tammie7 Posted February 5, 2012 Report Share Posted February 5, 2012 The significance was that Paul wanted the gentiles to know that they was not imposing the Mosaic law on them. We also have to look at the freedom that he had and some of them wanted Titus to be enslaves,some wanted to discredit Paul ministry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blezed Posted February 6, 2012 Report Share Posted February 6, 2012 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 mentioning that Titus was not required to be circumised was to show that grace was sufficient for both Jews and Gentiles whether circumised or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jen<3 Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 The Jerusalem leaders supported Paul's position on circumcision. They didn't push or try to convince Titus to be circumcised. This is significant because it's just more proof that Jesus Christ paid it all, it is finished and there's nothing else to be done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Jerry Posted February 8, 2012 Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 I think that the significance of Paul’s mention that Titus was not required to be circumcised is that in order for that to happen he would have had to completely convince that Jerusalem leaders of his position. It was proof that the Gentiles did not have to be circumcised in order to become a follower of Jesus and to be born again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissioned Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 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 mentioned Titus as as not being required to be circumcised in support of his message to both Jews and Gentiles; saved by grace. Both groups can now see that salvation does not require circumcision of the flesh but it requires circumcision of the heart. One is saved with or without circumcision, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilma m Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 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? According to the Judaizers people who come to belief in Christ have to upheld the law too. Paul did not support this view, according to him Christ came to fulfil the law and people are now saved by grace alone. When he told the leaders in Jerusalem his view, they approved of it and did not required Titus to be circumcised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Janissi Posted February 10, 2012 Report Share Posted February 10, 2012 (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 Paul's example that one did not have to be circumsized in order to be saved. Titus was a Gentile, yet he was not compelled to be circumsized. The counsel didn't require it so that was like a stamp of approval. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haar Posted February 11, 2012 Report Share Posted February 11, 2012 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 mention that Titus was not required to be circumscised was significant because there was need to put the matter to rest once and for all. The Judaisers were trying to make the gentile converts to be be circumcised according to the Jewish customs and tradition. Salvation by grace/ faith alone was Paul's stand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linda bass Posted February 14, 2012 Report Share Posted February 14, 2012 The significance of Paul's mention that Titus isn't required to be circumcised is the Jerusalem leaders supported his position on this matter over the Judaizers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
servant for Christ Posted February 18, 2012 Report Share Posted February 18, 2012 Paul's significance about Titus not being circumcised was that Titus and the Gentiles were admitted in the church without circumcision on the basis of their faith in Christ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eudora Posted February 18, 2012 Report Share Posted February 18, 2012 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 makes it perfectly clear that Titus is a Greek and that he did not feel compelled to become circumcised in order to claim Messiah as his Saviour. The discussion of circumcision only came up because while they had been in conference, some spies that were pretending to be followers of The Way snuck in just to see how free these folks really were in Lord Yahushua. The false brothers wanted Tutus to undergo circumcision but the leaders of the Jerusalem messianic community did not force Paul to do so. They believed, as Paul did that it was un-necessary for Gentile followers of Yahushua to become Jews. These spies wanted to bring them back into legalism but Paul says that they did not even give them the time of day. He was determined to remain faithful to the truth of what had been revealed to him and preserve this message so that the elders would hear it straight from him that he was preaching the same as they were. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bondservantmccue Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 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? Thank God, that we have leaders that obey God rather than what man, has to say about the real truth and knowledge of the Word of God. Paul was specially chosen to bring the Gospel to the Gentiles, The reason the Judizers hated Him so much is that they where afraid of losing business. Just as today's churches, they have built theses mega social centers, and now they have got to allow anything to come in, so they can get their salaries and keep the doors open. What a shame, there are going to be a great number of people in hell looking for a preacher that lied to them. Paul, got his directions straight from the Lord Jesus Christ of Nazereth, and if he said the Gentiles dis not have to be circumised according to law, then they did not have to be circumcised. The Word of God is so simple that a child can understand it, man has turned it into a debating subject, and for the most part, have confused many people, who do not rightly divide the Word of God and search the scriptures daily. Maranatha; Brother mike McCue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leihaynes Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 Q3. Paul is arguing that the Jerusalem leaders support his position on circumcisioni, rather than that of the Judaizers. What is the significance of Paul's mention that Titus was not required to be circumcised? I believe the significance is that the Jerusalem leaders hadn't required Titus to be circumcised, which supported Paul's position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jahjanrod321@live.com Posted April 1, 2012 Report Share Posted April 1, 2012 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 Titus was not required to be circumcised supports the fact that Titus was Greek, only Jewish males were required to be circumcised of the foreskin as per the Mosiac Law. It also supports Paul's authority of divine origin, that the gospel he preached is not of man but the revelation of Jesus Christ to Paul and that the Mosiac Law was not necessary requirement for salvation and inclusion in the church. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jahjanrod321@live.com Posted April 1, 2012 Report Share Posted April 1, 2012 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 Titus was not required to be circumcised supports the fact that Titus was Greek, only Jewish males were required to be circumcised of the foreskin as per the Mosiac Law. It also supports Paul's authority of divine origin, that the gospel he preached is not of man but the revelation of Jesus Christ to Paul and that the Mosiac Law was not necessary requirement for salvation and inclusion in the church. