Titus Not Compelled to Be Circumcised; the False Brethren (Galatians 2:3–5)

Having explained why he was in Jerusalem and what he did there, Paul now speaks of how he was received by the Christians there. All the brothers, he says, received us as we were, having shed all constraints imposed by Jewish prescriptions, as they demonstrated by their communion with Titus, who was uncircumcised (Gal. 2:3). False brothers, zealots for the law, came near in order to shake us, but they succeeded in nothing (Gal. 2:4), so that the freedom of the Gospel was vindicated by us before all (Gal. 2:5)

Gal. 2:3. But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.

Titus, a believer from among the Gentiles, uncircumcised, was with me everywhere in the midst of Christians from the Jews and, despite his uncircumcision, was accepted by all into communion. That community presented no difficulty to communion with Titus, which proved more forcefully than any words their conviction that circumcision and uncircumcision make no difference among those who have believed in the Lord. “Not compelled”—either he was not compelled at all, that is, there was no mention of it; or he was not forced, although they urged and pressed him. The latter could only be expected from false brothers, who did not understand the conditions of salvation, about which there is special discussion; they demanded not only circumcision but the observance of the whole law and all precepts. Who compelled him—the Apostles alone or also the Christian community? Since the Apostle says ahead that he set forth his teaching both before all and privately to the Apostles; so here it is understood that Titus was compelled by no one, neither Apostles nor believers who judged rightly about the relation of the Mosaic law to Christianity, though of course the Apostles were guiding. Our ancient interpreters say that the Apostles did not force Titus to be circumcised, though some desired it. If some desired it, certainly the false brothers, then some did not desire it. The affair happened openly. The false brothers would have liked to circumcise him, but the Apostles and the true brothers did not agree to it and left Titus free. It appears here that Apostle Paul intends to single out from the company of rightly-believing brothers these false brothers, adherents of the law, giving to understand that they were like some isolated group, going stubbornly against all.

Blessed Theodoret writes: “this is itself the strongest proof that even in the opinion of the Apostles believers from the Gentiles should not keep the law, for Titus, who was uncircumcised and called from the Greeks, was not prescribed to be circumcised, although very many desired the opposite.” Saint John of Damascus says that Titus’s uncircumcision “was the strongest proof that the Apostles did not condemn Saint Paul for not circumcising Gentiles.” Ambrosiaster adds: “and it is implied: why then are you Galatians circumcised, when Titus was not forced to be circumcised by the chief Apostles, but was accepted into communion uncircumcised?” Other interpreters of ours dwell more on how the Apostles themselves tolerated circumcision in Jerusalem. To this there is one answer among all: it was by a certain economy, that is, permitted for a time as a measure of wisdom, not as an unchanging rule. Ecumenius says that the non-compulsion of Titus to be circumcised serves as “proof that Peter and his companions do not legislate circumcision, but, by condescension to those who believed from the Jews, permit it.” Theophylact: “and the Apostles also permitted circumcision not as an inviolable law, but by a certain economy (that is, as a temporary measure of wise condescension to the weak).” Saint Chrysostom explains this more fully: “that the Apostles did not force Titus, who was uncircumcised, to be circumcised, this clearly proves that they did not condemn Paul’s teaching or his actions; and it proved this even more when his opponents, learning of this, insisted on circumcision, the Apostles did not command this to be done; to which very point he indicates with the words: ‘because of the false brothers who came in’. Who were these false brothers? This here requires explanation. If the Apostles permitted circumcision, why do you call false brothers those who, with the knowledge of the Apostles, commanded this to be done? First, to demand something be done is not the same as to permit what is being done. One who demands insists that his demand, as necessary and important, be fulfilled; but one who does not demand but only does not forbid the willing, permits a certain action not as something that ought to be and is necessary, but by some particular arrangement. So here the Apostles, although they permitted circumcision, did so not as defenders of the law, but by condescension to the weakness of the Jews. But if they had defended the law, they would not have acted one way regarding the Jews and another way regarding the Gentiles; for what was necessary to do according to the law of Christ for one group, the same, of course, would have been necessary for the other. But if they established as a rule not to compel Gentiles to circumcision, then they showed that they permitted this to the Jews only by condescension. The false brothers, however, did so not with this intention, but in order to tear away believers from grace and again subject them under the yoke of bondage. And this is the first distinction, placing a great wall between the Apostles and the false brothers. The second is that the Apostles did this in Judea, where the law was still so powerful; but the false brothers did this everywhere, for they wished to enslave all the Galatians. From this it is evident that the latter did so not for building up, but for utter destruction.”

Gal. 2:4–5. And this was because of false brothers secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy out the freedom we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage. To them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, that the truth of the Gospel might remain with you.

