But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Gentile, was compelled to be circumcised.

“So great had been his desire to be approved and supported by those whom you wish on all occasions to be understood as in alliance with Judaism! When indeed he says, that "neither was Titus circumcised," he for the first time shows us that circumcision was the only question connected with the maintenance of the law, which had been as yet agitated by those whom he therefore calls "false brethren unawares brought in. When he first says, "Neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised," and then adds, "And that because of false brethren unawares brought in," etc.”

“"But not even Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised." What means, "being a Greek?" Of Greek extraction, and not circumcised; for not only did I so preach but Titus so acted, nor did the Apostles compel him to be circumcised. A plain proof this that the Apostles did not condemn Paul's doctrine or his practice. Nay more, even the urgent representations of the adverse party, who were aware of these facts, did not oblige the Apostles to enjoin circumcision, as appears by his own words.”

“It was because of the intrigues of false brethren that Titus was not compelled to be circumcised. It was not possible to require circumcision of him. Those who had crept in to spy on their liberty had a vehement expectation and desire for the circumcision of Titus. They wanted, with Paul's testimony and consent, to preach circumcision as necessary to salvation.”

“After the Apostle, in the preceding chapter, commended the authority of the evangelical teaching in itself, now in this chapter he commends it on the part of the other apostles and of himself at the same time. And concerning this he does two things. First he commends the authority of his teaching from the approval of the other apostles; second, from the example of himself and the other apostles, at the place "We by nature Jews, not of the Gentiles," etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he shows that the other apostles approved his teaching; second he shows that he freely reprehended the other apostles in those things which they said contrary to his teaching, at the place "When Peter had come," etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he treats of the conference which he had with the apostles; second he intimates what followed from it, at the place "but neither was Titus," etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he sets down the circumstances of the conference itself; second he sets down the conference itself, at the place "and I conferred with them," etc. As to the first he touches on four circumstances, namely the time, the place, the witnesses, and its motive. Now he describes the time when he says, "then after fourteen years." But against this: the Apostle was converted in the first year after the Passion of Christ, and after three years he went to Jerusalem, and thus there are four; and here he says "after fourteen years" he went again to Jerusalem, and thus there come to be eighteen; and then he found Peter in Jerusalem. And this cannot be, because Peter sat at Antioch for seven years, but at Rome for twenty-five years. And so there would be eighteen (two short of twenty) and seven — which are twenty-five years — before he went to Rome, and at Rome he stayed twenty-five years; therefore Peter would have lived after the Passion of Christ fifty years, which is false: because in the fortieth year from the Passion of Christ, Peter suffered at Rome, as is held in history, which was in the time of Nero. I respond. It must be said that when it is said "then," etc., it is not to be understood that after the three years fourteen more years elapsed before he went to Jerusalem, but that in the fourteenth year of his conversion he went up again. Nor are the seven years, during which Peter ruled the Antiochene Church, to be added on top of these fourteen, because he began to rule before these years. And since Antioch is near Jerusalem, it could be that at some point Peter had gone to Jerusalem, and then Paul found him there. And thus it is gathered from history that after fourteen years Peter came to Rome in the time of the emperor Claudius, and being there for twenty-five years, he completed the number of thirty-nine years, and died in the fortieth year after the Passion of the Lord. Now he says "fourteen" pointedly, to show that he had no need of the instruction of the apostles, if he was without them for fourteen years. But he describes the place when he says "Jerusalem." And he says "I went up," because it is situated on high. Now he went up to Jerusalem, in order to show himself in agreement with the prophecy which says, Isaiah 2:3: "Out of Sion shall go forth the law," etc. He describes the witnesses when he says, "with Barnabas, taking also Titus." Barnabas was a Jew, but Titus a Gentile. With them, therefore, he went up, so that he might have witnesses to his teaching, and so that he might show himself inclining to neither side, neither of the Jews nor of the Gentiles. Deuteronomy 17: "In the mouth of two or three every word stands." But he describes the motive when he says "according to a revelation of God," that is, God revealing it and commanding him that he should go up to Jerusalem. From this it can be gathered that all the acts and movements of the apostles were according to the instinct of the Holy Spirit. Job 37:11: "The clouds scatter their light," etc. Consequently, when he says "and I conferred," etc., he treats of the conference itself, where he does three things. First he sets forth the matter concerning which he conferred; second, the persons with whom he conferred; and third, the cause for which he conferred. The matter concerning which he conferred was the Gospel. And therefore he says, "I conferred with them the Gospel of God," etc. The persons with whom he conferred are the greater and more excellent among the apostles: "but apart with those," etc. But the useful and necessary cause: namely "lest perhaps in vain," etc. As to the first he says, "I went up to Jerusalem," where "I conferred with them," as with friends and equals, the Gospel which I preached among the Gentiles — not that I might learn it, since I was already taught by Christ; not that I might be certified of it, since I am so certain that even if an angel should say the contrary, I would not believe it, as is clear above in chapter 1. But I conferred for two reasons: namely, to intimate the unity of my teaching with the teaching of the other apostles. 