Titus

Galatians 2:4-5: Gentiles and Circumcision

Paul describes a meeting in Jerusalem with the Pillars of the Church in Galatians 2:4-5.  It appears the meeting was to be a private meeting between Paul, Barnabas and Titus and the three  leaders of the Jerusalem church, Peter, James the Lord’s brother, and John.  But there is another party at the meeting described by Paul as “false brothers.”  Paul is clear on the intentions of these “false brothers.”  They have spied on the meeting with the intention of imposing Law on the Gentiles.

The language Paul uses is military and political.  These false brothers are “undercover agents and conspirators” (Witherington, Galatians, 136).  It seems most likely that the false brothers are similar to the “men from James” mentioned in Galatians, or the priests and Pharisees mentioned in Acts 15:1.  They are Jewish believers who understand the church as a reform movement within Judaism.   Whoever these people were, they found a way to sit in on the meeting between Paul and the Apostles with the intention of causing trouble for Paul.  That they intend to “bring us into slavery” indicates that they will insist that Gentiles be circumcised if they are to be full members of the messianic community.

In his commentary, Witherington asks “Who would have insisted Titus submit to circumcision?”  Someone was arguing for conversion of the Gentiles to Judaism, including full obedience to the Law.  If they are accepting the gospel by faith just like Abraham, then they ought to be circumcised just like Abraham.

There was an internal debate within Judaism concerning Gentile conversion.  This debate is illustrated by the story of  Helena, queen of Adiabene, and her son Izates, who “changed their course of life, and embraced the Jewish customs” (Josephus, Antiq. 20.2.4).  In this story, Izates feels he ought to be circumcised in order to be a “true convert.”  Two rabbis turn up to give him advice, one insisting on circumcision, the other arguing that in some cases circumcision would not be required.

Another factor is the importance of circumcision during the Maccabean revolt.  The Maccabees insisted on circumcision as a clear boundary marker of what it meant to be Jewish.  They took this to the extreme of forcibly circumcising children when their parents did not keep the tradition.  The early, Jewish Christian movement had extremely vibrant messianic hopes.  Acts 2 and 3 indicates that they really expected the messiah to return almost immediately.  If that was the case, it is possible that some within that community would have seen an uncircumcised Gentile as a threat to the purity of the community.

What is odd is that this issue only came up some 14 years after Paul’s conversion.  Dunn suggests that the first Gentile converts (like Cornelius) were God-fearers and therefore already more or less an “exception” in the synagogue (Beginning at Jerusalem, 445-6).  They were already keeping most of the boundary markers and were likely as ritually pure as any of the Jewish members of the synagogue, with the exception of circumcision.

As long as there were a few, exceptional Gentile converts, the issue was unlikely to come up.  But as the more Gentiles came into the church, Jewish thinkers began to wonder about their status before God – are they really part of the messianic community if they are not circumcised?  Going beyond Dunn, it is possible that the story of Izates and the debate over his own circumcision is a model for the debate within the emerging church.  Some, like Paul, insisted that circumcision was not required for Gentiles, while others (the pharisees in Acts 15:1, possibly James) insisted that it was.

What set Paul apart from the Apostles was that he was commissioned to go directly to the Gentiles.  This means that he was targeted non-God-Fearing Gentiles, real pagans, so to speak.  If Cornelius was not compelled to be circumcised because he was close enough to Judaism, what about someone like Titus?  He was not eating kosher already when he came to Christ, nor was he  keeping Sabbath.  He is not circumcised, and Paul did not think that he should be.

Pastoral Epistles?

First and Second Timothy and Titus are usually described as “pastoral epistles.”  The standard view of these three letters is that Paul is writing to individuals who he has placed in a leadership position overseeing churches.  The three books were first called “pastoral epistles” by Paul Anton in 1726.  The description has become so common that nearly every commentator on the books has described the letters as “church manuals” or “advice to young pastors,” etc.

Timothy has taken on additional responsibilities as a superintendent over several churches planted by Paul.  First Timothy is therefore letter is personal advice to Timothy on how to organize the church, as well as other ministry related issues. The second letter written to Timothy is to ask him to come to him in Rome, and to bring Mark with him, but the pastoral emphasis is still the main theme.  In Titus, the content is very similar to First Timothy, elders are described, and various potential problems are addressed.

Gordon Fee, however, has called this description into question.  As Fee notes, if these are “church manuals” they are not particularly effective ones.  We end up with far more questions about the church after reading them!  It seems hard to believe that such a wide variety of church structures and styles would all call upon these letters to validate their ecclesiology, if in fact Paul intended them to be read as “manuals for doing church.”  Furthermore, he states “It is a mistaken notion to view Timothy or Titus as model pastors for a local church. The letters simply have no such intent” (147)

The key, for Fee, is to read seriously what Paul about his reason for writing the letters in 1 Tim   1:5 and 3:15.  In the light of Paul’s speech to the elders from Ephesus in Acts 20:17-35, it would appear that the purpose of the letters might very well to be false teachers in the Ephesian community.

1 Timothy 1:3 As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer

1 Timothy 3:15 …if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Acts 20:30 Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.

These verses do not concern organizing the churches from scratch, as if Paul has done just a bit of church planting and Timothy is sent in to finish the job, like a modern evangelist with a followup team.  There seems to be a serious false teaching that has caused the church at Ephesus serious problems.  The problem is internal (Acts 20:30), people from the inside have begun to teach things opposed to Paul’s message.  As Fee puts it, “What we learn about church order in 1 Timothy is not so much organizational as reformational” (146).

This observation may help with the most difficult problem of 1 Timothy.  If Fee is correct and the problem is straying elders, does this effect the way we look at the prohibition of woman teaching and exercising authority in 2:11-12?

Bibliography: Gordon D. Fee, “Reflections On Church Order In The Pastoral  Epistles, With Further Reflection On The  Hermeneutics Of Ad Hoc Documents”  JETS 28:2 (June 1985) p. 141-151.