But not even Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. This was because of the false brothers secretly brought in, who stole in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage, to whom we gave no place in the way of subjection, not for an hour, that the truth of the Good News might continue with you. But from those who were reputed to be important—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God doesn’t show partiality to man—they, I say, who were respected imparted nothing to me, but to the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the Good News for the uncircumcised, even as Peter with the Good News for the circumcised— for he who worked through Peter in the apostleship with the circumcised also worked through me with the Gentiles— and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, those who were reputed to be pillars, gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcision.
Show the surrounding paragraph
Galatians 2:3-9 sits inside this longer paragraph.
Then after a period of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus also with me. I went up by revelation, and I laid before them the Good News which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately before those who were respected, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain. But not even Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. This was because of the false brothers secretly brought in, who stole in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage, to whom we gave no place in the way of subjection, not for an hour, that the truth of the Good News might continue with you. But from those who were reputed to be important—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God doesn’t show partiality to man—they, I say, who were respected imparted nothing to me, but to the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the Good News for the uncircumcised, even as Peter with the Good News for the circumcised— for he who worked through Peter in the apostleship with the circumcised also worked through me with the Gentiles— and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, those who were reputed to be pillars, gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcision. They only asked us to remember the poor—which very thing I was also zealous to do.
Parallel Translations
-
But not even Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.
This was because of the false brothers secretly brought in, who stole in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage,
to whom we gave no place in the way of subjection, not for an hour, that the truth of the Good News might continue with you.
But from those who were reputed to be important—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God doesn’t show partiality to man—they, I say, who were respected imparted nothing to me,
but to the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the Good News for the uncircumcised, even as Peter with the Good News for the circumcised—
for he who worked through Peter in the apostleship with the circumcised also worked through me with the Gentiles—
and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, those who were reputed to be pillars, gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcision.
-
Also Titus which was with me though he were a Greke yet was not compelled to be circumcised
and that because of incommers beynge falce brethren which came in amonge other to spye out oure libertie which we have in Christ Iesus that they might bringe vs into bondage.
To whom we gave no roume no not for the space of an houre as concerninge to be brought into subieccion: and that because that the trueth of the gospell myght continue with you.
Of the which seme to be great (what they were in tyme passed it maketh no matter to me: God loketh on no mans person) neverthelesse they which seme great added nothynge to me.
But contrary wyse when they sawe that the gospell over the vncircumcision was committed vnto me as the gospell over the circucision was vnto Peter:
for he that was myghty in Peter in the Apostleshippe over the circumcision the same was myghty in me amonge the gentyls:
and therfore when they perceaved the grace that was geve vnto me then Iames Cephas and Iohn which semed to be pilers gave to me and Barnabas the ryght hondes and agreed with vs that we shuld preache amonge the Hethen and they amonge the Iewes:
Show all 3 translations
-
But neither yet Titus which was with me, though he were a Grecian, was compelled to be circumcised,
To wit, for the false brethren which were craftily sent in, and crept in priuily to spie out our libertie, which we haue in Christ Iesus, that they might bring vs into bondage.
To whom we gaue not place by subiection for an houre, that the trueth of the Gospel might continue with you.
But by them which seemed to be great, I was not taught (whatsoeuer they were in time passed, I am nothing the better: God accepteth no mans person) for they that are the chiefe, did adde nothing to me aboue that I had.
But contrariwise, when they saw that ye Gospel ouer ye vncircumcision was comitted vnto me, as the Gospel ouer ye circumcision was vnto Peter:
(For he that was mightie by Peter in the Apostleship ouer the circumcision, was also mightie by me toward the Gentiles)
And when Iames, and Cephas, and Iohn, knew of the grace that was giuen vnto me, which are counted to be pillars, they gaue to me and to Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should preach vnto the Gentiles, and they vnto the Circumcision,
Examined in Scripture Analysis
Contradictions (1)
Questions where the Bible appears to say two different things, with the passages on each side set together.
Cross-references (118)
- Galatians 2:2 (vv6, 9) I went up by revelation, and I laid before them the Good News which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately before those who were…
- Galatians 5:1 (v4) Stand firm therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and don’t be entangled again with a yoke of bondage.
- Jude 1:4 (v4) For there are certain men who crept in secretly, even those who were long ago written about for this condemnation: ungodly men, turning the…
- Acts 10:34 (v6) Peter opened his mouth and said, “Truly I perceive that God doesn’t show favoritism;
- Romans 12:3 (v9) For I say through the grace that was given me, to every man who is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think;…
Show all 100 cross-references
- Acts 9:15 (vv7–8) But the Lord said to him, “Go your way, for he is my chosen vessel to bear my name before the nations and kings, and the children of Israel.
- 2 Corinthians 11:26 (v4) I have been in travels often, perils of rivers, perils of robbers, perils from my countrymen, perils from the Gentiles, perils in the city,…
- Galatians 5:12-13 (v4) I wish that those who disturb you would cut themselves off. For you, brothers, were called for freedom. Only don’t use your freedom for…
- 1 Thessalonians 2:4 (v7) But even as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the Good News, so we speak: not as pleasing men, but God, who tests our…
- 2 Peter 2:1-2 (v4) But false prophets also arose among the people, as false teachers will also be among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies,…
- 1 John 4:1 (v4) Beloved, don’t believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God, because many false prophets have gone out into the…
- Romans 2:11 (v6) For there is no partiality with God.
- Galatians 1:16 (v7) to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I didn’t immediately confer with flesh and blood,
- Galatians 4:3 (v4) So we also, when we were children, were held in bondage under the elemental principles of the world.
- Galatians 4:9-10 (v4) But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, why do you turn back again to the weak and miserable elemental…
- 1 Timothy 2:7 (v7) to which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle—I am telling the truth in Christ, not lying—a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.
- Revelation 3:12 (v9) He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will go out from there no more. I will write on him the name of…
- Acts 16:3 (v3) Paul wanted to have him go out with him, and he took and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts; for they all knew…
- 2 Corinthians 12:11 (v6) I have become foolish in boasting. You compelled me, for I ought to have been commended by you, for I am in no way inferior to the very…
- Galatians 2:14 (v5) But when I saw that they didn’t walk uprightly according to the truth of the Good News, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a…
- Galatians 4:16 (v5) So then, have I become your enemy by telling you the truth?