1 Corinthians 1:10: "That you all say the same thing," etc. He therefore conferred with them, having as it were the same word as they, yet not holding them as equals. Likewise, to avoid the calumny of others. For the Apostle, because he had not lived with Christ, nor been taught by the apostles, but immediately after his conversion began to preach things that were hateful to the Jews — and especially concerning the calling of the Gentiles, and that the legal observances ought not to be kept — thus, then, he conferred the Gospel. But with whom he did this, he shows by adding, "but apart with those," etc., as if to say: not with all, but with those who were among the others of some authority and weight, namely with Peter, James and John, and the other great ones. Ecclesiasticus 9:21: "Deal with the wise and the prudent," etc. But "apart," etc. — not that he dealt or conferred with them concerning shameful or false things, as heretics do, but because he knew that there were Jews there who calumniated, on account of the fact that he had taught concerning the legal observances. And therefore, lest the truth lie open to calumny, he conferred apart with those who would not calumniate. Proverbs 25:9: "Treat thy cause with thy friend, and discover not the secret to a stranger," etc. Ecclesiasticus 8:21: "Before a stranger do not take counsel," etc. Thus, then, both the matter of the conference and the persons are clear. There follows the cause, which was, namely, "lest I should run, or had run, in vain" — that is, lest I be reckoned to have preached uselessly. Now he calls his preaching a "running," on account of the swiftness of his teaching, because in a short time he preached the Gospel from Jerusalem all the way to Illyricum, and even to Spain. Whence that saying could be said of him, Psalm 147:15: "His word runneth swiftly," etc.; 2 Thessalonians 3:1: "Brethren, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may run," etc. But did he doubt that he was running in vain? It must be said that he did not doubt for himself, but concerning those to whom he had preached — because unless his teaching were firmly held by them, as far as they were concerned he would have run in vain; and therefore he wished to confer with them, so that, when the hearers knew that his teaching agreed with the teaching of the other apostles, and was approved by them, they would hold his teaching more firmly, and thus, as far as they were concerned, he would not run in vain. 1 Corinthians 9:26: "I so run, not as at an uncertain thing." Consequently, when he says "but neither was Titus," etc., he shows what followed from the conference held with the apostles. And he sets down three things that followed from it: namely, that he did not depart from his own position; and that nothing was added over and above to his teaching, at the place "but from those who seemed," etc. Third, that his teaching was approved, at the place "but on the contrary, when they had seen," etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he shows that he did not depart from his position in a certain particular matter; second he shows that he did not depart from it in any other matter either, at the place "but because of false brethren brought in unawares," etc. He says, then: I say that I conferred with them concerning the teaching of the Gospel in such a way that from this it followed that my teaching and position remained firm — namely, that the legal observances were not to be kept, so that the Gentiles were not compelled to keep the legal observances — to such an extent that not even Titus, who was with me, although he was also a Gentile, was compelled, by their arguments, to be circumcised, but was received by the apostles into fellowship uncircumcised. Whence then a decision was given by the apostles concerning the legal observances not being kept, as is found in Acts 15:28. Now the reason why, after the Passion of Christ, the legal observances ought not to be kept is assigned by Chrysostom as follows: for it is manifest that an instrument which is made concerning some promise or covenant holds only until the covenant and promise be fulfilled; once these are fulfilled, the aforesaid instrument no longer holds in this regard. Now circumcision is a certain instrument of the promise and covenant between God and faithful men; whence also Abraham received circumcision as a sign of the promise, as is said in Genesis 17. And because, the Passion of Christ having been accomplished, the promise was discharged and the covenant fulfilled, therefore after the Passion circumcision no longer holds, nor is it of any effect. Thus, then, it is clear that he did not depart from his position in that he did not permit Titus to be circumcised. Consequently he shows that he did not depart from it in any other matter either, when he says "but because of false brethren brought in unawares," etc. But this text is different in different copies and obscure, and is read thus: you say that you did not permit Titus to be circumcised, but why did you not permit it? Did you not elsewhere permit Timothy to be circumcised, as is read in Acts 16:3? To this the Apostle can respond thus: because at that time, when Timothy was circumcised, circumcision was a matter of indifference, namely whether it was kept or not; but now, when the matter concerned Titus, there was a special question about circumcision, which I was saying ought not to be kept. Whence if I had permitted him to be circumcised, since I myself had settled the question, it would have been done contrary to my own decision, nor was it lawful to raise the question further about this, or to make a difficulty of it, as being already determined. And therefore he says: I say that I not only did not permit him to be circumcised by them, to whom we yielded not even for an hour by way of subjection — namely, that the Gentiles should be made subject to the law. And this on account of those brought in unawares — by the Devil or by the Pharisees — false brethren, who feign themselves to be friends. 2 Corinthians 12: "peril from false brethren." Who — namely, the false brethren — came in unawares into the place where the apostles were, "to spy," that is, to spy out our liberty from sin and the law. 2 Corinthians 3:17: "Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." Romans 8:15: "For you have not received the spirit of bondage," etc. Below, chapter 4:5: "that he might redeem them who were under the law." Which — namely, liberty — we have in Christ Jesus, that is, through faith in Christ. Below, chapter 4, verse 31: "You are not the children of the bondwoman, but of the free." And for this they came in unawares: that they might bring us back into servitude — of the law and of carnal observances — as before the Passion of Christ, which is not to be done, because "no man can lay another foundation," etc., 1 Corinthians 3:11. And this "that the truth of the Gospel might remain with you" — as if to say: in nothing did we yield to them for this reason, namely lest we give occasion to those who said that without circumcision you could not be saved, which is contrary to the truth of the Gospel that I preached to you. But Ambrose reads it otherwise. For according to what has been said above, it is held that he did not yield for an hour on account of those brought in unawares. From which it follows that, had the false brethren not been brought in unawares, he would have yielded to them concerning the observance of the legal precepts. And therefore it was not on account of this, because he would not have yielded to them on account of this, but on account of the truth itself. Therefore Ambrose says that the text is corrupt, and that the word "neither" there is superfluous. Whence he wishes that "neither" not be there. And then the sense is: I did not permit Titus to be circumcised, but I permitted Timothy to be circumcised on account of the false brethren brought in unawares, in the place where I was with Timothy and the others, who came in unawares, etc. And since they had been unable to do this, they were striving to incite the people to sedition against us. To whom — namely, to the false brethren — for this reason we yielded for an hour to subjection, in the act of circumcision, by circumcising Timothy, there where it is said "that the truth of the Gospel might remain," etc., which holds that neither circumcision avails anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith. Now there was a special reason why Timothy was circumcised and not Titus: because Timothy was of a Gentile father and a Jewish mother, whereas Titus was of Gentile parents on both sides. And it was the Apostle's position that those who had been born of some Jewish parent should be circumcised, but those who had been born entirely of Gentile parents should by no means be circumcised.”

