Warm greetings from Okinawa Japan!

We are currently studying Paul's letter to the Galatians in our Sunday School; I am just a little curious with the details: Did the Judiazers went as far as peeping at Titus' private parts to conclude he was not circumcised? Any insights is highly appreciated.

Thank you,

It was probably a combination of knowing that most gentiles at that time were not circumsized, that Galatia was a gentile city, and the Judaizers hearing rumors that Paul wasn't requiring it. So they snuck into the church, pretending interest, to see whether Paul was telling gentile converts that they needed to be circumcized in order to be Christians.

__________________
"I was found by those who did not seek me; I was made manifest to those who did not ask for me." Romans 10:20b

Angela Asano
Edwardsville, IL
Member, Center Grove Presbyterian Church - PCA

"History never repeats itself, but it rhymes." - Mark Twain

Hi Athaleyah,

Thank you for the insight! Another inquiry if I may; Paul being silent or not saying the need to be circumcised - would it be sufficient grounds to give the Judiazers concrete evidence of Titus being uncircumcised?

Also, did not the event happened in Jerusalem when Paul was bringing in Titus?
How come they can tell he is a gentile? Was it the because of the kind of clothing Titus is wearing? Was it the way he speak?

When Paul said 'They spy in our freedom': did it meant during the assembly? How could they have enough concrete evidence of Titus being uncircumcised that put Paul on hot water without them asking directly or seeing directly the evidence?

Was talking about circumcision during that time and culture a regular or normal discussion during assemblies? (forgive me, I came from a culture which is very sensitive on giving information regarding private parts)

Thank you again for reading I highly appreciate the response

__________________
Regin
Okinawa, Baptist Deacon

It would be a reasonable assumption. Circumcision was not a normal practice among Greeks. So if Paul wasn't insisting on it, they would be relatively sure that Titus wasn't circumcized. And if they asked, Paul or Titus would have told them truthfully. Paul wasn't hiding his teachings. They probably just didn't want Paul to know that they were trying to oppose him, and were in secret for that reason.

I don't remember the event you are referring to, but that doesn't mean it isn't there. I might have read it and not been focused on that detail.I do remember in Acts 21:29 the Jews assumed that Paul had brought Trophimus the Ephesian (a gentile) into the temple in making their charges against him.

This is getting a bit out of things I know well, but yes, gentiles dressed differently than the Jews did (e.g. Jews having 4 tassels on the hems of their garments). Also his accent would have been Greek. If you recall, when Peter denied Jesus, they told him that his accent was Galilean, so they could tell differences in accents even for small geographical areas.

As far as I know they were spying to determine what was being taught without Paul knowing he was being observed by Jews that were opposed to him. This was about more than circumcision ultimately, it was the whole issue of whether Christians had to keep the Law of Moses to be Christians.

Circumcision was a very important part of the Jewish culture, they didn't hide it, and the gentiles didn't hide that they weren't circumcized. I don't have any idea how widely it was discussed in the culture at the time. I imagine it would have been more assumed, than a regular topic of conversation. Certainly it would have been a part of Jewish religious teaching, so they would all know why and when it was done. I imagine it was taught, was no secret at all, and something they were comfortable with as something that made them distinct.

I know that Greeks were comfortable with nudity, at least in athletic competitions. But I don't know much about the culture and taboos of that time. Maybe someone else can answer better than I have.

Thank you