile, Timothy was, on his mothers side, a Jew.
Turning to the phraseology of the passage, we may observe that the opening clause would be better translated, But not even was Titus . . . compelled to be circumcised. Not even refers to the prominence which Titus assumed as being associated with St. Paul in his ministry. This was a special reason for insisting upon his circumcision; and yet he was not circumcised.
Being a Greek.Rather, a Gentile. It is observed that the Peshito version translated the word here rendered Greek by Araman or Syrian. All idea of pure Hellenic descent has dropped out of it.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
3. Neither Titus circumcised Titus is here put forth as a living fact in proof of what the pillars did not require. He was placed by St. Paul among them as an uncircumcised Gentile Christian, and they yield the point of circumcision. Paul, according to his ground, could circumcise his Gentile converts, as he did Timothy, if expedient, without any surrender of the principle. But they could not accept one uncircumcised Christian without admitting that there could be Christianity without circumcision. We can, therefore, clearly see why Paul could circumcise Timothy and insist that Titus should not be circumcised. And Paul, doubtless, puts this case to the Galatians as an answer to the argument drawn from his circumcising Timothy.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘But not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.’
‘With me.’ Titus was there as a companion of Paul and Barnabas. (‘With me does not necessarily exclude Barnabas. Paul is simply describing a fact. He is talking to the Galatians about himself and speaks of Titus as having been with him). Because of this Titus was in the limelight and pressure was brought by Judaisers to insist on his circumcision. It was a crucial moment, and Paul points out that neither the Apostles nor the Jerusalem leadership required that he be circumcised. (Paul did not object to the circumcision of Timothy (Act 16:3), for Timothy was half Jewish, and it was felt that his being circumcised would help their ministry among Jews. But in his case there was no matter of principle was involved because of his Jewish background and upbringing).
Titus was a Gentile believer and one of Paul’s faithful helpers in his ministry. When Paul wrote this letter Titus was apparently living in Antioch. Later he went at Paul’s request to the Corinthian church (2Co 2:12-13; 2Co 7:5-16), to the Jerusalem church (2Co 8:6-24; 2Co 9:3-5; 2Co 12:18), and to the Cretan church (Tit 1:5).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The Important Recognition That No Ritual Requirement Can Ever Be Seen As Necessary For Salvation ( Gal 2:3-10 ).
What follows may sound to be rather technical but it is in fact of the greatest importance to us today. For by it was laid down the principle that nothing must be required of a person for salvation except faith in Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Saviour.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Gal 2:3. But neither Tituswas compelled, &c. This served as a plain evidence to the Galatians, that the circumcising of the convert Gentiles was no part of the gospel which he laid before these men of note, as what he preached to the Gentiles; for if it had, Titus must have been circumcised; for no part of his gospel was blamed or altered by them, Gal 2:6. It is difficult to discover of what other use the mentioning of Titus here can be, than to shew to the Galatians that what he preached contained nothing of circumcising theconvert Gentiles. If it were to shew that the other apostles and church atJerusalem dispensed with circumcision, and other ritual observances of the Mosaical law, that was needless, as having been sufficiently declared by their decree, Acts 15 which was made and communicated to the churches before this Epistle was written, Act 16:4. Much less was this example of Titus of any force to prove that St. Paul was a true apostle, if that were what he was here labouring to justify: but considering his aim to be the clearing himself from a report that he preached up circumcision, there could be nothing more to his purpose than this instance of Titus, whom, uncircumcised as he was, he took with him to Jerusalem; uncircumcised he kept with him there; and uncircumcised he took back with him when he returned. This was a strong and pertinent instance to persuade the Galatians that the report of his preaching circumcision was a mere aspersion.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Gal 2:3 . Observe, that Paul does not pass on to the result of his discussions with the until Gal 2:6 , and consequently it is Gal 2:6 ff. which corresponds to the in Gal 2:2 ; so that Gal 2:3-5 have reference to the result of the laying his gospel to the Gentiles before the Christians in Jerusalem generally , and correspond with the first part of Gal 2:2 ( . . . .).
But so little had that exposition of my gospel to the church at Jerusalem a result counteracting it and implying the , that, on the contrary, not even Titus , etc. Thus (comp. Luk 23:15 ; Act 19:2 ) introduces a fact which in contrast to the idea of “running in vain,” which had just been brought forward as the point for inquiry in that exposition of his gospel serves as the surest palpable proof how triumphantly the Gentile gospel of the apostle (which rejected the necessity of circumcision for the Hellenes) maintained its ground then before the church of Jerusalem, and how very far people were from ascribing to the apostle a running, or having run, in vain. For otherwise it would have been absurd, if the church had not pleaded for, and carried out, the circumcision at least of Titus. [61] “But not even this was done, to say nothing of its being a duty of the church to reject my gospel which was altogether opposed to the circumcision of Gentiles, and to decide that I !” This line of argument involves a syllogism , of which is the minor .