All our ancient interpreters do not separate the word: “and because of the false brothers”—from the preceding verse and connect the speech thus: Titus was not compelled to be circumcised, even because of the false brothers who came. Thus Saint Chrysostom, as is evident from the preceding quotation. Thus Blessed Theodoret, even though in the Greek it says not: “and because of”—but: “because of those false brothers who came.” “The conjunction ‘who came’,” he says, “is extraneous to the structure of the speech. For the sense of these words is thus: And Titus, although he was a Greek, was not compelled to be circumcised on account of the false brothers who came.” Thus Saint John of Damascus: “The Apostles did not compel the uncircumcised Titus to be circumcised, though the false brothers who came were watching and demanding circumcision.” Photius in Ecumenius: “even seeing the false brothers present.” Ecumenius himself: “not even on account of the false brothers who came.” And Theophylact the same. And among the Latin teachers Blessed Augustine writes: “Because of the false brothers who came, Titus was not compelled to be circumcised; that is, it was impossible to wring agreement to circumcision from him, although those who came to spy out our freedom very much desired that Titus be circumcised, so that they might then preach that circumcision is necessary for salvation, by the agreement and testimony of the Apostle Paul himself.” Thus all antiquity maintains this kind of connection of the speech; and we ought not to depart from them. Our Slavonic translation does not depart from them.

Modern non-Orthodox interpreters hold that here begins a separate statement by Saint Paul, to which the particle “who came” compels them, of which Blessed Theodoret spoke. This reading is indeed maintained precisely; but the flow of the speech becomes confused. For: “because of the false brothers who came,”—such and such,—“to them we did not yield…” turns out disjointed. To give the speech coherence, they make various suppositions, sometimes very awkward.

Who were these false brothers? They were brothers, that is, believers in the Lord and baptized ones, but false brothers, that is, those holding false principles, supposing that with faith in the Lord it was necessary also to observe the old law in order to be saved. And in this, their faith concerning the Person of the Saviour could not be true, and further, their whole moral character. Consequently, outwardly they were Christians, but inwardly they did not have a Christian disposition. There were many among the believing Jews who held to the law—in Jerusalem, one could say, all of them. But among them some held to it by habit only, no longer considering its observance a necessary condition of salvation, while others held to it in precisely this sense, thinking that without it one could not be saved. And among these, some, having formed such convictions, lived quietly by themselves, while others came forward as active fighters for the truth and were zealous to impart their convictions to all. Those who came to Antioch and raised a dispute there were among their number. Among their number were also these who now crept in to Saint Paul and his companions to watch how they lived, whether in a Jewish manner.

“Because of false brothers secretly brought in,” παρεισακτους,—brought in, secretly introduced; “who came in” παρεισηλθον,—as if they crept in. This, of course, was not into Christian society in general, but into the house where Apostle Paul was with his companions. They entered the Church of Christ by faith in the Lord, and they had no thought about how they ought to relate to the law; they were convinced that the law would remain in force and that, by accepting faith in Christ, they were becoming true Jews, complete, according to all the prophetic promises. Having seen, after the baptism of Cornelius, that Christians had taken a road on which the law could not maintain among them the force that they gave it, and yet unwilling to return to Judaism, they determined to uphold the law alongside faith and began to act in this spirit. Nevertheless, they were tolerated for a long time in the Church: they were not excommunicated, in hope of their coming to their senses and repentance.

“Came in to spy.” The very word “came in” shows something base in them, as if they crept in secretly, under the pretence of brotherhood. And: “to spy”—reveals even more their base intentions, as if to observe what was said and done there, so as to use it against them afterwards. Ambrosiaster writes: “they came with cunning, presenting themselves as brothers when they were enemies… they entered with humility, pretending to be friends.” The same with Ecumenius: “see how he presents them as enemies who came to harm the faith,—first, in that he says ‘came in’—secretly, with ill intent they crept in; second, in that he says ‘to spy’; for a spy spies with the intent to harm and do evil.” Saint Chrysostom more fully: “Do you see how by calling them spies he expressed their hostility? For spies enter only in order to, having espied the affairs of their opponents, prepare themselves the most suitable means to defeat and overthrow them; so also did the false brothers act then, wishing to enslave to that old-covenant bondage. For this reason it is also evident from this that the intention of the Apostles and the false brothers was not one, but very different and opposite. For the Apostles condescended so as gradually to lead out from bondage; but these, on the contrary, arranged it so as to subject to even greater bondage. Therefore they carefully watched and observed who was circumcised, to which very thing Paul alludes and says: ‘came in to spy out the freedom we have in Christ Jesus,’—indicating their cunning not only by the name of spies, but also in that they came secretly and like thieves.”

“To spy out the freedom that we have in Christ Jesus.” Our Lord Jesus Christ, by His cross-bearing death, which replaced all the sacrifices and rites of the old covenant—propitiatory, justifying, and sanctifying—and by the grace of the Holy Spirit, which in the mysteries renews our nature, freed believers in Him from the yoke of the precepts of the Mosaic law, made them no longer necessary. Those who drew near to the Lord in faith, by the very fact that they drew near to Him, received all that the old law only prefigured in promise, and consequently, by the very nature of that spiritual state into which faith placed them, became free from it. The Apostle by this expression points both to the freedom that all believers ought to have, and to the freedom that he and his companions actually possessed, having cast off all the bonds of the law. In Jerusalem, even those who rightly understood the power of faith in the Lord kept to the legal observances by habit. Saint Paul, as soon as he believed, abandoned the law to which he had been so devoted. In this same freedom he also trained all believers according to his Gospel, not Gentiles only, but also Jews. The Jerusalem believers could not see this freedom anywhere more clearly than in Paul and those who were with him. They appeared in Jerusalem as representatives of the way of life renewed in Christ Jesus, pure from every trace of Judaism and all the more of paganism. For this reason they could be a subject of curiosity for everyone. Everyone was curious to see how these lived and were saved, while not keeping the practices that were then in use and were considered necessary marks of a pious Jew.

