Galatians 2:3

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.

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 …

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.

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, …

But neither was Titus who was with me - When I conversed with them. Compelled to be circumcised - A clear proof that none of the apostles insisted on the circumcising gentile believers. The sense is, And it is true, some of those false brethren would fain have compelled Titus to be circumcised; but I utterly refused it.

Peter was the apostle to them; and the ceremonial law, though dead with Christ, yet not being as yet buried, he connived at the respect kept up for it. But Paul was the apostle of the Gentiles; and, though he was a Hebrew of the Hebrews, yet he adhered to pure Christianity.

But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek,....

This he knew was a doctrine that would be ungrateful to many there, and yet he was not afraid to own it, but in a free and friendly manner lays it open before them and leaves them to judge whether or no it was not the true gospel of Christ.

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.

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.