] Although a Hellene , a Gentile . [62] We have no further details as to his descent.
] From Gal 2:4-5 it follows that, on the part of certain Christians at Jerusalem (not of the apostles also, who are not referred to until Gal 2:6 , where the . is resumed), the circumcision of Titus had been urged , but had not been complied with on the part of Paul, Barnabas, and Titus, and this resistance was respected by the church; [63] hence the , there was not imposed on him the necessity of submitting to be circumcised . Most expositors, however, adopt the common opinion that . implies that the circumcision of Titus had not been demanded , which is adduced by Paul as a proof of his agreement with the apostles. See Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius, and many others, including Winer, Usteri, Matthies, Schott, de Wette, Hofmann. This view is decisively set aside by the sequel (see on Gal 2:4 ), apart from the fact that here the relation to the apostles is not yet under discussion. Moreover, if the circumcision of Titus had not been demanded, there would have been no occasion for the expression . Certain individuals in the church, no doubt instigated by the false brethren (Gal 2:4 ), had really come forward with the demand that Titus must submit to be circumcised. Comp. the subsequent case of Timothy, who under different circumstances was circumcised by Paul himself (Act 16:3 ). To look upon the false brethren themselves as those who demanded the circumcision of Titus (Bleek, Wieseler, and others) does not suit Gal 2:4 , in which they appear only as the more remote cause of the demand; they kept in the background . [64]
[61] The latter, as associated with the apostle in teaching , must, in his uncircumcised Gentile condition, have been specially offensive to those who had Judaistic views.
[62] This “ although a Hellene ” refers to . Paul is conscious of the boldness , nay, of the defiance (comp. Jerome on ver. 1, “ ausus sit ”), which was involved in bringing the Hellene with him to the council at Jerusalem , the seat of Judaism. In the sense of my official colleague (Reiche, Wieseler), the simple is not in harmony with the context.
[63] For the , if it had occurred, could only have occurred through the church and indeed possibly even the apostolic college (as the Tbingen criticism asserts) joining in the demand made on Titus, and adopting it as their own.
[64] Holsten wrongly reverses the relation, when he holds that behind the false brethren Paul saw the Christians of Jerusalem and the .
Note .
An inconsistency with Act 15 , in which the argument and decision are against the necessity of circumcision, would only emerge in Gal 2:3 , if the matter in question here had been the principal transactions of the council itself , and if those who required the circumcision of Titus had been the apostles (or had at least included the apostles), as Fritzsche, Baur, Hilgenfeld, Holsten, and others assume. But as neither of these is the case, and as, indeed, it does not even follow from our passage that the apostles had so much as merely advised the circumcision of Titus (Wieseler’s earlier opinion, which he has now rightly abandoned), this passage cannot furnish arguments either against the identity of the journey Gal 2 with that of Act 15 (Fritzsche, p. 224), or against the historical character of Act 15 (Baur and his followers).
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
Ver. 3. Was compelled to be circumcised ] i.e. I would not yield he should be; lest I should seem to countenance them that held circumcision necessary to salvation. In the year of grace 1549, the ministers of Magdeburg did stoutly oppose them of Wittenberg and Leipsic, and set forth many books against them, because they dealt deceitfully, and by their Adiaphora, or things indifferent, as they called them, they paved a way to Popery. (Alsted. Chron.) And this was our case till this late blessed Reformation. It was not without cause that Peter Martyr commended it to the care of Queen Elizabeth, that church governors endeavour not to carry the ark of the gospel into England upon the cart of needless ceremonies.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
3 .] But (so far were they from regarding my course to have been in vain, that) neither ( introduces a climax, see reff.) was Titus, who was with me, being a Greek (i.e. though he was a Gentile, and therefore liable to the demand that he should be circumcised), compelled to be circumcised (i.e. we did not allow him to be thus compelled: the facts being, as here implied, that the church at Jerusalem (and the Apostles? apparently not, from Act 15:5 ) demanded his circumcision, but on account of the reason following, the demand was not complied with, but resisted by Paul and Barnabas. So Meyer, with Piscator and Bengel, and I am persuaded, rightly, from what follows. But usually it is understood, that the circumcision of Titus was not even demanded , and that Paul alleged this as shewing his agreement with the other Apostles. So Chrys.: , : so also Thdrt., Thl., c., &c., and Winer and De W. Had this been so, besides that the following could not have stood as it does, not the strong word , but the weakest possible word would have been used ‘ the circumcision of Titus was not even mentioned ’):
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Gal 2:3 . Howbeit even Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, had not been compelled to be circumcised . The last verse related the steps taken by Paul to disarm opposition. He was, however, no less resolute in his resistance to any encroachment on Christian freedom. The presence of Titus with him attested his determination; for the circumcision of Titus had been demanded, and resisted evidently by Paul himself. It is a strange misconception of critics to argue as if this struggle over Titus took place at Jerusalem. The demand for the circumcision of all converts was made at Antioch and pressed against the authority of Paul and Barnabas (Act 20:2 ): the express object of the deputation was to protest against this demand, which they did with entire success. The Greek aorist answers here to the English pluperfect, as often elsewhere ( cf. Winer, xl., 5).
