§ 2 The Appointment of Elders ( Titus 1:5–9 )
§2 The Appointment of Elders (Titus 1:5–9)
As with 1 Timothy, Paul begins without the typical thanksgiving, which is perhaps not surprising given the letter’s almost total lack of personal notes (see Introduction, p. 11). This letter, like 1 Timothy, is all “business,” not a personal communication to Titus (cf. the very different 2 Timothy).
But unlike 1 Timothy, the “business” is not primarily that of stopping false teachers(-ings). Such teaching is indeed a threat and still comes from within, but its source is different. Instead of established elders leading people astray, the threat is coming from “the circumcision group” (1:10). Moreover, the problem does not seem to have the same urgency as in Ephesus, probably because the churches are relatively new. The antidote to the problem in Crete, therefore, is not for Titus himself to ferret out the error but to see that the churches are set in order with duly appointed elders/overseers, who are themselves to resist the errorists. Hence, the letter begins with this matter of setting the churches in order (vv. 5–9) and then takes up the false teachers (vv. 10–16).
This paragraph, especially verses 6–8, has very close resemblances to 1 Timothy 3:1–7. As with 1 Timothy 3, there are fifteen qualifications given; five are identical, and five or six others have points of correspondence. What differs is what is Significant: (1) Titus is to appoint these elders (what is said here is to serve as qualifications for that appointment). (2) At least one item of duty is clearly spelled out (v. 9): They are to be the teachers of the truth and must also refute those in error. (3) The whole list has a more orderly arrangement, so that the household matters are brought to the fore, followed by five vices to be avoided and six virtues to be sought. Thus the whole, though reflecting 1 Timothy, seems to be a more studied presentation.
1:5–6 / Paul begins the letter by reminding Titus why he has been left in Crete (cf. 1 Tim. 1:3), which in turn also indicates the purpose of the letter. Both the verb I left you (cf. 2 Tim. 4:13) and the context imply that Paul himself had been on Crete and had left Titus behind. Since this cannot have been the incident mentioned in Acts 27:8, a recent mission, following Paul’s first imprisonment, must be assumed, although nothing more is known of this mission or of the church’s early days on this island. (Some Cretans were present on the Day of Pentecost [Acts 2:11] and may have brought back the tidings of that event to the synagogues, but that is largely speculative.)
In any case the mission seems to have been recent enough so that the assemblies in the various towns on the island had not yet been fully set in order. Hence Paul had left Titus in Crete, so that he might straighten out what was left unfinished. The verb straighten out usually means “to correct” or “set right,” but the phrase what was left unfinished (lit., “what is lacking”) makes it clear that the “correcting” is not so much reformation as it is formation, namely, the completion of a task that Paul himself was unable to finish while in Crete.
That this is the correct understanding is verified by the next clause, which defines what has been left unfinished. Titus is to appoint elders in every town. The rest of the paragraph details what that means. We are still left with a lot of unanswered questions. Did Titus appoint them by himself? How many in every town? Did they have duties besides teaching? In any case, the absence of a caution that they must not be recent converts (see 1 Tim. 3:6 and 5:22) adds to the overall sense that this is a new thing.
Although somewhat ambiguous, the next clause, as I directed you, first of all goes with what precedes (as the NIV), which further supports what we have argued to here. Thus Paul’s point goes something like this: “I left you in Crete to complete the unfinished task, just as I instructed you, of appointing elders in all the churches.” But it points forward as well. “But those instructions, you will recall (and now for the sake of the churches, they are being put in writing), had the following kinds of guidelines.”
The first guidelines, given in verse 6, take the form of indirect questions, and instead of imperatives (as the NIV, and most translations), they might better be put in the form of questions (see NEB; cf. NAB on 1 Tim. 5:10). Is a man blameless? This is not the same word as in 1 Timothy 3:2, but the synonym used of the deacons in 3:10. Nonetheless, it functions in exactly the same way—to head the list as a covering term for a variety of behavioral concerns. One should note the shift to the singular, an elder must be, occasioned by the form of the indirect question (“if anyone …”; see the note on 1 Tim. 3:2).