- Galatians 5:2-6 (v3) Behold, I, Paul, tell you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will profit you nothing. Yes, I testify again to every man who receives…
- Ephesians 3:8 (v9) To me, the very least of all saints, was this grace given, to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ,
- 2 Peter 2:19 (v4) promising them liberty, while they themselves are bondservants of corruption; for a man is brought into bondage by whoever overcomes him.
- Acts 15:24 (vv3–4) Because we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, ‘You must be circumcised…
- Psalms 51:12 (v4) Restore to me the joy of your salvation. Uphold me with a willing spirit.
- Psalms 119:45 (v4) I will walk in liberty, for I have sought your precepts.
- Isaiah 51:23 (v4) I will put it into the hand of those who afflict you, who have said to your soul, ‘Bow down, that we may walk over you;’ and you have laid…
- John 8:31-36 (v4) Jesus therefore said to those Jews who had believed him, “If you remain in my word, then you are truly my disciples. You will know the…
- Acts 13:46-48 (v7) Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, and said, “It was necessary that God’s word should be spoken to you first. Since indeed you thrust it…
- Acts 15:1 (v4) Some men came down from Judea and taught the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised after the custom of Moses, you can’t be saved.”
- Acts 20:30 (v4) Men will arise from among your own selves, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.
- Acts 22:21 (v8) “He said to me, ‘Depart, for I will send you out far from here to the Gentiles.’”
- Romans 8:15 (v4) For you didn’t receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!”
- 1 Corinthians 9:20-21 (v3) To the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain those who are…
- 2 Corinthians 3:17 (v4) Now the Lord is the Spirit and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
- 2 Corinthians 11:5 (v6) For I reckon that I am not at all behind the very best apostles.
- 2 Corinthians 11:17 (v4) That which I speak, I don’t speak according to the Lord, but as in foolishness, in this confidence of boasting.
- 2 Corinthians 11:20 (v4) For you bear with a man if he brings you into bondage, if he devours you, if he takes you captive, if he exalts himself, or if he strikes…
- Galatians 2:9 (v7) and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, those who were reputed to be pillars, gave to Barnabas…
- Galatians 3:23-26 (v4) But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, confined for the faith which should afterwards be revealed. So that the law…
- Galatians 4:25 (v4) For this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answers to the Jerusalem that exists now, for she is in bondage with her children.
- Galatians 5:10 (v4) I have confidence toward you in the Lord that you will think no other way. But he who troubles you will bear his judgment, whoever he is.
- Galatians 6:3 (v6) For if a man thinks himself to be something when he is nothing, he deceives himself.
- 1 Timothy 1:11 (v7) according to the Good News of the glory of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.
- 2 Timothy 1:11 (v7) For this I was appointed as a preacher, an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.
- 2 Timothy 3:6 (v4) For some of these are people who creep into houses and take captive gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts,
- 1 Peter 1:17 (v6) If you call on him as Father, who without respect of persons judges according to each man’s work, pass the time of your living as…
- 1 Peter 2:16 (v4) as free, and not using your freedom for a cloak of wickedness, but as bondservants of God.
- Acts 15:12 (vv7–8) All the multitude kept silence, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul reporting what signs and wonders God had done among the nations…
- Romans 1:5 (vv7, 9) through whom we received grace and apostleship for obedience of faith among all the nations for his name’s sake;
- Acts 2:14-41 (v8) But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and spoke out to them, “You men of Judea, and all you who dwell at Jerusalem,…
- Acts 15:22-30 (v9) Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole assembly, to choose men out of their company, and send them to Antioch…
- Acts 18:6 (v7) When they opposed him and blasphemed, he shook out his clothing and said to them, “Your blood be on your own heads! I am clean. From now…
- Acts 19:11-12 (v8) God worked special miracles by the hands of Paul, so that even handkerchiefs or aprons were carried away from his body to the sick, and the…
- Acts 21:19 (v8) When he had greeted them, he reported one by one the things which God had worked among the Gentiles through his ministry.
- Acts 28:28 (v7) “Be it known therefore to you, that the salvation of God is sent to the nations, and they will listen.”
- 1 Corinthians 9:17 (v7) For if I do this of my own will, I have a reward. But if not of my own will, I have a stewardship entrusted to me.
- 2 Corinthians 2:13 (v3) I had no relief for my spirit, because I didn’t find Titus, my brother, but taking my leave of them, I went out into Macedonia.
- 2 Corinthians 11:13 (v4) For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as Christ’s apostles.
- Galatians 2:6-7 (v9) But from those who were reputed to be important—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God doesn’t show partiality to man—they,…
- Galatians 3:1-2 (v5) Foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you not to obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was openly portrayed among you as crucified?…
- Ephesians 1:13 (v5) In him you also, having heard the word of the truth, the Good News of your salvation—in whom, having also believed, you were sealed with…
- Colossians 1:5 (v5) because of the hope which is laid up for you in the heavens, of which you heard before in the word of the truth of the Good News
- Colossians 2:4-8 (v5) Now I say this that no one may delude you with persuasiveness of speech. For though I am absent in the flesh, yet I am with you in the…
- 2 Peter 3:15 (v7) Regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote to you,
- 1 John 1:3 (v9) that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us. Yes, and our fellowship is with the Father,…
- Jude 1:3 (v5) Beloved, while I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I was constrained to write to you exhorting you to contend…
- Revelation 21:14-20 (v9) The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them twelve names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb. He who spoke with me had for a…
- 1 Corinthians 15:10 (vv8–9) But by the grace of God I am what I am. His grace which was given to me was not futile, but I worked more than all of them; yet not I, but…
- Colossians 1:29 (vv8–9) for which I also labor, striving according to his working, which works in me mightily.
- Job 32:17-22 (v6) I also will answer my part, and I also will show my opinion. For I am full of words. The spirit within me constrains me. Behold, my breast…
- Matthew 16:18 (v9) I also tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my assembly, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.
- Mark 12:14 (v6) When they had come, they asked him, “Teacher, we know that you are honest, and don’t defer to anyone; for you aren’t partial to anyone, but…
- Luke 20:21 (v6) They asked him, “Teacher, we know that you say and teach what is right, and aren’t partial to anyone, but truly teach the way of God.
- Acts 1:8 (v8) But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you. You will be witnesses to me in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and…
- Acts 1:25 (v8) to take part in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas fell away, that he might go to his own place.”
- Acts 3:12-26 (v8) When Peter saw it, he responded to the people, “You men of Israel, why do you marvel at this man? Why do you fasten your eyes on us, as…
- Acts 4:4 (v8) But many of those who heard the word believed, and the number of the men came to be about five thousand.