But the false brothers were drawn there not by curiosity alone. They had a hidden purpose, which Saint Paul indicates with the words: “that they might bring us into bondage.” They crept in to Saint Paul secretly, and crept in with the intent to spy out his freedom and that of those who were with him; but they also had this in mind—not to limit themselves to mere observation. Zeal for the law drove them there, so that, noting the disobedience to the law, they might make efforts to return those who had freed themselves from it back under its yoke. The words of Saint Paul suggest that they did make such attempts. But how could they do this? Of course, they had no authority to do so. One might suppose this if they had been acting in the name of the Apostles; but from the course of the whole affair it is evident that they had already separated from the Apostles and were acting independently of them. By their mere presence? Perhaps they were important persons among the Jews, and their number was considerable. By both these means they could exert powerful influence over Apostle Paul and those with him, and shake their firmness now with respect, now with the threat of discord, now with some fear. But more directly they engaged in discussion and tried to persuade. Their zeal could not allow them to be silent. It is evident that on their part there was considerable pressure. But they accomplished nothing. Not without effort, however, did this proceed for the Apostle; which is why it was memorable, as one can conclude from the following words.

“To them we did not yield in submission.” As we say: not for a moment or not an inch did we give in. Consequently, there was a struggle: some attacked, others defended. — In Greek: ειξαμεν τη υποταγη — we did not yield to submission. The thought: either we did not yield in submission, submissively, without contradiction, or we did not yield to submission to the law, neither wholly nor in part—we did not agree to return to any works of the law, neither great ones like circumcision, nor small ones like, for example, prescriptions about food, washings, and so forth. In the Slavonic translation the latter thought is maintained; the Russian translation, to express the same thought more clearly, uses a paraphrase: we did not yield and did not submit. Those had the thought not merely to dispute, but in deed to subject to the law. “Note the loftiness and expressiveness of these words,” says Saint Chrysostom. “He did not say: ‘to their word’ (did not submit), but: ‘to submission’ (that is, their effort to subdue). For they did this not to teach something beneficial, but to subject and enslave.” — Saint John of Damascus: “not for a moment did we yield to them, that is, to those who came, so as not to be saying one thing and doing another.”

“That the truth of the Gospel might remain with you.” That is, that the truth of salvation in the One Lord Jesus Christ, or Christianity in general, in its whole constitution, might remain pure and unmixed among you, the believers from the Gentiles: for among the Jews there are still many attachments that hinder it from appearing so, attachments which the wisdom of those who direct the affairs of Christ constrained them to consider. Had Saint Paul yielded here and agreed to accept even something of Judaism, this admixture would have spread also throughout the entire Church of the Gentiles, and the truth of the Gospel would not have remained on earth as it ought to be. “With you”—the speech is addressed to the Galatians, inasmuch as they are believers from the Gentiles. In this case he regards them as representatives of Gentile Christians and speaks in their person of all such. Saint Chrysostom says: “so that what we taught you in words, this to confirm also in deeds, that is, that ‘old things have passed away, and all things have become new; and if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation’ (2 Cor. 5:17); and that ‘Christ will be of no advantage to those who are circumcised’ (Gal. 5:2)—confirming this truth, we did not yield to them even for an hour.” Theophylact adds: “so that there may remain firm and changeless true what we preached to you. By resisting them, we showed that we truly proclaimed to you the abolition of the law. Do not turn away from this truth.”

Blessed Jerome directs his interpretation toward the purposes of the Epistle and draws from the words of the Apostle a powerful lesson for the Galatians: “In the midst of such a multitude of Jews, his enemies, who out of zeal for the law would have exhausted all his blood, neither he himself nor Titus yielded from any fear or necessity; although they could have been excused if they had not endured the hatred of so many and so great—and had yielded… He speaks as if to say: threatening with threats and overwhelming us by their great number, they wanted to plunge us again from the freedom of Christ under the yoke of the law; but not for a moment did we yield to them, although in this case necessity to preserve the peace of the Church could have excused us. And we did this in order to give you no cause for falling away from grace. So then, if we, being in Jerusalem, surrounded by such a multitude of Jews and false brothers, in the face of the condescension of the senior Apostles, could by no power be compelled to fulfil the rite of circumcision, which they recognized as having already lost its force; how you, from the Gentiles, you, living in Galatia (that is, far from the Jews), you to whom no influential compulsion could be applied—how you, falling away from grace, have determined to subject yourselves to an obsolete law?”