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
neither nut even. Gr oude.
with. Greek. sun. App-104.
being = (though) being.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
3.] But (so far were they from regarding my course to have been in vain, that) neither ( introduces a climax, see reff.) was Titus, who was with me, being a Greek (i.e. though he was a Gentile, and therefore liable to the demand that he should be circumcised), compelled to be circumcised (i.e. we did not allow him to be thus compelled: the facts being, as here implied, that the church at Jerusalem (and the Apostles? apparently not, from Act 15:5) demanded his circumcision, but on account of the reason following, the demand was not complied with, but resisted by Paul and Barnabas. So Meyer, with Piscator and Bengel, and I am persuaded, rightly, from what follows. But usually it is understood, that the circumcision of Titus was not even demanded, and that Paul alleged this as shewing his agreement with the other Apostles. So Chrys.: , : so also Thdrt., Thl., c., &c., and Winer and De W. Had this been so, besides that the following could not have stood as it does, not the strong word , but the weakest possible word would have been used-the circumcision of Titus was not even mentioned):
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Gal 2:3. , not even) We did not even allow the necessity of circumcising Titus, who was with me, to be laid upon us.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Gal 2:3
Gal 2:3
But not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:-Certain false brethren of the Judaizing party brought him into the conference unawares to Paul and the apostles, and demanded that he should be circumcised.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Gal 5:2-6, Act 15:24, Act 16:3, 1Co 9:20, 1Co 9:21
Reciprocal: Pro 28:4 – but Joh 12:20 – Greeks Act 14:1 – Greeks Act 15:1 – ye 1Co 2:15 – yet 2Co 2:13 – Titus Gal 2:1 – Titus Gal 2:14 – why Gal 5:11 – if Gal 6:12 – they constrain Phi 3:2 – the Phi 4:21 – The Tit 1:4 – Titus
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Gal 2:3. , , -Howbeit not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was forced to be circumcised. The reference is not to what had happened at Antioch prior to the visit (Hofmann, Reiche), but to what took place at Jerusalem during the visit. The is strongly adversative. So far from my having run in vain; in the very headquarters of Jewish influence or Judaistic leaning, my Greek companion Titus, heathen though he was, had not circumcision forced upon him. The apostle’s position was tested in the case of Titus, and was not overthrown. is a climactic phrase-at ne quidem; neuerthelesse nother (Coverdale). Luk 23:15; Act 19:2. Titus is the emphatic word: his was a ruling case,-a strong and pertinent instance, as Locke calls it. For various reasons that might have been deemed expedient at the moment and in the place, his circumcision might have been demanded, and yet the tenor of the apostle’s preaching among the Gentiles not disallowed. But not even Titus-
-Greek though or as he was,-, Theodoret,-the participle declaring the reason by stating the fact. Donaldson, 493. Titus was a Greek, or of Greek extraction, and circumcision might on that account have been exacted from him as also my companion; but on the very same account it was resisted. Greek is equivalent to being of heathen extraction. Mar 7:26.
The verb , the opposite of , is a strong expression, denoting to compel even by torture, to force by threats, more mildly by authority (Act 26:11); then to constrain by argument: Mat 14:22; Mar 6:45. See under Gal 2:14.
Two wrong and extreme inferences have been drawn from the word:
1. The Greek fathers, Winer, De Wette, Usteri, Matthies, and Schott go to one extreme, and give this meaning, that the circumcision of Titus, as a Greek and Paul’s companion, was not insisted on, so much did Paul find himself at one with the leading authorities in the mother church. But this hypothesis does not harmonize with the strong expression , nor with the well-known state of opinion and feeling in the church at Jerusalem. Such a statement at this point, too, would be a forestalling of the argument as based on the results of the conference. The apostle is showing that he had not laboured in vain,-that the very point which characterized his gospel was gained, that point being the free admission of uncircumcised Gentiles into the church; for even in Jerusalem the circumcision of Titus was successfully resisted,-the enemy was worsted even in his citadel. Titus was with me, and my authority in the matter was equipollent with that of the other apostles.