- Acts 4:36 (v9) Joses, who by the apostles was also called Barnabas (which is, being interpreted, Son of Encouragement), a Levite, a man of Cyprus by race,
- Acts 5:12-16 (v8) By the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were done among the people. They were all with one accord in Solomon’s porch. None of…
- Acts 8:17 (v8) Then they laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.
- Acts 13:2-11 (v8) As they served the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, “Separate Barnabas and Saul for me, for the work to which I have called them.”…
- Acts 14:3-11 (v8) Therefore they stayed there a long time, speaking boldly in the Lord, who testified to the word of his grace, granting signs and wonders to…
- Acts 15:2 (v5) Therefore when Paul and Barnabas had no small discord and discussion with them, they appointed Paul and Barnabas, and some others of them,…
- Acts 15:7 (v9) When there had been much discussion, Peter rose up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that a good while ago God made a choice among you…
- Acts 15:13 (v9) After they were silent, James answered, “Brothers, listen to me.
- Acts 15:25-26 (v7) it seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose out men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have…
- Romans 11:13 (v7) For I speak to you who are Gentiles. Since then as I am an apostle to Gentiles, I glorify my ministry;
- Romans 12:5-6 (v9) so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another, having gifts differing according to the grace that…
- Romans 15:15 (v9) But I write the more boldly to you in part, as reminding you, because of the grace that was given to me by God,
- 1 Corinthians 9:2 (v8) If to others I am not an apostle, yet at least I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.
- 2 Corinthians 8:4 (v9) begging us with much entreaty to receive this grace and the fellowship in the service to the saints.
- 2 Corinthians 11:4-5 (v8) For if he who comes preaches another Jesus, whom we didn’t preach, or if you receive a different spirit, which you didn’t receive, or a…
- 2 Corinthians 11:21-23 (v6) I speak by way of disparagement, as though we had been weak. Yet in whatever way anyone is bold (I speak in foolishness), I am bold also.…
- Galatians 2:11-14 (v9) But when Peter came to Antioch, I resisted him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before some people came from James, he ate with…
- Ephesians 2:20 (v9) being built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief cornerstone;
- 1 Thessalonians 2:13 (v5) For this cause we also thank God without ceasing, that when you received from us the word of the message of God, you accepted it not as the…
- 1 Timothy 3:15 (v9) but if I wait long, that you may know how men ought to behave themselves in God’s house, which is the assembly of the living God, the…
- Hebrews 13:17 (v6) Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they watch on behalf of your souls, as those who will give account, that they may do this with…
100 distinct cross-references across this passage (118 total citations).
Cross-references from openbible.info (CC BY 4.0)
Explain this passage (24 sources)
Historical commentary, presented as a primary source — not an endorsement.
Private notes
Saved on this device only — never synced or sent anywhere.
Martin Luther 1535 · Public Domain On vv3–9 VERSE 3. But neither Titus, who was with me,…
VERSE 3. But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.
The word "compelled" acquaints us with the outcome of the conference. It was resolved that the Gentiles should not be compelled to be circumcised.
Read full note →
Paul did not condemn circumcision in itself. Neither by word nor deed did he ever inveigh against circumcision. But he did protest against circumcision being made a condition for salvation. He cited the case of the Fathers. "The fathers were not justified by circumcision. It was to them a sign and seal of righteousness. They looked upon circumcision as a confession of their faith."
The believing Jews, however, could not get it through their heads that circumcision was not necessary for salvation. They were encouraged in their wrong attitude by the false apostles. The result was that the people were up in arms against Paul and his doctrine.
Paul did not condemn circumcision as if it were a sin to receive it. But he insisted, and the conference upheld him, that circumcision had no bearing upon salvation and was therefore not to be forced upon the Gentiles. The conference agreed that the Jews should be permitted to keep their ancient customs for the time being, so long as they did not regard those customs as conveying God’s justification of the sinner.
The false apostles were dissatisfied with the verdict of the conference. They did not want to rest circumcision and the practice of the Law in Christian liberty. They insisted that circumcision was obligatory unto salvation.
As the opponents of Paul, so our own adversaries [Luther’s, the enemies of the Reformation] contend that the traditions of the Fathers dare not be neglected without loss of salvation. Our opponents will not agree with us on anything. They defend their blasphemies. They go as far to enforce them with the sword.
Paul’s victory was complete. Titus, who was with Paul, was not compelled to be circumcised, although he stood in the midst of the apostles when this question of circumcision was debated. This was a blow to the false apostles. With the living fact that Titus was not compelled to be circumcised Paul was able to squelch his adversaries.
Martin Luther — Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (1535), English translation by Theodore Graebner (Zondervan, 1939) — public domain (U.S. copyright not renewed). Text from a community e-Sword module.
John Calvin 1540 · Public Domain On vv3–9 3. But neither Titus. This is an additional argument…
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,” (1 Corinthians 10:23) we ought to inquire what is expedient. He circumcises Timothy, (Acts 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 (Acts 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,” (Romans 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.
John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv4, 5, 7, 9 Which by deceit, and counterfeit holiness crept in amongst…
Which by deceit, and counterfeit holiness crept in amongst the faithful.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv3–9 3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being…
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.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv3–9 The apostle brings this as an instance of the…
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.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
William Burkitt 1703 · Public Domain On vv3, 6, 7 Observe here, 1. The instance and evidence which St.…
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.
Read full note →
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.
William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv3–9 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a…
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.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv3–9 But neither was Titus who was with me -…
But neither was Titus who was with me - When I conversed with them. Compelled to be circumcised - A clear proof that none of the apostles insisted on the circumcising gentile believers. The sense is, And it is true, some of those false brethren would fain have compelled Titus to be circumcised; but I utterly refused it.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Verse 3. But neither Titus, who was with me]…
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.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On vv3, 6, 9 Gal 2:3. But neither Titus, &c. — As if…
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 Jesus’s 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.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On vv3–9 But neither Titus, who was with me - Paul…
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 Paul’s 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.
