§ 3 Warnings Against False Teachings ( Titus 1:10–16 )
§3 Warnings Against False Teachings (Titus 1:10–16)
This paragraph is closely tied to verses 5–9 (by the for) and elaborates especially on “the opponents” of verse 9. This is the major reason why Titus must appoint worthy elders, because there are many rebellious people (v. 10) “who oppose” wholesome teaching (v. 9).
Along with 3:10–11, this is the only indication in the letter of the presence of false teachers. Yet their lack of genuine good works (v. 16) plus the emphasis throughout on observable good works by those who know the truth (2:5, 7, 8, 10, 14; 3:1, 8, 14) suggest that their presence is a major reason for the letter—even if it lacks the urgency of 1 Timothy.
The picture of the opponents that emerges has many correspondences to the situation in Ephesus (1 and 2 Timothy) and also to the slightly earlier situation in Colossae-Laodicea (cf. esp. Col. 2:16–23). It looks as if this subtle, and apparently attractive, deviation was “catching on” all over this part of the world. In this instance, its particularly Jewish nature comes to the fore. It is in fact being promoted by some Jewish Christians (v. 10), and the whole of verses 14–16 reveals an emphasis on ritual regulations, comparable to the asceticism in 1 Timothy 4:3 but of a decidedly Jewish character.
The paragraph as a whole expresses a twofold concern over the character and conduct of these rebels (seen to be in keeping with the well-known reputation of Crete) and their teaching itself.
1:10 / With an explanatory for, Paul now gives the reasons why the elders/ overseers must be of blameless character (vv. 6–8) and be able to teach truth and refute error. There are many rebellious people, the same word translated “disobedient” in verse 6, which here has the nuance of “insubordinate” (Moffatt). Their rebellion, or insubordination, is in the first instance a matter of rejecting the truth of the gospel (v. 14, and by implication the lordship of Christ and the authority of Paul). It expresses itself in their being mere talkers and deceivers. The word for mere talkers is the same as in 1 Timothy 1:6 (which see). As with the false teachers in Ephesus, Paul sees the teaching being put out in Crete as “meaningless talk” that misleads or deceives others (cf. 1 Tim. 4:2; 2 Tim. 3:13).
But unlike those in Ephesus, where some of the false teachers are named (1 Tim. 1:20; 2 Tim. 2:17) or otherwise referred to with the indefinite “some people” (1 Tim. 1:3, 6, etc.), these rebels are those of the circumcision group (lit., “those of the circumcision”; cf. Acts 10:45; 11:2; Gal. 2:7–9, 12). The word especially (cf. 2 Tim. 4:13) in this instance probably means something like “in other words” and implies, not that many others as well are insubordinate, but that the problem is from Jewish converts in particular (see note). Thus Paul would have meant something like this: “Make sure your appointees are qualified people, because there are already many insubordinates at work with their deceptions; I am referring in particular, as you know, to the converts from Judaism.”
Does this mean that all Jewish converts are going this way? Not necessarily, but it does imply that the threat from Judaism is no longer, as formerly, about circumcision (e.g., Galatians), but involves some subtleties in other areas that are described in verses 14–16.
1:11 / This verse comes the closest in the Epistle to expressing urgency over the situation in Crete. They must be silenced. This verb (lit., “to stop the mouth”) could mean either “to silence” or simply “to hinder.” In this context it must mean that they are to be silenced in some way. Why? Because they are ruining (or “overturning”) whole households (cf. 1 Tim. 3:5, 15; 2 Tim. 3:6–9) by teaching things they ought not to teach.
The picture that emerges is one of a somewhat less than cohesive church structure in which a lot of the teaching activity takes place in various households. In some cases, whole households are being overturned by the false teachers, rather than, as some have suggested, some families being upset by the defection of one or two within them.
The language teaching things they ought not to teach reflects 1 Timothy 5:13 (cf. 1 Tim. 1:6–7; 6:3–4). Again as in Ephesus (1 Tim. 6:5–10), the bottom line for the false teachers is greed, not truth or godliness or God’s “honor.” They have become religious mercenaries, who are trying to win converts for the sake of dishonest gain, or as GNB has it, “all for the shameful purpose of making money”—from their practice of religion being implied. On the meaning of this term in Titus, see discussion on verse 7.