2. Some have gone to another extreme, and have drawn this inference from the language, that Titus was not forced to circumcision,-that is, he was circumcised voluntarily, and not of constraint. Such is the idea of Pelagius, Primasius, Wieseler, Baur, Trana, and others. The verse may bear the inference, but the context disallows it. The circumcision of Timothy is no case in point; and such an interpretation is in direct conflict with the course of argument. For the circumcision of Titus would have been a concession of the very point for which the agitators were disturbing these churches, first in Antioch, and afterwards in Galatia. The false brethren for whose sakes, or to whose prejudices, the apostle is supposed to have yielded, are the very persons with whom he could have no accommodation. How could he say that he yielded not, if at the very time and on a vital doctrine he had succumbed? The apostle might be accused of preaching uncircumcision; but had he allowed Titus to be circumcised, a far more pointed charge might have been brought against him (Jowett). And how could such a compromise in such a crisis, a compromise which the council virtually condemned, secure the truth of the gospel coming to or remaining with the Galatian churches (Gal 2:5)? If Paul yielded in Jerusalem, why not in the provinces? His conduct would have been quoted against himself; the Judaizing teachers would have had warrant for their fettered and subverted gospel, and the truth of the gospel among the Galatians would have been seriously endangered. Would not the Judaists there have pleaded Paul’s example, proposed Titus as a noted precedent, and ingeniously pictured out similarity of circumstance and obligation? Holding the to be genuine, we regard him as affirming that very strenuous efforts were made, by whom he says not, to have Titus circumcised,-efforts so keen and persistent as to amount almost to compulsion, but which the apostle strenuously and effectively resisted. Such a view is in harmony with the course of the historical argument. Though there is no sure ground for Lightfoot’s assertion, that probably the apostles recommended Paul to yield the point, yet they may have left him to contend alone on this point with the alarmists; for the subsequent . . . certainly imply, that if they did not alter their views, they came at all events to clearer convictions. The apostle proceeds to give the reason, or rather the explanation, of the statement just made:
Fuente: Commentary on the Greek Text of Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians and Phillipians
Gal 2:3. Paul’s plan accomplished the desired effect as indicated by this verse. Titus being a Greek, belonged to the Gentile nation, but according to the contention of the Judaizers he should have been circumcised to be saved. The statement is made that he was not compelled to submit to it. Of course no one thought of using physical force to administer the rite on anyone. The word means to constrain, either by force or persuasion, and the latter means was attempted by the false brethren.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Gal 2:3. Yet not even Titus …. being a Greek, or although he was a Greek, that is, a heathen. Far from declaring my labors fruitless and disapproving my gospel, the Jewish Apostles did not force even Titus, my companion and co-laborer, much less the body of the Gentile converts, to submit to circumcision, although the Judaizing party peremptorily demanded it as a condition of justification (as appears from Gal 2:4-5, and Act 15:5).
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Observe here, 1. The instance and evidence which St. Paul brings of the apostles at Jerusalem, agreeing with him, both in their doctrine and in their practice; and that was Titus, who being a Gentile, born a Greek, and now a preacher of the gospel, and never circumcised, the apostles at Jerusalem would no more compel him to be circumcised than St. Paul had done, but received him into fellowship with them, though he was an uncircumcised Greek. This was a plain evidence, that they did not judge circumcision, at that time, to be a part of God’s commanded worship; for then they would have compelled Titus to it; that is, constrained him, by the force of ecclesiastical censures, to become circumcised, had they thought circumcision necessary to the Gentiles.
Observe, 2. The reason assigned, why the apostle would not circumcise Titus, though he had before circumcised Timothy, namely, because some false brethren crept in, would have taken advantage from it, to bring persons into bondage to the law of ceremonies, and plead conformity to circumcision as an obliged duty.
Learn hence, that although the cermonial law was certainly abolished by the death of Christ; yet, Almighty God, partly with respect to it as his own ordinance, and partly in condescension to the weakness of the Jews, was pleased to tolerate the observation of some part of it, and particularly circumcision, as an indifferent action, though not as a part of religion, for some time; the cermonial rites being dead, they were to be decently, nor over hastily buried.
Observe, 3. The apostle’s undaunted courage, and heroic resolution in this matter; he would, notwithstanding the false apostles importunity, never yield subjection, or submission to, or compliance with, their commands, in the least measure, by consenting to circumcise Titus; that so the truth and liberty of the gospel might continue sincere and unshaken.