Read full note →
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.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv3, 5, 7, 9 Neither Titus....circumcised, who had been a Gentile. A convincing…
Neither Titus....circumcised, who had been a Gentile. A convincing proof, says St. John Chrysostom, that even according to the other apostles, the Gentiles converted, were not subject to the Jewish laws. (Witham)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On vv3–9 But--So far were they from regarding me as running…
But--So far were they from regarding me as running in vain, that "not even Titus who was with me, who was a Greek (and therefore uncircumcised), was compelled to be circumcised." So the Greek should be translated. The "false brethren," Gal 2:4 ("certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed," Act 15:5), demanded his circumcision. The apostles, however, constrained by the firmness of Paul and Barnabas (Gal 2:5), did not compel or insist on his being circumcised. Thus they virtually sanctioned Paul's course among the Gentiles and admitted his independence as an apostle: the point he desires to set forth to the Galatians. Timothy, on the other hand, as being a proselyte of the gate, and son of a Jewess (Act 16:1), he circumcised (Act 16:3). Christianity did not interfere with Jewish usages, regarded merely as social ordinances, though no longer having their religious significance, in the case of Jews and proselytes, while the Jewish polity and temple still stood; after the overthrow of the latter, those usages naturally ceased. To have insisted on Jewish usages for Gentile converts, would have been to make them essential parts of Christianity. To have rudely violated them at first in the case of Jews, would have been inconsistent with that charity which (in matters indifferent) is made all things to all men, that by all means it may win some (Co1 9:22; compare Rom 14:1-7, Rom 14:13-23). Paul brought Titus about with him as a living example of the power of the Gospel upon the uncircumcised heathen.
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv3–9 3. Neither Titus… circumcised—Titus is here put forth as…
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.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv3–9 3. neither Titus] Better, not even Titus, who, as…
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.
Read full note →
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.
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’.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv3–9 (3) But neither Titus . . .—This and the…
(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 mother’s side, a Jew.
Read full note →
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 “Aramæan” or “Syrian.” All idea of pure Hellenic descent has dropped out of it.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv3–9 But (ajll); and yet. "Though I explicitly stated to…
But (ajll); and yet. "Though I explicitly stated to the leading men in the Church of Jerusalem what I taught respecting the relation of Gentile converts to circumcision and the Mosaic Law, yet in the end they, by their support, enabled us to withstand the pressure which was for a while applied for getting Titus circumcised." Neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised (oujdetov oJ su Ellhn w) hjnagkasqh peritmhqhnai); not even was Titus who was with me, being a Greek, compelled to be circumcised. This, St. Paul intimates, was a crucial case. Titus was a Gentile pure; not (like Timothy) having one parent of Jewish extraction and therefore capable of being identified with the Jewish people, but Gentile-born of both parents. The clause, was with me," after ver. 1, was quite unnecessary for mere definition; in fact, it is not added for definition, but to mark the close association with an uncircumcised Gentile which the apostle openly displayed at Jerusalem. He took him with him, we may suppose, when he came before the Church at its public assemblies; when he appeared before the select meeting of the apostles and elders; when he joined the brethren in the agapae and the Lord"s Supper occasions of fraternal communion, in which the presence of a "dog," "an uncircumcised Greek," would be tenfold obnoxious. We cannot, by the way, but marvel at St. Paul"s great courage in thus acting. Not only was this paraded fellowship with Titus sure to give deep offence to the vast majority of his Christian brethren, but it might also well expose him to serious personal risks among the highly inflammable populace of the city. At Jerusalem his "soul was among lions." The two clauses, "who was with me, being a Greek," illustrate the "not even." Openly displayed as was Titus"s companionship with St. Paul before the eyes of all the Jews, both believers and unbelievers,and Gentile as he was known to be, yet not even in his case was circumcision persistently insisted upon. The aorist tense of hjnagkasqh is significant of the ultimate result; it implies that an attempt was made to get Titus to submit to the rite, but failed. We must observe that St. Paul does not write,"I was not compelled to circumcise Titus," but "Titus was not compelled to be circumcised." This appears to make a material difference. By putting it as he has done, the apostle intimates that it was to Titus himself that the pressure was applied. Titus was plied, we may suppose, with theological argument, with appeals to his brotherly sympathies, with appeals to his prudent care for public peace, with threats of social and religious excommunication, and with stern, indignant remonstrance. But sustained, as he all through knew himself to be, by at least St, Paul, if not also by his fellow-deputies, he through it all maintained his firm stand upon his liberty. The "we" of the eicamen in ver. 5, no doubt, includes at least Titus. The question, however, arises Who were they that for a while endeavoured to force circumcision upon Titus? The converts from the sect of the Pharisees, mentioned by St. Luke, (Act_15:5) are naturally the first to occur to our minds. But the moulding of the sentence in the next verse discountenances this solution. We cannot help identifying the "false brethren" there spoken of with just those very Pharisean converts men who had simply thrown the cloak of professed Christian discipleship over the old Pharisean legalism still wholly clung to. But if we suppose this, we cannot imagine that the writer would have said that Titus was not compelled to be circumcised by reason of those false brethren," if these had been the very persons alluded to as having tried to compel him. It is more probable that the persons alluded to were certain influential members of the Jewish Church, with a strong body, perhaps, of the elders of that Church, having possibly the concurrence even of James and of Cephas. James and the elders, on a later occasion, (Act_21:18-26) urged Paul himself to undertake the performance of certain Mosaical observances, with the view of conciliating the believers of Jerusalem. It is, therefore, quite supposable, at this earlier and as yet immature stage in the development of the practical application of the evangelical doctrine, that Titus was now being dealt with in a somewhat similar manner. But whoever they were that were doing it, it is plain that, in effect, they were working towards the same practical result as the most eager of the Mosaist legalists, only by a different mode of approach. Titus in particular was fastened upon for this assault, apparently because St. Paul had brought him with him as a crucial instance whereupon to try the general question.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On vv3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 But neither Titus, who was with me.
Gal_2:3
But neither Titus, who was with me.
Read full note →
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.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Expositor's Bible 1887 · Public Domain On v6 Chapter 8
Chapter 8
PAUL AND THE THREE PILLARS.
Read full note →
Gal_2:6-10
WE have dealt by anticipation, in chap. 6, with several of the topics raised in this section of the Epistle-touching particularly the import of the phrase "those of repute," and the tone of disparagement in which these dignitaries appear to be spoken of in Gal_2:6. But there still remains in these verses matter in its weight and difficulty more than sufficient to occupy another chapter.
