Corpus-Paul

[George F Somsel <gfsomsel AT juno.com>]

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 14:19:17 -0800 Richard Fellows <rfellows AT shaw.ca> writes:
> listers,
>
> Gal 2:3-5 makes little grammatical sense if the DE in 4 is taken as
> adversative, so let's explore what happens if we take it as
> explicative. In
> that case verse 4 states the reason why Titus was not compelled to
> be
> circumcised. Blommerde does indeed take it to be explicative and
> translates:
>
> 3. But not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be
> circumcised,
> though he was a Greek, 4. namely: because of the false brothren
> secretly
> brought in - they slipped in to spy out our freedom which we have in
> Christ
> Jesus that they might bring us into bondage; 5. to them we did ot
> yield
> submission even for a moment, that the truth of the gospel might be
> preserved for you.
>
> Machen considers a similar understanding:
>
> "Not even Titus," Paul would say in accordance with this
> interpretation,
> "was compelled to be circumcised; and that - namely, the
> non-circumcision of
> Titus - was on account of the privily brought in false brethren." In
> other
> words, if the false brethren had not been there, Titus might have
> been
> circumcised; but their general contention about the Gentile converts
> made
> the question about Titus a test case, so that yielding even in that
> case
> became impossible.
>
> This makes a lot of sense, and seems to be confirmed by 2:5, where
> Paul
> clarifies 2:3-4. Paul, Titus, and the apostles did not yield to the
> false
> brothers for a moment so that the false brothers would not be able
> to use
> this precedent to subvert the truth of the gospel.
>
> Why has this interpretation not been widely accepted? I think it is
> because
> of the implication that the apostles would have had Titus
> circumcised if
> false brothers had not been at large in the church. Commentators
> deny that
> Paul would have permitted the circumcision of an ordinary Gentile
> under any
> circumstances. But why must we assume that Titus was an ordinary
> Gentile?
> Should we not rather take 2:3-5 as evidence that Titus was NOT an
> ordinary
> Gentile, but was the most Jewish of Gentiles? Indeed, this might be
> the
> force of the OUDE in 2:3 - even Titus was not compelled.
>
> If Titus was Timothy he was the one person whom Paul was prepared
> to
> circumcise, for Paul did indeed circumcise him at a later date. In
> 2:3-5
> Paul might then be saying that the Jerusalem apostles did not even
> ask
> TIMOTHY to be circumcised, because they did not want to send the
> wrong
> message to the gentile churches such as those in Galatia, since the
> false
> brothers had made circumcision such a hot issue. So, by equating
> Titus with
> Timothy we can simultaneously mend Paul's grammar in 2:3-5 and end
> up with a
> historically plausible reading. I know of no way of doing this
> without the
> T-T hypothesis. Do you?
>
> I am sometimes asked why Paul did not have Titus-Timothy circumcised
> in
> Jerusalem. Why was the circumcision of T-T appropriate in Galatia if
> it had
> not been appropriate in Jerusalem? What different circumcstances
> applied in
> Jerusalem and Galatia? This is a valid question. I think there are
> two
> differences between the situations in Jerusalem and Galatia.
> Firstly, Acts
> 16:3 indicates that Timothy's promotion to the rank of missionary
> companion
> was what made the circumcision necessary at that point. Timothy
> would need
> to be circumcised to gain an audiance among the Jews for his
> preaching.
> Secondly, the circumcision issue was hotly disputed at the time of
> the
> Jerusalem visit and this made it inadvisable to have Timothy
> circumcised
> then. Indeed, Paul may be saying as much in Gal 2:3-5, as has been
> discussed
> above.
>
> On any hypothesis, Paul would not have circumcised Timothy if the
> south
> Galatian churches had been under the influence of the influencers at
> that
> time. Such a circumcision would have sent the wrong message. If
> Galatians
> was written before  the circumcision of Timothy it must have been
> successful
> so that Paul was comfortable enough to circumcise him. If Galatians
> was
> written after the circumcision of Timothy the controversy in Galatia
> arose
> after Acts 16:1-3. The interpretation of Gal 2:1-3 given above
> seems
> compatable with both these alternatives. Is there any way of
> choosing
> between them?
>
> Richard.
________________________-

 

From the WBC vol. 41 on Galatians by  R.N. Longenecker.

Paul’s statement that Titus was not “compelled to be circumcised” (ἠναγκάσθη περιτμῆθηναι) has within it a certain ambiguity, and so has been variously understood. Most see it as a direct affirmation that Titus was not circumcised (e.g., Lightfoot, Ramsay, Burton, Betz, Bruce). Others, however, interpret it to mean that he was circumcised, but not as a result of any compulsion from the Jerusalem leaders: he allowed himself to be circumcised voluntarily or at Paul’s suggestion, apart from any pressure from those at Jerusalem (e.g., F. C. Burkitt, Christian Beginnings, 118; Duncan, Galatians, 41–44). This latter understanding lays stress on the word “compelled” and cites Paul’s habit of making practical concessions for the sake of the gospel (cf. 1 Cor 9:19–23). Yet there is no syntactical reason to take ἠναγκάσθη as being emphatic. Rather, the emphasis in the sentence is on οὐδέ before Titus (“not even Titus”), which is more in line with the view that Titus was not circumcised. Furthermore, while Paul was indeed a master of practical concession without disturbing theological principles, it is extremely difficult to hear him say that “we did not give in to them even for a moment” (v 5a, note the discussion on οὐδέ) and that he had preserved “the truth of the gospel” for his Gentile converts (v 5b), if he had already—whether voluntarily or under duress—conceded the Judaizers’ main point of the necessity of circumcision for Gentile believers. The view that Titus was circumcised but not because of any external compulsion, therefore, rightly deserves to be called “an artificial construction” (so Betz, Galatians, 89).

 

george
gfsomsel
___________