Q3. Not Circumcising Titus

[Pastor Ralph]

Q3. (Galatians 2:1-3) Paul is arguing that the Jerusalem leaders support his position on circumcision, rather than that of the Judaizers. What is the significance of Paul’s mention that Titus was not required to be circumcised?

[Travis63]

Paul is arguing that the Jerusalem leaders support his position on circumcision, rather than that of the Judaizers. What is the significance of Paul's mention that Titus was not required to be circumcised?

The significance that can be seen by the non-circumcised is that this was not a must. Titus was not a born Jew (he was a Greek), the environment where he would mainly serve were non-Jews as well. Paul refused to circumcise Titus, because he wanted to show those who claimed that circumcision was necessary in addition to accepting Christ's work that it was not necessary. This action affirmed the truth that Paul shared from the Gospel, Christ ALONE is what saves, faith in Him, His work, His works and His purpose.

Timothy on the other hand was circumcised, He has Timothy circumcised, and so he doesn’t offend the Jews. Well, Paul says in 1st Corinthians Chapter 9, To the Jew I became as a Jew; to the Greek I became as a Greek. Paul is not comprising the Gospel, Paul fully understood that God prefers circumcision of the heart. Timothy is not saved by being circumcised. Paul had Timothy circumcised, because all the Jews in the area knew that Timothy's father was a Greek, therefore this was done as not to give an offense to some of these Jews. Timothy's mom was Jewish, being that they were going among the Jews, he circumcised Timothy to help him be accepted by the Jews.

[IvoryEagle]

Q3. (Galatians 2:1-3) Paul is arguing that the Jerusalem leaders support his position on circumcision, rather than that of the Judaizers. What is the significance of Paul's mention that Titus was not required to be circumcised?

Since the the Jerusalem leaders hadn't required Titus to be circumcised, supported Paul's position.

[courageous1]

The Gentiles are not Jews. By mentioning Titus, I believe he was trying to separate further what he was teaching from Jewish teachings (laws). Perhaps another way for Paul to identify his true source.

[charisbarak]

Paul preached the gospel to them--the one he preached to Gentiles. Titus, hearing the word, did not feel compelled to be circumcised. It was revealed to them that false brothers had infiltrated their ranks & didn't want them to have freedom in Christ Jesus--they wanted them to become slaves to works--having to be circumcised to become a Christian. They were adding to the gospel.

[Stan]

Q3. (Galatians 2:1-3) Paul is arguing that the Jerusalem leaders support his position on circumcision, rather than that of the Judaizers. What is the significance of Paul’s mention that Titus was not required to be circumcised?

That the circumcision would not save anyone but only the grace of God offered through His Son Jesus Christ has the power to save and it is given to the gentiles same as the Jews.

[Raph]

Q3. (Galatians 2:1-3) Paul is arguing that the Jerusalem leaders support his position on circumcision, rather than that of the Judaizers. What is the significance of Paul's mention that Titus was not required to be circumcised?

The significance of Paul's mention that even Titus was not required to be circumcised is that, the acceptance of Titus who was the uncircumcised Greek was the acceptance of Paul's teachings. Paul also mentions this to indicate that, the grace of the Lord does not depend on whether the person is circumcised or not.

[Delivered]

Q3. (Galatians 2:1-3) Paul is arguing that the Jerusalem leaders support his position on circumcision, rather than that of the Judaizers. What is the significance of Paul's mention that Titus was not required to be circumcised?

It was of significant importance that the Jerusalem leaders support Paul's position instead of the false brothers who wanted the Greek Titus to be circumcised, by so doing the Jerusalem leaders also established what Christ taught Paul, the good news, the Gentile believers do not have to become Jews in order for them to be saved, obligating them to follow the full Torah, both the written and the oral laws that were given by God to Israel.

[happysheep]

Titus was helping Paul in preaching the gospel to the Gentiles. Paul had not asked him to be circumcised, like he had asked Timothy, when they went

to the Jews, in order that Timothy would not give offense to the Jews. In the case of Titus, the fact that the apostles did not force him to be circumcised, supports his argument that neither circumcision nor the observance of any other Mosaic law, was necessary to obtain salvation. That salvation is free, through grace by faith in Jesus the Messiah for both Jew and Gentile. So, the significance of Paul's mention is that the case of Titus was sort of a 'living proof' of his argument being right.

