Galatians 2:3

But neither (RV 'not even') Titus.. was compelled] This was a crucial instance of the application of the principle at stake. A demand was made by the rigid Judaists that Titus should be circumcised. The demand raised the whole question of the obligation of the Gentiles to observe the Jewish Law, and St. Paul peremptorily refused it. There is an apparent inconsistency between the Apostle's rejection of the demand in this case and his consent to the circumcision of Timothy at Lystra (Acts 16:3) 'because of the Jews which were in these parts.' The inconsistency, however, is only apparent. In the case of Titus St. Paul was opposing the principle that observance of the Jewish Law (and circumcision as the sign of it) was necessary to salvation. This was the doctrine of the Jewish-Christian party, and St. Paul gave no place to them, 'no, not for an hour.' In the case of Timothy there was no such principle at stake. There were no Jewish Christians in question, only Jews, who evidently thought that Timothy, being of Jewish nationality on his mother's side, should bear the. outward sign of his nationality. As the matter had only a racial, not a religious, significance, St. Paul circumcised Timothy on grounds of expediency. We may compare his own personal attitude in similar matters (Acts 18:18; Acts 20:16; Acts 21:23) as showing that he continued to practise some of the Jewish customs, even in religious observances, though he did not regard them as necessary to salvation, or think of imposing them upon others. It is to be remembered also that while Timothy was half a Jew, Titus was a pure. Gentile, and the question at issue involved the Christian liberty of the Gentiles.