1:12–13 / Before pursuing these opponents further about their teaching, Paul gives the argument an unexpected turn. He is reminded that the conduct of these false teachers is very much in accord with the known reputation of Crete, expressed in an epigram of Epimenides (ca. 600 B.C.): “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.” What he intends by this seems clear enough. It is not a blanket indictment of all Cretans; rather, he is reminding them that in the case of the false teachers, Epimenides, one of their own prophets, certainly gave testimony which was true. These teachers are liars (cf. “mere talkers and deceivers,” v. 10). Perhaps they also fit the rest of the description (evil brutes, “rebellious people” [v. 10); lazy gluttons, “for the sake of dishonest gain” [v. 11]). In any case, he is trying to shame them—both the teachers and any who would follow them—by saying, “It’s all very Cretan of them,” in the sense of the island’s unsavory reputation on the outside.
The quote itself has an interesting history. According to a well-established tradition found in Callimachus’ Hymn to Zeus 8 (305–240 B.C.) and Lucian’s Lover of Lies 3 (cf. Timon 6; ca. A.D. 120–180), the reason that Cretans are always liars was that they claimed to possess a tomb of Zeus, who, of course, as a god, cannot have died!
But what did Paul mean by calling Epimenides one of their own prophets? Possibly he intended something similar to John 11:49–51, where Caiaphas spoke prophetically without necessarily intending to do so. More likely Paul is reflecting the common reputation of Epimenides, whom Plato called a “divine man” and of whom Aristotle said, “He used to divine, not the future, but only things that were past but obscure” (The Art of Rhetoric 3.17, Loeb). The truth of what he had said about Cretans now evidenced in the false teachers makes the title a permissible one.
Therefore, he continues, rebuke them sharply. This is the only time in the letter that Titus himself is called upon to address the false teachers (cf. 1 Timothy everywhere). The word rebuke (elengchein) occurred in verse 9 as the task of the elders (refute; cf. 1 Tim. 5:20; 2 Tim. 3:16; Titus 2:15). Used with the adverb apotomōs (sharply) the imperative more likely means “correct them rigorously” (Goodspeed), since the intent is so that they will be sound in the faith (again, see disc. on 1 Tim. 1:10).
This last clause opens the question about to whom them and they refer. To the false teachers? or to the Cretan believers as well? The context demands that the antecedent is primarily the false teachers. But the corrective aim of the rebuke, as well as the content of verse 14, may point beyond them to all the believers (however, see disc. on 2 Tim. 2:25–26, where Paul possibly still holds out hope for the opponents themselves).
1:14 / In typical fashion, sound in the faith, which is seldom defined, is set in contrast to the unsound teaching of the errorists, which is. “They” must pay no attention to Jewish myths (cf. 1 Tim. 1:4; 4:7). Although “genealogies” are not mentioned here (but see disc. on 3:9), these myths, specifically described as Jewish, very likely reflect the similar phenomenon condemned in 1 Timothy 1:4 (which see).
More significantly, in the sense that Paul will comment on it further in verses 15–16, they are also to pay no attention … to the commands of men. This reflects Isaiah 29:13 (LXX: “In vain they worship me, teaching commandments and doctrines of men”), a passage cited by Jesus about Pharisaic regulations (Mark 7:7/Matt. 15:9) and alluded to by Paul about ascetic practices in Colossae very similar to these (Col. 2:22). As elsewhere (e.g., 1 Tim. 6:5. 2 Tim. 4:4) the perpetrators of such commands are described as those who reject the truth, meaning the rejection of the gospel, whose “good news” of salvation by grace stands in sharp contradiction to all forms of religious rules and regulations.
1:15 / The final two verses in the paragraph spell out Paul’s indictment of the false teachers with their “commandments of men.” It is clear from these verses that the problem again has to do with prohibitions of some kind, probably food laws, given the emphasis on purity and defilement (see 1 Tim. 4:3; cf. Col. 2:16–23, esp. 20–23). In any case, the language throughout reflects decidedly Jewish concerns.
Paul begins with the positive: To the pure, all things are pure. Although the concern here is different, this restates Paul’s position given in Romans 14:20. It reflects a clear understanding of Jesus as found in Mark 7, that what people eat cannot defile them. Paul’s point seems clear: All things, including those things thought to be unclean by some, are [ritually] pure—that is, nothing is unclean of itself (cf. 1 Tim. 4:4, “nothing is to be rejected”)—to the [morally] pure, since they have been “cleansed” by faith in Christ.
The opposite of this is that, contrary to the stance of the false teachers, to those who are [morally] corrupted and do not believe, nothing is [ritually] pure. At this point Paul is picking up the common Jewish motif that whatever a defiled person touches is by that fact likewise defiled (cf. Hag. 2:10–14; Philo, On the Special Laws 3.208–9). But his devastating punch is that, instead of becoming or keeping themselves pure by eating only pure things, the very fact that they consider anything impure and therefore need regulations for their own purity is the demonstration that the false teachers are themselves corrupted. They are so precisely because they also do not believe, that is, they do not put their trust in Christ. Thus in the Age of the Spirit, everything is new. The one who seeks purity by obedience to regulations, that is, human commandments, turns out not to be one of God’s people at all, but among the unbelieving.
