Galatians 2:3

But neither Titus—was compelled, &c.— This served as a plain evidence to the Galatians, that the circumcising of the convert Gentiles was no part of the gospel which he laid before these men of note, as what he preached to the Gentiles; for if it had, Titus must have been circumcised; for no part of his gospel was blamed or altered by them, Galatians 2:6. It is difficult to discover of what other use the mentioning of Titus here can be, than to shew to the Galatians that what he preached contained nothing of circumcising theconvert Gentiles. If it were to shew that the other apostles and church atJerusalem dispensed with circumcision, and other ritual observances of the Mosaical law, that was needless, as having been sufficiently declared by their decree, Acts 15 which was made and communicated to the churches before this Epistle was written, Acts 16:4. Much less was this example of Titus of any force to prove that St. Paul was a true apostle, if that were what he was here labouring to justify: but considering his aim to be the clearing himself from a report that he preached up circumcision, there could be nothing more to his purpose than this instance of Titus, whom, uncircumcised as he was, he took with him to Jerusalem; uncircumcised he kept with him there; and uncircumcised he took back with him when he returned. This was a strong and pertinent instance to persuade the Galatians that the report of his preaching circumcision was a mere aspersion.