The first two items wherein the elder must be blameless have to do with the quality of his home life (which appear first and thirteenth in 1 Tim. 3:2, 4, but are brought together as an afterthought for the deacons, 3:12). Does he have only one wife (see disc. on 1 Tim. 3:2: “Has he been faithful to his one wife?”)? Do his children believe (lit., “having faithful [or ‘believing’] children”), not being open to the charge of being wild and disobedient? Although this reflects 1 Timothy 3:4, it is said in a slightly different and more positive way. These represent two sides of the same coin. His children are themselves to be believers; that is, the potential elder is to be the kind of person whose children have followed him in adopting his faith. Or it could mean they are “faithfully” to reflect the behavior of “the faithful.” In either case, the flip side of the coin is that they are not to be open to the charge of being wild (or “dissipation,” “debauchery”; cf. Eph. 5:18) and disobedient (a word used in the LXX of Eli’s sons, 1 Sam. 10:27). The word disobedient is repeated later (v. 10) of the false teachers (“who rebel”). Here we have the first hint of what will become the dominant theme of the letter—good works with exemplary behavior, with a concern for what outsiders think.
It is probably significant for newer churches that, before Paul gives a further list of vices and virtues, these two items should head the list of qualifications. As noted on 1 Timothy 3:4, the first elders in the Pauline churches were almost certainly from among the earliest converts who were householders and heads of families. Therefore, a good look at the man’s home life will tell much about his character and his ability to give leadership to the church.
1:7–8 / It is easy, because of the inherent difficulty of translation, to miss the very close connection of verse 7 to verse 6. The one (v. 7a) now gives reasons why the overseer (episkopos) must be blameless in the sense of verse 6 (i.e., as a faithful husband and father), namely, because he will also serve as “God’s household manager” (a metaphor one might miss by translating entrusted with God’s work). Hence the same point is being made as in 1 Timothy 3:5: If a person is not exemplary in his own household, how can he care for God’s? It should also be noted that God’s is a possessive. The episkopos is God’s “household manager,” not the church’s; nor is the “household” his own.
The easy movement from presbyteroi (pl., “elders,” v. 5) to tis (sing., “anyone,” v. 6) to ton episkopon (sing., the overseer) indicates some of the difficulty we have in determining precisely who and how many these overseers were. This much seems certain: The episkopos is clearly an elder (both in 1 Tim. 3:2 and Titus 1:9 the episkopos is a teacher, and 1 Tim. 5:17 makes it clear that the teachers are also elders). It also seems likely that not all elders are episkopoi, and therefore the words are interchangeable only in a limited sense. Whether or not a given assembly had several elders and one of them was the episkopos is a moot point, but it is not highly probable at this stage, given the plural in Philippians 1:1. Therefore, an overseer is probably a generic term, as in verse 6.
Having repeated that an overseer must be blameless, Paul now reverts to a list of eleven adjectives, much like 1 Timothy 3:2–3, only in a more ordered fashion. There are five vices to be avoided (which are certainly not exhaustive, but representative). The first two form a pair, not found in 1 Timothy 3: Not overbearing (“self-willed”; cf. 2 Pet. 2:10) or quick-tempered (cf. “gentle and peaceful” in 1 Tim. 3:3). It is in keeping with all the NT for not overbearing to head the list. God’s household manager must be a servant, not stubbornly self-willed, since it is God’s household, not his own (cf. Mark 10:41–45; 1 Cor. 3:5–9; 4:1–2).
On the next two, not given to drunkenness, not violent, which also form a pair, see discussion on 1 Timothy 3:3. The fifth vice, pursuing dishonest gain, is the same word used in the deacon’s list (1 Tim. 3:8) and recurs in verse 11 about the false teachers. Barrett is probably correct in noting, “It is the sordidness of making profit out of Christian service, rather than dishonest gain, that is here condemned” (p. 129).
