Galatians 2:3

But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
Read Chapter 2


AD 400
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.”

Augustine of Hippo

AD 430
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.

Cornelius a Lapide

AD 1637
Neither Titus , who was a Gentile, was compelled to be circumcised. Observe the word compelled. Though the false brethren, the Jews, urged and tried to force it, yet I would not consent to Titus being circumcised, since he was a Gentile. Had I consented, I should have been thought to allow the necessity of circumcision and the law of Moses for Gentiles. But when I circumcised Timothy afterwards (Acts xvi3), I did so not under compulsion, but of my own initiative, that I might not irritate the Jews. For Timothy was not wholly a Gentile, being on his mother"s side a Jew, and on his father"s a Gentile, and so half-Jew, half-Gentile Gentile. Literally "Greek" [as in A.V.] At the time of Alexander the Greeks were those of the Gentiles who were best known to the Jews.

George Leo Haydock

AD 1849
Neither Titus. Circumcised, who had been a Gentile. A convincing proof, says St. Chrysostom, that even according to the other apostles, the Gentiles converted, were not subject to the Jewish laws. (Witham)

John Chrysostom

AD 407
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—

John of Damascus

AD 749
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.

Tertullian of Carthage

AD 220
To be understood as in alliance with Judaism! When indeed he says, that "neither was Titus circumcised". to be circumcised "and then adds, "And that because of false brethren unawares brought in"

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation - 2 Peter 1:20

App Store LogoPlay Store Logo