The grammatical connection of the first paragraph, like that of Gal_2:2-3, is involved and disputable. We construe its clauses in the following way:-
(1) Gal_2:6 begins with a But, contrasting "those of repute" with the "false brethren" dealt with in the last sentence. It contains another anacoluthon (or incoherence of language) due to the surge of feeling remarked in Gal_2:4, which still disturbs the Apostles grammar. He begins: "But from those reputed to be something"-as though he intended to say, "I received on my part nothing, no addition or qualification to my gospel." But he has no sooner mentioned "those of repute" than he is reminded of the studied attempt that was made to set up their authority in opposition to his own, and accordingly throws in this protest: "what they were aforetime, makes no difference to me: mans person God doth not accept." But in saying this, Paul has laid down one of his favourite axioms, a principle that filled a large place in his thoughts; {Comp. Rom_2:11; 1Co_1:27-31; 1Co_15:9-10; Eph_6:9; Col_3:25} and its enunciation deflects the course of the main sentence, so that it is resumed in an altered form: "For to me those of repute imparted nothing." Here the me receives a greater emphasis; and for takes the place of but. The fact that the first Apostles had nothing to impart to Paul, signally illustrates the Divine impartiality, which often makes the last and least in human eyes equal to the first.
(2) Gal_2:7-9 state the positive, as Gal_2:6 the negative side of the relation between Paul and the elder Apostles, still keeping in view the principle laid down in the former verse. "Nay, on the contrary, when they saw that I have in charge the gospel of the uncircumcision, as Peter that of the circumcision (Gal_2:7)-and when they perceived the grace that had been given me, James and Cephas and John, those renowned pillars of the Church, gave the right-hand of fellowship to myself and Barnabas, agreeing that we should go to the Gentiles, while they laboured amongst the Jews" (Gal_2:9).
(3) Gal_2:8 comes in as a parenthesis, explaining how the authorities at Jerusalem came to see that this trust belonged to Paul. "For," he says, "He that in Peters case displayed His power in making him (above all others) Apostle of the Circumcision, did as much for me in regard to the Gentiles." It is not human ordination, but Divine inspiration that makes a minister of Jesus Christ. The noble Apostles of Jesus had the wisdom to see this. It had pleased God to bestow this grace on their old Tarsian persecutor; and they frankly acknowledged the fact.
Thus Paul sets forth, in the first place, the completeness of his Apostolic qualifications, put to proof at the crisis of the circumcision controversy; and in the second place, the judgment formed respecting him and his office by the first Apostles and companions of the Lord.
1. "To me those of repute added nothing." Paul had spent but a fortnight in the Christian circle of Jerusalem, fourteen years ago. Of its chiefs he had met at that time only Peter and James, and them in the capacity of a visitor, not as a disciple or a candidate for office. He had never sought the opportunity, nor felt the need, of receiving instruction from the elder Apostles during all the years in which he had preached Christ amongst the heathen. It was not likely he would do so now. When he came into conference and debate with them at the Council, he showed himself their equal, neither in knowledge nor authority "a whit behind the very chiefest." And they were conscious of the same fact.
On the essentials of the gospel Paul found himself in agreement with the Twelve. This is implied in the language of Gal_2:6. When one writes, "A-adds nothing to B," one assumes that B has already what belongs to A, -and not something different. Paul asserts in the most positive terms he can command, that his intercourse with the holders of the primitive Christian tradition left him as a minister of Christ exactly where he was before. "On me," he says, "they conferred nothing"-rather, perhaps, "addressed no communication to me." The word used appears to deny their having made any motion of the kind. The Greek verb is the same that was employed in Gal_1:16, a rare and delicate compound. Its meaning varies, like that of our confer, communicate, as it is applied in a more or less active sense. In the former place Paul had said that he "did not confer with flesh and blood"; now he adds, that flesh and blood did not confer anything upon him. Formerly he did not bring his commission to lay it before men; now they had nothing to bring on their part to lay before him. The same word affirms the Apostles independence at both epochs, shown in the first instance by his reserve toward the dignitaries at Jerusalem, and in the second by their reserve toward him. Conscious of his Divine call, he sought no patronage from the elder Apostles then; and they, recognising that call, offered him no such patronage now. Pauls gospel for the Gentiles was complete, and sufficient unto itself. His ministry showed no defect in quality or competence. There was nothing about it that laid it open to correction, even on the part of those wisest and highest in dignity amongst the personal followers of Jesus.
So Paul declares; and we can readily believe him. Nay, we are tempted to think that it was rather the Pillars who might need to learn from him, than he from them. In doctrine, Paul holds the primacy in the band of the Apostles. While all were inspired by the Spirit of Christ, the Gentile Apostle was in many ways a more richly furnished man than any of the rest. The Paulinism of Peters First Epistle goes to show that the debt was on the other side. Their earliest privileges and priceless store of recollections of "all that Jesus did and taught," were matched on Pauls side by a penetrating logic, a breadth and force of intellect applied to the facts of revelation, and a burning intensity of spirit, which in their combination were unique. The Pauline teaching, as it appears in the New Testament, bears in the highest degree the marks of original genius, the stamp of a mind whose inspiration is its own.
Modern criticism even exaggerates Pauls originality. It leaves the other Apostles little more than a negative part to play in the development of Christian truth. In some of its representations, the figure of Paul appears to overshadow even that of the Divine Master. It was Pauls creative genius, it is said, his daring idealism, that deified the human Jesus, and transformed the scandal of the cross into the glory of an atonement reconciling the world to God. Such theories Paul himself would have regarded with horror. "I received of the Lord that which I delivered unto you": such is his uniform testimony. If he owed so little as a minister of Christ to his brother Apostles, he felt with the most sincere humility that he owed everything to Christ. The agreement of Pauls teaching with that of the other New Testament writers, and especially with that of Jesus in the Gospels, proves that, however distinct and individual his conception of the common gospel, none the less there was a common gospel of Christ, and he did not speak of his own mind. The attempts made to get rid of this agreement by postdating the New Testament documents, and by explaining away the larger utterances of Jesus found in the Gospels as due to Paulinist interpolation, are unavailing. They postulate a craftiness of ingenuity on the part of the writers of the incriminated books, and an ignorance in those who first received them, alike inconceivable. Paul did not build up the splendid and imperishable fabric of his theology on some speculation of his own. Its foundation lies in the person and the teaching of Jesus Christ, and was common to Paul with James and Cephas and John. "Whether I or they," he testifies, "so we preach, and so ye believed". {1Co_15:11} Paul satisfied himself at this conference that he and the Twelve taught the same gospel. Not in its primary data, but in their logical development and application, lies the specifically Pauline in Paulinism. The harmony between Paul and the other Apostolic leaders has the peculiar value which belongs to the agreement of minds of different orders, working independently.
