Galatians 2:3

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.

The implication is “Why should you be circumcised, when Titus was not compelled to undergo circumcision by the apostles? Titus, who had an important role, was accepted without circumcision.”

"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.

(Vers. 3-5.) But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Gentile, was compelled to be circumcised. Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in—who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery— to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you. But even Titus, who was with me, was not compelled to be circumcised, although he was a Gentile. This matter arose because of false brothers secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery. But what is this truth of the Gospel, to give in to the hypocrisy of the Jews; and to consider as scybala what you once esteemed, and to despise as losses, and to observe and esteem as something, when they are nothing? But it strongly opposes the meaning of the Epistle itself, to call the Galatians back to circumcision. This is the main theme throughout his discourse, to teach that he is a Hebrew among the Hebrews, once observing all the works of the Law, circumcised on the eighth day according to the Law of the Pharisees: nevertheless, for the grace of Christ, to completely despise everything. For when he went to Jerusalem, and the false brethren, who believed in circumcision, wanted to compel him to circumcise Titus; neither Titus, nor did he give in to violence, so that they would safeguard the truth of the Gospel. But if he says that he was compelled by necessity to circumcise Titus: how does he recall the Galatians from circumcision, from which neither Titus, who was with him from the Gentiles, could excuse himself in Jerusalem? Therefore, according to the Greek manuscripts, it should be read, 'To whom we did not yield in subjection, not even for an hour,' so that it may be understood subsequently: so that the truth of the Gospel may remain with you. But if the testimony of the Latin exemplars is pleasing to anyone, we must understand it according to the higher sense: that the purpose was not for Titus to be circumcised, but to go to Jerusalem. For this reason, Paul and Barnabas submitted to going to Jerusalem, due to the sedition caused by the Law of Antioch. This was done so that the truth of the Gospel would be confirmed by the letter of the apostles and remain among the Galatians, which was not in the literal sense, but in the spiritual sense. It was not in the carnal understanding, but in spiritual intelligence, and not in overt Judaism, but in hidden understanding. It is worth knowing that the conjunction 'autem,' which is placed in this position, is superfluous if it is read without any purpose to respond to it and if it concludes the previous statement. However, it serves to maintain the order of reading and the sense of the passage. So, Titus, who was with me, being a Gentile, was not compelled to be circumcised. And immediately after, it explains the reason why he was being urged to undergo circumcision against his will. 'Because of the false brothers secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery.' But when they were serving as ministers and wished to drag us into the servitude of the Law from the freedom of Christ, we did not even yield to them for a moment, so that we might not give any occasion to them to accuse us. And we did this primarily because of the ecclesiastical peace, so that we could excuse ourselves from necessity, and we did all of this so that you would not have any opportunity to depart from the grace of the Gospel. Therefore, if we, while in Jerusalem, among so many Jews who were falsely claiming to be brothers and those who were exerting influence over us to some extent, could not be compelled by force or reason to observe the circumcision that we knew was abolished, then you, coming from the Gentiles, you in Galatia, you to whom no violence can be done, voluntarily abandoning the grace, have transcended the antiquity of the already abolished Law.

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.

"Yet not even Titus, who was with me and a Greek." He says "who was with me" and "a Greek," that is, uncircumcised. Therefore, being uncircumcised, he was not compelled by the apostles to be circumcised, which would have been a criticism, nor did they preach circumcision to the men around Peter; yet, out of accommodation to the believing Jews from Israel, they consented to circumcision.

In another way. [PHOTIUS] Not even Titus, he says, although evidently born of a Greek linage, did the apostles compel to be circumcised, although seeing also the false brothers present. For the "Yet not even" must be understood from the preceding section, as in "Yet not even Titus was compelled." He says, "to be circumcised." Not on account of the unpleasant false brothers. What then? Because we circumcised Timothy, will he make that a reason against the false brothers? We did not circumcise him on their account, God forbid! But in order that he might win those who were being scandalized by reason of weakness. For towards the weak one must yield in order to the gentle treatment of the difficulty; but towards those moved by hatred and wicked purpose, not even the least compromise. For these, not only do they not need a cure, having fastened upon them every remedy of the passion, but they seek to fill their neighbors with their own disease. Therefore, "toward whom we did not even for an hour," (Gal. 2:5) as the divine Paul declares. [end of the excerpt by Photius]

That is, by the Apostles; which is, of course, a highest proof that they should not pass sentence against the Apostle, who did not circumcise the nations.

Uncircumcised Titus, he says, was not compelled to be circumcised. And this serves as the most important proof that the apostles too permitted circumcision not as a law, but according to a certain economy, that is, as a temporary measure of prudent condescension to the weak, for the sake of believers from the circumcision, – and that they could not censure the preaching of Paul, whose disciple was uncircumcised.

Then when he says, "But neither Titus who was with me," he shows what resulted from the discussion held with the apostles. And he mentions three results:

That he did not depart from his opinion;

That nothing was added to his teaching (v. 6);

Thirdly, that his teaching was approved (v. 7).

Concerning the first he does two things:

First, he shows with respect to one definite point that he did not depart from his teaching;

Secondly, that on no other point did he depart from it (v. 4).

He says, therefore: I say that the result of my discussion with them about the teaching of the Gospel was that my teaching and opinion remained unaltered concerning the non-observance of legalism, i.e., the Gentiles would not be compelled to observe the rites of the Law so that "neither Titus who was with me, being a Gentile, was compelled to be circumcised," but was admitted uncircumcised into their fellowship by the apostles. This discussion occasioned the decree handed down by the apostles on not observing the rites of the law, as is had in Acts (15:28). The reason why these rites were not to be observed after the passion of Christ is assigned in the following way by Chrysostom: "For it is evident that the instrument drawn up for any promise or pact binds only until the pact and promise are fulfilled; but when fulfilled, the instrument no longer binds on that point." Now circumcision is an instrument of the promise and pact between God and believing men. Hence it was that Abraham underwent circumcision as a sign of the promise, as is said in Genesis (11:26). And because the promise was fulfilled and the pact completed by the passion of Christ, neither the pact holds after the passion nor is circumcision of any value. Thus, therefore, his refusal to permit Titus to be circumcised makes it plain that he did not depart from his teaching.

But the special reason why Timothy was circumcised and Titus not, was that Timothy was born of a Gentile father and Jewish mother, whereas Titus' parents were both Gentiles. And the opinion of the Apostle was that those born of a Jewish parent on either side should be circumcised, but those born entirely of Gentile parents should on no account be circumcised.