The presence of Titus at the Apostolic Council is mentioned only by Paul in Galatians. It is not mentioned in The Acts. Indeed, Titus does not appear in The Acts at all, though in the epistles he is rather prominent. This fact, however, really requires no further explanation than that the history of Luke is not intended to be exhaustive. The restraint exercised by the author of The Acts has already been observed, for example, in a comparison of the long list of hardships in II Cor. 11:23-27 with what Luke actually narrates. The helpers of Paul whom Luke mentions are usually those who traveled with him. Titus was sent by Paul on at least one important mission, II Cor. 7:13,14, but was apparently not his companion on the missionary journeys. Luke does not concern himself very much with the internal affairs of the churches, and it is in this field that Titus is especially prominent in the epistles. With regard to the presence of Titus in Jerusalem, the different purposes of the narratives in Galatians and in The Acts must be borne in mind. The non-circumcision of Titus, so strongly emphasized by Paul, was merely preliminary to the public action of the church in which Luke was interested. Luke has thought it sufficient to include Titus under the "certain other" of the Antioch Christians who went up with Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem.
The different policy which Paul adopted in the case of Timothy, as compared with his policy about Titus, is amply explained by the wide differences in the situation.
In the first place, when Titus was at Jerusalem, the matter of Gentile freedom was in dispute, whereas when Timothy was circumcised the question had already been settled by a formal pronouncement of the Jerusalem church. After Paul had won the victory of principle, he could afford to make concessions where no principle was involved. Timothy was recognized as a full member of the Church even before his circumcision. Circumcision was merely intended to make him a more efficient helper in work among the Jews.
In the second place—and this is even more important—Timothy was a half-Jew. It is perhaps doubtful whether Paul under any circumstances would have authorized the circumcision of a pure Gentile like Titus. But Timothy's mother was Jewish. It must always be borne in mind that Paul did not demand the relinquishment of the law on the part of Jews; and Timothy's parentage gave him at least the right of regarding himself as a Jew. If he had chosen to follow his Gentile father, the Jews could have regarded him as a renegade. His usefulness in the synagogues would have been lost. Obviously the circumcision of such a man involved nothing more than the maintenance of ancestral custom on the part of Jews. Where no principle was involved, Paul was the most concessive of men. See especially I Cor. 9:19-23. The final relinquishment of the law on the part of Jews was rightly left to the future guidance of God.
2. THE ROUTE THROUGH ASIA MINOR
The difficulty of tracing the route of the missionaries beyond Lystra is due largely to the difficulty of Acts 16:6. A literal translation of the decisive words in that verse would be either "the Phrygian and Galatian country" or "Phrygia and the Galatian country." According to the advocates of the "South Galatian theory," "the Galatian country" here refers not to Galatia proper but to the southern part of the Roman province Galatia. "The Phrygian and Galatian country" then perhaps means "The Phrygo-Galatic country," or "that part of Phrygia which is in the Roman province Galatia." The reference then is to Iconium, Pisidian Antioch and the surrounding country—after the missionaries had passed through the Lycaonian part of the province Galatia (Derbe and Lystra) they traversed the Phrygian part of the province. The chief objection to all such interpretations is found in the latter part of the verse: "having been forbidden of the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia." It looks as though the reason why they passed through "the Phrygian and Galatian country" was that they were forbidden to preach in Asia. But South Galatia was directly on the way to Asia. The impossibility of preaching in Asia could therefore hardly have been the reason for passing through south Galatia.
Apparently, therefore, the disputed phrase refers rather to some region which is not on the way to Asia. This requirement is satisfied if Galatia proper is meant—the country in the northern part of the Roman province Galatia. When they got to Pisidian Antioch, it would have been natural for them to proceed into the western part of Asia Minor, into "Asia." That they were forbidden to do. Hence they turned north, and went through Phrygia into Galatia proper. When they got to the border country between Mysia and Galatia proper, they tried to continue their journey north into Bithynia, but were prevented by the Spirit. Then they turned west, and passing through Mysia without preaching arrived at last at the coast, at Troas.
Nothing is said here about preaching in Galatia proper. But in Acts 18:23, in connection with the third missionary journey, it is said that when Paul passed through "the Galatian country and Phrygia" he established the disciples. There could not have been disciples in the "Galatian country," unless there had been preaching there on the previous journey. On the "North Galatian" theory, therefore, the founding of the Galatian churches to which the epistle is directed is to be placed at Acts 16:6, and the second visit to them, which seems to be presupposed by the epistle, is to be put at Acts 18:23. If it seems strange that Luke does not mention the founding of these churches, the hurried character of this section of the narrative must be borne in mind. Furthermore, the epistle seems to imply that the founding of the churches was rather incidental than an original purpose of the journey; for in Gal. 4:13 Paul says that it was because of an infirmity of the flesh that he preached the gospel in Galatia the former time. Apparently he had been hurrying through the country without stopping, but being detained by illness used his enforced leisure to preach to the inhabitants. It is not impossible to understand how Luke came to omit mention of such incidental preaching. On the second missionary journey attention is concentrated on Macedonia and Greece.