The Judaisers, however, persistently asserted Pauls dependence on the elder Apostles. "The authority of the Primitive Church, the Apostolic tradition of Jerusalem"-this was the fulcrum of their argument. Where could Paul, they asked, have derived his knowledge of Christ, but from this fountain-head? And the power that made him could unmake him. Those who commissioned him had the right to overrule him, or even to revoke his commission. Was it not known that he had from time to time resorted to Jerusalem; that he had once publicly submitted his teaching to the examination of the heads of the Church there? The words of Gal_2:6 contradict these malicious insinuations. Hence the positiveness of the Apostles self-assertion. In the Corinthian Epistles his claim to independence is made in gentler style, and with expressions of humility that might have been misunderstood here. But the position Paul takes up is the same in either case: "I am an Apostle. I have seen Jesus our Lord. You-Corinthians, Galatians-are my work in the Lord." That Peter and the rest were in the old days so near to the Master, "makes no difference" to Paul. They are what they are-their high standing is universally acknowledged, and Paul has no need or wish to question it; but, by the grace of God, he also is what he is. {1Co_15:10} Their Apostleship does not exclude or derogate from his.
The self-depreciation, the keen sense of inferiority in outward respects, so evident in Pauls allusions to this subject elsewhere, is after all not wanting here. For when he says, "God regards not mans person, " it is evident that in respect of visible qualifications Paul felt that he had few pretensions to make. Appearances were against him. And those who glory in appearance were against him too. {2Co_5:12} Such men could not appreciate the might of the Spirit that wrought in Paul, nor the sovereignty of Divine election. They "reckoned" of the Apostle "as though he walked according to flesh". {2Co_10:2} It seemed to them obvious, as a matter of course, that he was far below the Twelve. With men of worldly wisdom the Apostle did not expect that his arguments would prevail. His appeal was to "the spiritual, who judge all things."
So we come back to the declaration of the Apostle in Gal_1:11 : "I give you to know, brethren, that my gospel is not according to man." Man had no hand either in laying its foundation or putting on the headstone. Pauls predecessors in Apostolic office did not impart the gospel to him at the outset; nor at a later time had they attempted to make any addition to the doctrine he had taught far and wide amongst the heathen. His Apostleship was from first to last a supernatural gift of grace.
2. Instead, therefore, of assuming to be his superiors, or offering to bestow something of their own on-Paul, the three renowned pillars of the faith at Jerusalem acknowledged him as a brother Apostle.
"They saw that I am intrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision." The form of the verb implies a trust given in the past and taking effect in the present, a settled fact. Once for all, this charge had devolved on Paul. He is "appointed herald and apostle" of "Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all, -teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth". {1Ti_2:6-7} That office Paul still holds. He is the leader of Christian evangelism. Every new movement in heathen missionary enterprise looks to his teaching for guidance and inspiration.
The conference at Jerusalem in itself furnished conclusive evidence of Pauls Apostolic commission. The circumcision controversy was a test not only for Gentile Christianity, but at the same time for its Apostle and champion. Paul brought to this discussion a knowledge and insight, a force of character, a conscious authority and unction of the Holy Spirit, that powerfully impressed the three great men who listened to him. The triumvirate at Jerusalem well knew that Paul had not received his marvellous gifts through their hands. Nor was there anything lacking to him which they felt themselves called upon to supply. They could only say, "This is the Lords doing.; and it is marvellous in our eyes." Knowing, as Peter at least, we presume had done for many years. {Gal_1:18} the history of Pauls conversion, and seeing, as they now did the conspicuous Apostolic signs attending his ministry, James and Cephas and John could only come to one conclusion. The gospel of the uncircumcision, they were convinced, was committed to Paul, and his place in the Church was side by side with Peter. Peter must have felt as once before on a like occasion: "If God gave unto him a gift equal to that He gave to me, who am I, that I should be able to hinder God?" {Act_11:17} It was not for them because of their elder rank and dignity to debate with God in this matter, and to withhold their recognition from His "chosen vessel."
John had not forgotten his Masters reproof for banning, the man that "followeth not with us". {Luk_9:49; Mar_9:38} They "recognised," Paul says, "the grace that had been given me"; and by that he means, to be sure, the undeserved favour that raised him to his Apostolic office. {See Rom_1:5; 1Co_15:10; Eph_3:2; Eph_3:7-8; 1Ti_1:13} This recognition was given to Paul. Barnabas shared the "fellowship." His hand was clasped by the three chiefs at Jerusalem, not less warmly than that of his younger comrade. But it is in the singular number that Paul speaks of "the grace that was given me, " and of the "trust in the gospel" and the "working of God unto Apostleship."
Why then does not Paul say outright, "they acknowledged me an Apostle, the equal of Peter?" Some are bold enough to say - Holsten in particular - "Because this is just what the Jerusalem chiefs never did, and never could have done." We will only reply, that if this were the case, the passage is a continued suggestio falsi. No one could write the words of Gal_2:7-9, without intending his readers to believe that such a recognition took place. Paul avoids the point-blank assertion, with a delicacy that any man of tolerable modesty will understand. Even the appearance of "glorying" was hateful to him. {2Co_10:17; 2Co_11:1; 2Co_12:1-5; 2Co_12:11}
The Church at Jerusalem, as we gather from Gal_2:7-8, observed in Paul "signs of the Apostle" resembling those borne by Peter. His Gentile commission ran parallel with Peters Jewish commission. The labours of the two men were followed by the same kind of success, and marked by similar displays of miraculous power. The like seal of God was stamped on both. This correspondence runs through the Acts of the Apostles. Compare, for example, Pauls sermon at Antioch in Pisidia with that of Peter on the Day of Pentecost; the healing of the Lystran cripple and the punishment of Elymas, with the case of the lame man at the Temple gate and the encounter of Peter and Simon Magus. The conjunction of the names of Peter and Paul was familiar to the Apostolic Church. The parallelism between the course of these great Apostles was no invention of second-century orthodoxy, set up in the interests of a "reconciling hypothesis"; it attracted public attention as early as 51 A.D., while they were still in their mid career. If this idea so strongly posessed the minds of the Jewish Christian leaders and influenced their action at the Council of Jerusalem, we need not be surprised that it should dominate Lukes narrative to the extent that it does. The allusions to Peter in 1Co_1:12; 1Co_3:22; 1Co_9:5 afford further proof that in the lifetime of the two Apostles it was a common thing to link their names together.