[JanMary]

Q3. (Galatians 2:1-3) Paul is arguing that the Jerusalem leaders support his position on circumcision, rather than that of the Judaizers. What is the significance of Paul’s mention that Titus was not required to be circumcised?

Paul is reaffirming that we are saved by grace alone...not by obeying the law of circumcision or any other work of the flesh. He is also affirming that the Gospel is for everyone...Jew, Greek, Chinese, Indian...whomever. When we receive Christ, we are one, regardless of color, ethnicity or any other circumstance.

By using the argument that the Jewish Christian leaders agreed that circumcision was not required to be born again, (and Titus was there as proof) that we now have a new and better covenant in Christ, who fulfilled every jot and tittle of the law, so that we are free from Jewish tradition and the old covenant of law in order to be right with God. JESUS ALONE SAVES!

[PriscillaM]

The significance of Paul’s mention that Titus was not required to be circumcised is that Titus is set forth by Paul as an example of God's acceptance of an uncircumcised person. Paul's shows that the uncircumcised received the Holy Spirit just like the circumcised so it is not cicumcision that is essential rather it is the belief that salvation comes through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.

[Cocoa]

Titus was not required to be circumcised by a) God's gracious gospel, which requires circumcision of the heart; or by the elders/leaders at Jerusalem. This is of great significance as Paul knew that his credibility was further enhanced, and therefore the gospel accepted, if the Jerusalem leaders accepted that Titus knew Jesus by faith, not by law - as law would make the gospel of no effect. This backing of the Jerusalem leaders revealed that the false brothers where sapping the very power of the gospel by imposing law, therefore they had to be recognized as false and spys.

Remember that Satan in the garden of Eden questioned God's authority and was indeed a spy to the graciousness that the Father had bestowed upon Adam and Eve. Satan incited rebellion by false doctrine. Paul knew the importance of revealing falsehood amongst the ranks so that rebellion would not be incited against the grace of God.

[lesleeys]

Q3. (Galatians 2:1-3) Paul is arguing that the Jerusalem leaders support his position on circumcision, rather than that of the Judaizers. What is the significance of Paul’s mention that Titus was not required to be circumcised?

By pointing out that Titus was in the presence of Peter and James, yet not required to be circumcised, is proof positive that they recognize and acknowledge that circumcision has nothing to do with the Gospel of grace.

[JenniferLynn]

Because even the church leaders in Jerusalem hadn't required the uncircumised Titus to become circumised but allowed him to promote the gospel of Christ it was okay for the rest of the church also.

[Jwalane Mofokeng]

Q3. (Galatians 2:1-3) Paul is arguing that the Jerusalem leaders support his position on circumcision, rather than that of the Judaizers. What is the significance of Paul’s mention that Titus was not required to be circumcised?

Because in Christ you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ;

[Jen]

Q3. (Galatians 2:1-3) Paul is arguing that the Jerusalem leaders support his position on circumcision, rather than that of the Judaizers. What is the significance of Paul’s mention that Titus was not required to be circumcised?

Sneakiness must be deeply imbedded in the human sin nature as it seems it is rampant in the world today also. With all our degrees and knowledge nothing has changed with our sin nature.

Titus was used to show that God's grace is sufficient for all, Jew or Gentile, through individual faith in the complete work of our Lord Jesus Christ. "Not of us lest any man should boast" anything but faith in the atoning blood of Jesus will satisfy God.

God Bless!

Jen

Romans 15:13

[Lion of Grace]

Q3. (Galatians 2:1-3) Paul is arguing that the Jerusalem leaders support his position on circumcision, rather than that of the Judaizers. What is the significance of Paul’s mention that Titus was not required to be circumcised?

