Gal. 2:4-5 now comes into sharper focus. Here Paul writes that the ‘false brothers’

were secretly brought in (pareisa&ktouj) and that they crept in (pareish=lqon) to

spy out (kataskoph=sai). The language of spying in this verse makes perfect sense

in the light of the Titus-Timothy hypothesis: the ‘false brothers’ had found out that

Titus-Timothy’s father was a Greek and had leaked the information. Knox writes, ‘It

may be supposed that S. Paul would inform the three Apostles that Titus was

uncircumcised, since he would have no reason for not doing so, but it is quite clear

that he regarded the means by which others became aware of the fact as grossly

dishonorable (Gal. ii.4)’.(1) Since they had been secretly brought in, they may

have overheard a conversation about Titus-Timothy’s father, which they were not

intended to hear, or Paul may not have realized their true intentions at the time.

Gal. 2:4-5 has apparently broken grammar, and it seems likely that Paul has

omitted some words. Orchard wrote, ‘Whatever the missing words, we may be sure

that they were entirely obvious to his Galatian addressees.’(2) This suggests that

the incident in question, whatever it was, was known to the Galatians. The

connection with the Galatians is further strengthened by the words, ‘that the truth

of the gospel might continue with you’. If Titus was Timothy, the events leading to

his circumcision would have been familiar to the Galatians, and this would explain

how they were expected to make sense of the text. In Gal. 2:3 Paul states that the

apostles did not compel Titus/Timothy to be circumcised and this immediately

brings the circumcision of Timothy in Galatia into the frame. Thus it is unnecessary

for Paul to actually use the words ‘I circumcised him’ at the start of Gal. 2:4. The

incident was so well known to the readers that a simple adversative de\ was

sufficient: ‘Timothy was not compelled to be circumcised, but (I circumcised him)

because of the false brothers ….’.

On this visit to Jerusalem Paul first met with James, Peter, and John. This meeting

was private because Paul knew that his view that, in Christ, Gentiles were equal to

Jews, would have caused offense and opposition if they had become widely known.

Now, it is normally assumed that the false brothers were members of the

Jerusalem church and that they opposed Paul's message in Jerusalem. However,

this creates two important difficulties. Firstly, they would surely have told the wider

Jerusalem church that Titus was uncircumcised, and this would have given Peter

the dilemma of whether to eat with Titus, a Greek, or not. However, it is clear from

Gal 2:11-14 that Peter did not face this dilemma until later in Antioch. Secondly, if

the conflict between Paul and the false brothers occurred in Jerusalem the issue of

dispute would surely have been brought up at the larger public meeting (Acts 15)

that occurred a few days or weeks after the private meeting (Gal 2:1-10). However,

Paul does not cite the meeting or the decree and this suggests that the issues of

dispute between him and that false brothers were never brought up at the meeting.

It is likely, therefore, that the non-yielding of Paul to the false brothers was outside

Jerusalem. I propose that they were Jews from south Galatia who were in

Jerusalem on pilgrimage. They sneaked into the confidential meeting and learned

that Titus's father had been a Greek, and they told their compatriots when they

returned to south Galatia. It is the influence of these false brothers on the Galatian

churches that lies behind the crisis to which Paul responds in his letter. It is not

necessary to hypothesize a Judean counter-mission to Galatia.

The accusation of spying in Gal. 2:3-5 corresponds nicely to the hints of intended

secrecy in Acts 16:1-3, and this further supports the view that the two passages

concern the same person.

(1) W.L. Knox, St Paul and the Church of Jerusalem, (Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1925) 189.

(2) B. Orchard, "The Ellipsis between Galatians 2,3 and 2,4" Biblica 54, (1973)

469-481.

Back to Titus-Timothy index