To make sure his point is not missed, he adds, in fact, both their minds and consciences have been corrupted. The their brings the point of the two statements on purity to rest on the false teachers. They are not the pure for whom all things are pure but are those who believe nothing is pure. The problem is not external, one of defilement through food, but internal—corrupted minds (cf. 1 Tim. 6:5) and consciences (see disc. on 1 Tim. 1:5, clean [“pure”] conscience). In this case their minds and consciences are corrupted because they think that they will be defiled by eating certain foods, but even more so because they would lay such commandments on God’s elect (v. 1), who have put their faith and hope in Christ.
1:16 / Now comes the most stinging indictment of all. They claim (lit., “confess”) to know God, but by their actions they deny him. Although Barrett, and others, see this as “the Gnostic tendency of the heretics” (p. 133; ct. Kelly, p. 237), surely that is secondary. It was, after all, the special boast of the Jews, who are specifically singled out as the rebellious ones in verse 10, that they knew God—over against the pagans who did not. Paul himself reflects this understanding in such passages as 1 Thessalonians 4:5; 2 Thessalonians 1:8; Galatians 4:8; and Romans 2:17–18. This point is similar to 1 John 2:4 or James 2:14–16, where the false teachers profess to know God and thus are putting themselves forward as those who can lead others to God.
But by their actions (lit., “works”) they deny the claim. Not only do they not know the truth about God as revealed in the gospel, but their behavior in particular demonstrates their lack of knowledge. It is not clear what actions are being referred to. Some think their ascetic practices; more likely it is their greed, strife, and so forth, since this is the concern throughout the letter and is noted at the end of the verse, unfit for doing anything good.
Finally, these people are described as detestable and disobedient. It is questionable, however, whether the word bdelyktos should be thought of as active (GNB, “hateful”) or passive (NIV, RSV, detestable; KJV, “abominable”). In this context the latter is preferable, since the word is an OT one reflecting what is detestable or abominable in God’s sight, especially in connection with idolatry. This then is the ultimate irony. As D-C have well said: “These persons who find ‘abomination’ everywhere are themselves ‘abominable’ ” (p. 138). They obey human commands, but they are disobedient to God himself. Therefore, they are unfit for doing anything good (lit., “unqualified for any good work”). So Paul concludes with the sharpest kind of distinction between their works, predicated on human commandments, and what God wants by way of good works, which will now be spelled out in 2:1–3:11.
1:10 / On the meaning of the word malista (especially) proposed here, see the article by T. C. Skeat, “ ‘Especially the Parchments’: A Note on 2 Timothy 4:13.” He has mustered a convincing array of evidence that in ad hoc documents the word frequently means something like “in other words” or “I mean,” by defining or particularizing a general term.
There is substantial evidence for a large number of Jews on Crete: Philo, On the Embassy to Gaius 282; Jos., Antiquities 17.327; Life 247. Cf. Acts 2:11; 1 Macc. 15:23.
1:11 / The greed of the Cretans was an established reputation. For example, Polybius says: “So much in fact do sordid love of gain [same word as in Titus 1:7 and 11] and lust for wealth prevail among them, that the Cretans are the only people in the world in whose eyes no gain is disgraceful” (6.46, Loeb). But since this problem existed also in Ephesus, perhaps one should not make as much of its particularly Cretan character as some do.
At the end of this verse MS 460 (see note on v. 9) adds this remarkable sentence: “The children who abuse or strike their parents you must check and reprove and admonish as a father his children” (Metzger’s translation, TCGNT). This reflects a considerably different stance on the “upsetting” of households!
1:14 / Although the word for commands differs from that of the LXX, which is used in Mark 7:7/Matt. 15:9 and Col. 2:22, the allusion is certainly to Isa. 29:13. The interchange of the Greek synonyms involved also occurs in Mark 7:7, 8.
1:15 / Barrett implies that the author of Titus takes a different view from Paul in Romans 14–15, even to the point of suggesting that “in Titus, it is the weak who are not protected, but attacked” (p. 132–33). But such language reflects an unfortunate confusion of two considerably different life-settings. Except for the language used, there is scarcely any other point of contact with Romans 14.
It is common to view the language used and the problem addressed in vv. 15–16 as reflecting a Gnostic view of things. That such ascetic regulations may indeed have been influenced by Hellenism is scarcely deniable. Nonetheless, there is not a single word or idea of any kind in this paragraph, or in 3:8–11, that primarily suggests Greek influence. But every word fits the Jewish milieu specifically singled out in vv. 10 and 14.