The significance of Paul mentioning that he had the support of the Jerusalem leaders as opposed to the Judaizers was that it proved that Paul was teaching the pure Gospel while the Judiazers were not. Titus ( a Gentile) was saved by grace and there were no additions to that. The tradition of the Jews ( circumcision) had no merit in the state of Titus' salvation.

[farmboy]

Q3. (Galatians 2:1-3) Paul is arguing that the Jerusalem leaders support his position on circumcision, rather than that of the Judaizers. What is the significance of Paul's mention that Titus was not required to be circumcised?

Jesus is the guarantor of a new covenant. Jesus is the Gospel, not Mosaic law. Spiritual vs. legal repentance do we need others to see we are getting better? A circumcision of the heart (spiritual repentance) is what is needed. To do otherwise; is to need others to see us doing right; is self-centered and is not what the message of the Gospel is about. Exaggerated importance of secondary items????---only Jesus gets us there

2 Tim 2:15-STUDY TO SHEW THYSELF APPROVED UNTO GOD, A WORKMAN THAT NEEDETH NOT TO BE ASHAMED, RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF TRUTH.

Titus was significant in that others were beginning to see it also.

[hanks]

Q3. (Galatians 2:1-3)

Paul is arguing that the Jerusalem leaders support his position on circumcision, rather than that of the Judaizers.

What is the significance of Paul's mention that Titus was not required to be circumcised?

The Judaizers had wanted the Gentiles to be circumcised. But, of course, by being circumcised, this was actually a way to seek salvation by adherence to the law and therefore was to deny that salvation is only by grace. So Paul brought Titus to Jerusalem to openly confront the legalists. Although there was pressure on Titus to become circumcised as part of becoming a Christian; yet Titus was a living example of someone who became a Christian without circumcision. The Council concluded that circumcision was not a requirement, and this affirmed Paul’s position on the gospel of grace. This decision was a crucial to the Christian faith because the Council affirmed Gentile converts as being truly Christian. We see that Paul’s success at the Jerusalem Council opened the gospel to the Gentiles.

[ross_laoshi]

Q3. (Galatians 2:1-3) Paul is arguing that the Jerusalem leaders support his position on circumcision, rather than that of the Judaizers. What is the significance of Paul’s mention that Titus was not required to be circumcised?

Titus was a non-Jew, a Greek. The significance of him not being circumcised is that it means Gentiles who become believers do not have be circumcised.

[Highohfaith]

Paul’s point is that the leadership in Jerusalem accepted Titus, a Gentile convert, even though he was not circumcised in accord with the Mosaic law. This shows that the Jerusalem leadership accepted Paul’s gospel of grace.

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.” (Luther)

[manuelhankala]

Q 3(Galatians 2:1-3)paul is arguging that the Jerusalem leaders support his position on circumcision, rather than that of the Judaizers....what is the significance of paul's mention that Titus was not required to be circumcised?....The Jerusalem Leaders support Paul argument that circumcision or observing the Law is not necessary to get save, because salvation comes only( through Grace by Faith in the Lord Jesus christ for Jews and Gentiles)..and this is a true Gospel Teaching.

[csreeves]

Q3. (Galatians 2:1-3) Paul is arguing that the Jerusalem leaders support his position on circumcision, rather than that of the Judaizers. What is the significance of Paul’s mention that Titus was not required to be circumcised?

Paul's truth comes from Jesus' teachings or revelation that circumcision is a Old Testament practice, but more importantly a circumsion of the heart into a follower.

[RodR]

The Jerusalem leaders support Paul’s position by not requiring that Titus be circumcised. "Luther suggested that Paul regarded Titus as a test case: 'He took him along then in order to prove that grace was equally sufficient for both Gentiles and Jews, whether in circumcision or without circumcision.'"

[rosegarden]

Q3. (Galatians 2:1-3) Paul is arguing that the Jerusalem leaders support his position on circumcision, rather than that of the Judaizers. What is the significance of Paul’s mention that Titus was not required to be circumcised?

3. Titus was a test case. He took him along in order to prove that grace was equally sufficient for both Gentiles and Jews, whether in circumcision or uncircumcision. Salvation is by faith in Jesus Christ, not by the works of the law.