But had not Peter also a share in the Gentile mission? Does not the division of labour made at this conference appear to shut out the senior Apostle from a field, to which he had the prior claim? "Ye know, said Peter at the Council, "how that a good while ago God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe." {Act_15:7} To Peter was assigned the double honour of "opening the door of faith" both to Jew and Gentile. This experience made him the readier to understand Pauls position and gave him the greater weight in the settlement of the question at issue. And not Peter alone, but Philip the Evangelist and other Jewish Christians had carried the gospel across the line of Judaic prejudice, before Paul appeared on the scene. Barnabas and Silas were both emissaries of Jerusalem. So that the mother Church, if she could not claim Paul as her son, had nevertheless a large stake in the heathen mission. But when Paul came to the front, when his miraculous call, his incomparable gifts and wonderful success had made themselves known, it was evident to every discerning mind that he was the man chosen by God to direct this great work. Peter had opened the door of faith to the heathen, and had bravely kept it open; but it was for Paul to lead the Gentile nations through the open door, and to make a home for them within the fold of Christ. The men who had laboured in this field hitherto were Pauls forerunners. And Peter does not hesitate to acknowledge the younger Apostles special fitness for this wider province of their common work; and with the concurrence of James and John he yields the charge of it to him.
Let us observe that it is two different provinces, not different gospels, that are in view. When the Apostle speaks of "the gospel of the uncircumcision" as committed to himself, and that "of the circumcision" to Peter, he never dreams of any one supposing, as some of his modern critics persist in doing, that he meant two different doctrines. How can that be possible, when he has declared those anathema who preach any other gospel? He has laid his gospel before the heads of the Jerusalem Church. Nothing has occurred there, nothing is hinted here, to suggest the existence of a "radical divergence." If James and the body of the Judean Church really sympathised with the Circumcisionists, with those whom the Apostle calls "false brethren," how could he with any sincerity have come to an agreement with them, knowing that this tremendous gulf was lying all the while between the Pillars and himself? Zeller argues that the transaction was simply a pledge of "reciprocal toleration, a merely external concordat between Paul and the original Apostles." The clasp of brotherly friendship was a sorry farce, if that were all it meant-if Paul and the Three just consented for the time to slur over irreconcilable differences; while Paul in turn has glossed over the affair for us in these artful verses! Baur, with characteristic finesse, says on the same point: "The κοινωνια was always a division; it could only be brought into effect by one party going εις τα εθνη, the other εις την.. As the Jewish Apostles could allege nothing against the principles on which Paul founded his evangelical mission, they were obliged to recognise them in a certain manner; but their recognition was a mere outward one. They left him to work on these principles still further in the cause of the gospel among the Gentiles; but for themselves they did not desire to know anything more about them." So that, according to the Tubingen critics, we witness in Gal_2:9 not a union, but a divorce! The Jewish Apostles recognise Paul as a brother, only in order to get rid of him. Can misinterpretation be more unjust than this? Paul does not say, "They gave us the right hand of fellowship on condition that, " but, "in order that we should go this way, they that." As much as to say: The two parties came together and entered into a closer union, so that with the best mutual understanding each might go its own way and pursue its proper work in harmony with the other. For Paul it would have been a sacrilege to speak of the diplomatic compromise which Baur and Zeller describe as "giving the right hand of fellowship."
Never did the Church more deeply realise than at her first Council the truth, that "there is one body and one Spirit; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in all". {Eph_4:4-6} Paul still seems to feel his hand in the warm grasp of Peter and of John when he writes to the Ephesians of "the foundation of the Apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself for chief corner-stone; in whom the whole building fitly framed together, groweth unto a holy temple in the Lord". {Gal_2:20-21} Alas for the criticism that is obliged to see in words like these the invention of second-century churchmanship, putting into the mouth of Paul catholic sentiments of which in reality he knew nothing! Such writers know nothing of the power of that fellowship of the Spirit which reigned in the glorious company of the Apostles.
"Only they would have us remember the poor"-a circumstance mentioned partly by way of reminder to the Galatians touching the collection for Jerusalem, which Paul had already set on foot amongst them. {1Co_16:1} The request was prompted by the affectionate confidence with which the Jewish chiefs embraced Paul and Barnabas. It awakened an eager response in the Apostles breast. His love to his Jewish kindred made him welcome the suggestion. Moreover every deed of charity rendered by the wealthier Gentile Churches to "the poor saints in Jerusalem," was another tie helping to bind the two communities to each other. Of such liberality Antioch, under the direction of the Gentile missionaries, had already set the example. {Act_11:29-30}
James, Peter, John, and Paul- it was a memorable day when these four men met face to face. What a mighty quaternion! Amongst them they have virtually made the New Testament and the Christian Church. They represent the four sides of the one foundation of the City of God. Of the Evangelists, Matthew holds affinity with James; Mark with Peter; and Luke with Paul. James clings to the past and embodies the transition from Mosaism to Christianity. Peter is the man of the present, quick in thought and action, eager, buoyant, susceptible. Paul holds the future in his grasp, and schools the unborn nations. John gathers present, past, and future into one, lifting us into the region of eternal life and love.
With Peter and James Paul had met before, and was to meet again. But so far as we can learn, this was the only occasion on which his path crossed that of John. Nor is this Apostle mentioned again in Pauls letters. In the Acts he appears but once or twice, standing silent in Peters shadow. A holy reserve surrounds Johns person in the earlier Apostolic history. His hour was not yet come. But his name ranked in public estimation amongst the three foremost of the Jewish Church; and he exercised, doubtless, a powerful, though quiet, conciliatory influence in the settlement of the Gentile question. The personality of Paul excited, we may be sure, the profoundest interest in such a mind as that of John. He absorbed, and yet in a sense transcended, the Pauline theology. The Apocalypse, although the most Judaic book of the New Testament, is penetrated with the influence of Paulinism. The detection in it of a covert attack on the Gentile Apostle is simply one of the mares nests of a super-subtle and suspicious criticism. John was to be the heir of Pauls labours at Ephesus and in Asia Minor. And Johns long life, touching the verge of the second century, his catholic position, his serene and lofty spirit, blending in itself and resolving into a higher unity the tendencies of James and Peter and Paul, give us the best assurance that in the Apostolic age there was indeed "One, holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church."