A look at the close ties between the false teachers and the reputed character of the Cretans in verses 10–13 will make the significance of this list readily apparent—although they are obviously appropriate for church leaders in any age!
In contrast to these vices Paul lists six representative virtues. He must be hospitable (see disc. on 1 Tim. 3:2) one who loves what is good (a word found frequently on inscriptions in praise of worthy people). Here again the “good works” motif of the letter emerges (see disc. on v. 6). He must also be self-controlled (see disc. on 1 Tim. 3:2 and Titus 2:2, 5), a favorite word in the PE, which probably means something close to “having his wits about him.” The next two, upright and holy, occur regularly together both in and out of Scripture reflecting duty toward other people and duty toward God (cf. Luke 1:75; Eph. 4:24; 1 Thess. 2:10). And he must be disciplined (or “self-controlled”); the noun form of this word is the last of the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5:23.
Though it is true that this list has some affinities to similar lists in the Hellenistic world, it is also true that four of the six are clearly Pauline words and that all of them are obviously appropriate for church leaders. (On this question, see the note on 1 Tim. 3:2).
1:9 / Finally, and significantly, the list of qualifications concludes in the form of a duty. He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, which repeats his need to be absolutely devoted to the gospel (cf. 1 Tim. 3:9 about the deacons). He must be so, however, not just for himself but so that he will be able to fulfill his twofold task of exhorting/encouraging the faithful and confuting the opponents of the gospel.
It should be noted that these are exactly the tasks enjoined on Timothy in 1 Timothy (cf. 2 Tim. 4:2). Here, even though Titus is to lead the way (see disc. on 1:13), these tasks are to be entrusted to the elders/overseers. The church leader, for that is surely what elders are, must be able to encourage (better, “exhort”; cf. 1 Tim. 4:13; 5:1; 6:2) others by sound doctrine (see disc. on 1 Tim. 1:10). He must also be able to refute (or “convict”; cf. 1 Tim. 5:20; 2 Tim. 3:16; 4:2) those who oppose it. This final qualification will lead directly to the next section of the letter.
D-C make a considerable point of the similarities between vv. 6–9 and 1 Tim. 3:1–7, 8–12, and 2 Tim. 2:22–25. They seem to find a few more correspondences than actually exist. Their point is that the author is simply borrowing from a common “schema,” and therefore that the actual items listed would hardly reflect what Paul would require of a Christian church leader. But D-C make far more of the possibility of a common schema than the evidence suggests. Their very attempt to make the two lists look more alike than they are, without recognizing the more ordered nature of this list or the fact that both lists fit their particular life-settings so well, probably betrays some prior interests on their part.
1:5–6 / Some argue that the verb apelipon (I left) does not necessarily imply I left behind, as does the variant reading katelipon, found in the majority of witnesses. But that is to make too much of the variant, which merely substitutes a stronger synonym to express the same idea. The two uses of this verb in 2 Timothy (4:13 and 20) clearly mean “to leave behind” (see also BAGD), and the context as a whole implies that Paul, too, had been on Crete.
Hanson (p. 172), following LSJ, argues that straighten out what was left unfinished should be translated “complete unfinished reforms.” “It therefore implies that the church in Crete, far from being recently founded, had existed long enough to grow corrupt and was in process of being reformed.” Hanson’s reason for this position is that it thereby “suggests a state of affairs more likely to prevail at the end of the century than in Paul’s day.” But that is to put far too much weight on a dubious rendering of ta leiponta (“what is lacking”). As the exegesis shows, the weight of evidence points to a new situation, especially when compared with 1 and 2 Timothy (e.g., the repeated concern in 1 Timothy that new appointees not be new converts, which fits the established church of Ephesus but would make little or no sense here and is therefore missing).
1:9 / The thirteenth-century MS 460 has the following interesting addition after v. 9: “Do not appoint those who have been married twice, nor make them deacons; nor may they have wives from a second marriage; neither let them approach the altar for divine service. As a servant of God, rebuke the rulers who are unjust, swindlers, liars, and merciless.”