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glory Posted April 10, 2012 Report Share Posted April 10, 2012 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? He wanted to show them that God's grace was equally sufficient for the Jews and Gentiles, circumcised or uncircumcised. Paul wanted them to see that being circumcised and keeping the law was not how a person was saved, but rather through faith in Christ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dew drenched Posted June 3, 2012 Report Share Posted June 3, 2012 What is the significance of Paul mentioning that neither (not even) Titus the Greek companion of his was compelled to be circumcised when he met with the brethren in Jerusalem? It was now apparent that the leaders of the church in Jerusalem had accepted Paul’s teaching and the gospel he preached. The fact that they did not require or compel Titus to this act showed that they not only accepted the teaching in theory, but also in practice as well. The church leaders did not even suggest that, for reasons of conciliation with the Jewish church, Titus should consider circumcision. There were obviously no attempts to have him circumcised by any of the recognized church leaders. The only resistance came fro the false brethren who were spying on them secretly. These were "brethren" in name only, Judaisers. These people were not even considered worthy enough to listen to by any leader in the church. It shows the leaders of the church were in wholehearted acceptance of Paul and his teaching and the truth of the Gospel is upheld by all true believers. What is the significance of Paul mentioning that neither (not even) Titus the Greek companion of his was compelled to be circumcised when he met with the brethren in Jerusalem? It was now apparent that the leaders of the church in Jerusalem had accepted Paul’s teaching and the gospel he preached. The fact that they did not require or compel Titus to this act showed that they not only accepted the teaching in theory, but also in practice as well. The church leaders did not even suggest that, for reasons of conciliation with the Jewish church, Titus should consider circumcision. There were obviously no attempts to have him circumcised by any of the recognized church leaders. The only resistance came fro the false brethren who were spying on them secretly. These were brethren in deceivers in name only, Judaisers. These people were not even considered worthy to listen to by any leader in the church. It shows the leaders of the church were in wholehearted acceptance of Paul and his teaching and the truth of the Gospel is upheld by all true believers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yankpee Posted June 13, 2012 Report Share Posted June 13, 2012 Q3(Galatians2;1-3)Paul arguing that the Jerusalem leaders support his position on the circumcision rather than that of the Judaizers, what is the significance of Paul's mention that Titus was not required to be circumcised?. Paul declare that the uncircumcised can received the Holy Spirit just like the circumcised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wifee Posted October 12, 2012 Report Share Posted October 12, 2012 3a)Paul is bringing Titus a Greek to meeting with Galation leaders,to show living proof that grace by faith was sufficient for both salvation of Gentiles and Jews in Paul’s Gospel & circumcision was not necessary to be converted. Judaisers wanted them to be slaves to works. But Jerusalem leaders didn’t insist on circumcision, so implied agreement with Paul. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Posted May 11, 2013 Report Share Posted May 11, 2013 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 an uncircumcised Christian gentile and the Jerusalem church leaders accepted that with no additional legalistic requirement to be circumcised. In fact, after considerable debate and discussion, the apostles decided that circumcision was not necessary for salvation. Paul had won a resounding victory for salvation by and in the grace of God the Father through his only Son Jesus Christ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoRaysXD Posted May 14, 2013 Report Share Posted May 14, 2013 "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 wasn't a Jew, he was Greek. Titus not being circumcised meant gentiles who became believers do not have to be circumcised. Paul is stressing we're saved by grace not by legalism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thanking Joan Posted June 3, 2013 Report Share Posted June 3, 2013 The significance of Pauls mention that Titus need not be circumcised is to emphasise the truth of the Gospel he wanted to preach, That is we are saved by grace and not by following the laws of man. Circumcision was not necessary to come to Christ . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoanG Posted March 19, 2015 Report Share Posted March 19, 2015 Since the founding fathers of our faith had accepted a non-circumcised convert into their circle of believers, it was Paul's contention that you did not need to follow the Jewish law of circumcision. to have eternal life. The Gentiles did not have to subject themselves to the Jewish beliefs. They did not have to give up their uniqueness to believe in Jesus. God would accept them as they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lighthouse2014 Posted December 9, 2015 Report Share Posted December 9, 2015 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 argument before the Jerusalem leaders that Gentiles need not to be circumcised because this would be imposing the Messianic law upon them. If the Gentiles had accepted Christ as their savior, were baptized and had received the Holy Spirit, then God had excepted them and there was no need to impose a law them that was no longer valid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danjan1794 Posted May 30, 2016 Report Share Posted May 30, 2016 I know that the last part of Galatians 1 talks about Paul's journey of being strengthened in the Lord. Starting in Arabia according to verse 1:17, and there to Damascus where he sought to persecute Christians before Jesus' light shone down on Saul and blinded him. After that Paul went to Jerusalem and met with Peter, and then Syria and Cilicia. Everyone remembered Paul as the one who persecuted them, and now he preaches Christ. Then fourteen years later he returned to Jerusalem. This was done by revelation, and laid the same gospel that he had been preaching to the Gentiles. Why the factor of making it known about Titus not feeling compelled to be circumcised was to prove that Paul was sincere in his professing faith in Christ alone. When Paul shared the gospel with the Jewish Christians had shown up to share the message that not only did they need faith in Jesus, but circumcision as well. Otherwise you were not fully surrendered to the Lord. Later on in Chapter two Paul had to withstand against Peter because he withdrew from the Gentiles, and hung with the Jewish Christians because he feared the false brethren who were of the circumcision. Paul told Peter that if being a Jew live like the Gentiles, and not as the Jews how he compels the Gentiles to live and do as the Jews? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.