Pauls fellowship with Peter and with James was cordial and endeared. But to hold the hand of John, "the disciple whom Jesus loved," was a yet higher satisfaction. That clasp symbolised a union between men most opposite in temperament and training, and brought to the knowledge of Christ in very different Ways, but whose communion in Him was deep as the life eternal. Paul and John are the two master minds of the New Testament. Of all men that ever lived, these two best understood Jesus Christ.
William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.
B. W. Johnson 1891 · Public Domain On vv3–9 3. But neither Titus, etc. Though Titus, a Gentile…
3. But neither Titus, etc. Though Titus, a Gentile Christian and a minister, was with him, he was not compelled to be circumcised.
B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.
J. W. McGarvey 1914 · Public Domain On vv3–9 But not even Titus who was with me, being…
But not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised
J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On v6 The result of the visit to Jerusalem:
The result of the visit to Jerusalem:
v. 6. But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me; God accepteth no man’s person;) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me;
Read full note →
v. 7. but contrariwise, when they saw that the Gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the Gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
v. 8. (for He that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles;)
v. 9. and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go unto the heathen and they unto the circumcision.
v. 10. Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.
Paul’s great agitation is here again evident, for he breaks the construction of the sentence again and again, apparently losing the thread of his discourse, but he never fails to bring out the central idea which he has in mind. He wants to emphasize his independent apostolic commission, and this fact is brought out in spite of the involved construction: But of those that were in repute as being something, whatever they may have been, it makes no difference to me; the face of a man God does not accept, for to me those in repute imparted nothing. In his anxiety to emphasize the point he wishes to make in the proper manner, Paul does not finish his first sentence, although he brings out the thought. Those that were esteemed highly in the congregation of Jerusalem had no word of disapprobation for the content and manner of Paul’s preaching, and on the other hand they had no instruction for him, they did not attempt to teach him anything as to his doctrine. And in order that this fact might be impressed upon the minds of the false teachers and their followers in the midst of the Galatian congregations, he explains his use of the word "in repute" by the parenthetical remark that the status of these people in no way impressed him, for God does not judge according to outward appearance and station. His apostolic authority and power did not rest upon their commission and approval. They had not prescribed the form of his doctrine. "This he says in order to show that he, in the judgment of the very apostles of whom the false teachers boasted against Paul, had taught correctly, and that the apostles stood on his side against the false apostles, who boasted of the authority of men."
The entire manner of the leaders in the congregation at Jerusalem not only did not express disapproval of Paul and his ministry: But on the contrary, when they saw that I was entrusted with the Gospel of the uncircumcision, just as Peter with that of the circumcision (for He that was operative for Peter with regard to the apostleship of the circumcision was operative also in me toward the heathen), and found out about the grace which was given to me,—James and Peter and John being the men, they that were esteemed to be pillars,—they gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship (with the understanding) that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcision. During the conference which was held at Jerusalem between James, as the head of the local church, Act 21:18, Peter, and John, on the one side, and Barnabas and Paul, on the other, the situation was fully discussed, from every angle. And the result of the discussion was that they all agreed, from the evidence offered: It is God’s will that Paul preach the Gospel chiefly to the heathen, just as it seems clear that Peter has a special call to preach Jesus to the Jews. Thus each one recognized the problem which was given him, attempting the solution, however, not in his own wisdom; for Paul, in repudiating false charges against his authority also in this instance, gives all glory to God, since it was He that was operative in both Peter and him, in the one to work with great success among the Jews, in the other to be equally successful among the Gentiles. So the men that were considered pillars, according to the judgment of men, recognized without reserve, fully acknowledged, the calling of Paul which had been entrusted to him by grace and confirmed by special gifts of grace. To the evidence afforded by the success of his labors among the heathen was added the conviction that this was due to the grace of God. This frank acknowledgment was just as openly manifested when they all shook hands in token of fellowship and agreed that the arrangement by which Paul was to devote himself to preaching the Gospel among the Gentiles and the others to teaching the Jews was to be observed. Not as though Peter and John would not have dared to instruct a Gentile or Paul and Barnabas a Jew, as Luther remarks. "The mutual understanding between the two groups of apostles obviously did not imply an absolute restriction of each to one section of the Church. All converts alike were members of a single united Church; circumstances of themselves forbade any definite division: Paul opened his ministry everywhere in the synagogue, and numbered Jews as well as Greeks among his converts. So Peter, again, is next found at Antioch."
There was one more point in the agreement, however, which Paul expressly mentions, since it was of such importance in his work: Only that the poor we should keep in mind, which, indeed, I was zealous to do. The frankness, integrity, and truthfulness of Paul is here brought out, as well as his disinterestedness, his unselfishness. That he kept the poor in Judea in mind at all times is apparent in many passages of his letters, 1Co 16:1; 2Co 8:9. "The poor whom he, Rom 15:26, calls the poor saints are those whom the Jews, for the sake of Christ, had deprived of their goods and possessions... or those that had given their possessions to the congregation, as is written Act 4:32; probably also those that suffered want in the famine which, as Luke mentions in Acts, chap. 11:28, happened under Emperor Claudius. " Paul purposely brings forward this bit of evidence in order to emphasize the contrast between the Jewish Christian opposition to him in the work of the Judaizing teachers and his approved zeal and affection for the Jewish Christians
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv3, 6, 9 to be circumcised
to be circumcised
This can be stated in active form. AT: "to have someone circumcise him" (See: Active or Passive)
Read full note →
The false brothers came in secretly
"People who pretended to be Christians came into the church," or "People who pretended to be Christians came among us"
spy on the liberty
secretly watch people to see how they live in liberty
liberty
freedom
They desired
"These spies desired" or "These false brothers wanted"
to make us slaves
"to make us slaves to the law." Paul is speaking about being forced to follow the Jewish rituals that the law commanded. He is speaking about this as if it were slavery. The most important ritual was circumcision. AT: "to force us to obey the law" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information and Metaphor)
yield in submission
"submit" or "listen"
translationWords
Titus
Greek
circumcise
in Christ
servant
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 2:3 The Jerusalem apostles affirmed Paul’s message without qualification.…
2:3 The Jerusalem apostles affirmed Paul’s message without qualification. They stood together on the same Good News—that God’s grace comes through faith in Christ, not through keeping the law. Clearly the Jerusalem apostles did not think that circumcision was necessary for a Gentile like Titus.
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.