“But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek,.... There was such an agreement between the apostle, and his fellow apostles at Jerusalem, even about this article of the necessity of circumcision, and other rituals of the law of Moses, to salvation; that Titus, whom he brought along with him, an intimate companion of his in his travels, a fellow labourer with him in the ministry, and now upon the spot, though he was a Gentile, an uncircumcised person, yet even not he was compelled to be circumcised: the elders did not urge it, or insist upon it, as proper and necessary; they looked upon it as a thing indifferent, left him to his liberty, and made use of no forcible methods to oblige him to it; yea, were of opinion, as Peter and James in the synod declared, that such a yoke ought not to be put upon the necks of the disciples, and that those who turned to God from among the Gentiles, should not be troubled with these things.”

“But neither Titus, who was with me - The apostle proceeds to state that his account was so satisfactory to the apostles, that they not only did not require him to insist on the necessity of circumcision among the Gentiles, but did not even require him to have Titus, who was a Greek, circumcised; though that might have appeared expedient, especially at Jerusalem, to have prevented false brethren from making a handle of his uncircumcision, and turning it to the prejudice of the Gospel in Judea. To spy out our liberty - The Judaizing brethren got introduced into the assembly of the apostles, in order to find out what was implied in the liberty of the Gospel, that they might know the better how to oppose St. Paul and his fellows in their preaching Christ to the Gentiles, and admitting them into the Church without obliging them to observe circumcision and keep the law. The apostle saw that while such men were in the assembly it was better not to mention his mission among the Gentiles, lest, by means of those false brethren, occasion should be given to altercations and disputes; therefore he took the opportunity, by private conferences, to set the whole matter, relative to his work among the Gentiles, before the chief of the apostles.”

“But--So far were they from regarding me as running in vain, that "not even Titus who was with me, who was a Greek (and therefore uncircumcised), was compelled to be circumcised." So the Greek should be translated. The "false brethren," Gal 2:4 ("certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed," Act 15:5), demanded his circumcision. The apostles, however, constrained by the firmness of Paul and Barnabas (Gal 2:5), did not compel or insist on his being circumcised. Thus they virtually sanctioned Paul's course among the Gentiles and admitted his independence as an apostle: the point he desires to set forth to the Galatians. Timothy, on the other hand, as being a proselyte of the gate, and son of a Jewess (Act 16:1), he circumcised (Act 16:3). Christianity did not interfere with Jewish usages, regarded merely as social ordinances, though no longer having their religious significance, in the case of Jews and proselytes, while the Jewish polity and temple still stood; after the overthrow of the latter, those usages naturally ceased. To have insisted on Jewish usages for Gentile converts, would have been to make them essential parts of Christianity. To have rudely violated them at first in the case of Jews, would have been inconsistent with that charity which (in matters indifferent) is made all things to all men, that by all means it may win some (Co1 9:22; compare Rom 14:1-7, Rom 14:13-23). Paul brought Titus about with him as a living example of the power of the Gospel upon the uncircumcised heathen.”