Learn hence, that an outward act of compliance must not be consented to, which, in some cases, might be complied with, when, by making it necessary, we turn Christian liberty into servitude and bondage, when things in their own nature indifferent, are urged and enforced as necessary; in that case, the practice of a thing indifferent, is to be abstained from. Thus here, when false brethren urged the circumcision of Titus, as an evidence of St. Paul’s receding from the doctrine of Christian liberty, he would not obey them, nor consent unto them: To whom we gave place, no not for an hour; that is, we refused to use circumcision, though but that once, because we would not give the adversaries the least advantage against us, or against the truth delivered and defended by us.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Gal 2:3. But neither Titus, &c. As if he had said, That the apostles, to whom I communicated the doctrine which I preach, acknowledged it to be the true gospel of Christ, is evident from this, that not even Titus, who was with, me, though a Greek, or converted Gentile, was compelled to be circumcised In order to his being received as a true member of the Christian Church; a clear proof that none of the apostles insisted on circumcising the Gentile believers. The sense seems to be, It is true, some of those false brethren would gladly have compelled Titus to be circumcised, but I utterly refused it. And that because of false brethren That is, I was averse to, and opposed the circumcision of Titus, because the Jews, who professed the Christian religion, yet urged the observation of the ceremonial law as necessary to salvation, (Act 15:1,) and so were real enemies to the gospel. Or, the sense may be, that Titus was not compelled, by the apostles and elders of Jerusalem, to be circumcised, on account even of the false brethren, who, when they found that Titus was not circumcised, complained of Paul to his brethren apostles on that account. Unawares brought in Made members of the church at Jerusalem upon their great pretences to piety, without due consideration and trial; who came in privily To our meetings at Jerusalem; to spy, &c. To find out and condemn our freedom from the law of Moses, which we Gentiles have obtained by Christ Jesuss gospel. Or, as some explain the clause, these false brethren had got themselves introduced secretly, that is, by persons that did not know their real character, into the meetings which Paul had with the apostles, to observe whether he would stand to the defence of that liberty from the ceremonial law before the apostles, which he preached among the Gentiles. That they might bring us into bondage That in case I had not maintained our liberty, they might thence take occasion to bring back the Christian Gentiles, and whole church, under the yoke of the ceremonial law. To whom we gave place, no, not for an hour Yielded to them in allowing the ceremonies, in no degree. With such wonderful prudence did the apostle use his Christian liberty; circumcising Timothy, (Act 16:3,) because of weak brethren, but not Titus, because of false brethren; that the truth of the gospel The true genuine gospel, or the purity of gospel doctrine; might continue with you And other churches of the Gentiles. So that, as if he had said, we defend for your sakes the privileges which you would give up.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
But not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Verse 3
Titus is often alluded to by Paul in his Epistles, though he is not mentioned in the Acts. He appears, like Timothy, to have been made a convert through Paul’s instrumentality, and both afterwards became efficient and devoted fellow-laborers with the apostle.–Neither Titus–was compelled; that is, he did not allow him to be compelled. Paul caused Timothy to be circumcised, (Acts 16:3,) his mother being a Jewess, but he would not allow Titus to be. He thus practised according to the principles which he always enjoined, yielding to Jewish feelings so far as it was proper to do so, and resisting only when resistance was necessary in vindication of the truth. The reason why he would not allow Titus to be made a Jew is stated in the Galatians 2:4,5.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: 4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:
Here we see evidence of the correctness of our assumption about Paul’s wanting confirmation as well as the implication of some Judaizers.
Imagine, having preached the same simple gospel for a long time then run into men that say you have to be circumcised to be saved. I think we see Paul being open to these men, but I think we also see a strong belief that he was right. The next verses seems to bear this out.
Fuente: Mr. D’s Notes on Selected New Testament Books by Stanley Derickson
Paul’s fear was not that he had been preaching an erroneous gospel. It was that the false teachers who were saying Gentile converts had to become Jews before they could experience justification might undercut his work (cf. Act 15:1).
". . . Paul could never tolerate any presentation of Christianity which regarded it as a form of Judaism." [Note: Guthrie, Galatians, p. 67.]
James, Peter, and John agreed with Paul, the proof of which was their willingness to let Titus remain uncircumcised. Circumcision was a rite by which Gentile males became Jewish proselytes.
"Within the crosscurrents of political messianism and apocalyptic speculation, the idea grew that the Messiah would only come when the Holy Land had been purified of all uncircumcised Gentiles." [Note: George, p. 143.]