Additional Notes §5
§5 The Theological Basis for Christian Living (Titus 2:11–15)
This marvelous passage (vv. 11–14), like its companion in 3:4–7 (cf. 2 Tim. 1:8–10), displays so much theological grist that it is easy to analyze it solely on its own merits and thereby overlook its place in the context of the letter. Furthermore, the language employed, while reflecting Pauline usage, also evidences a rather large number of affinities with Hellenism (probably by way of Hellenistic Judaism), so that for some scholars the investigation of these matters has become the major interest.
The paragraph, in fact, serves a major function in the letter—providing the theological basis (the “indicative”) for the instructions of 1:10–2:10 (the “imperative”). It begins (v. 11) by picking up the concern for the “outsider” from 2:10, reiterating a major concern from 1 Timothy—the universal scope of salvation (see disc. on 1 Tim. 2:3–7; 4:10). Then Paul appeals that the same grace that makes salvation available to all should instruct God’s people in proper behavior (v. 12). Salvation, however, is not merely a present reality; it also includes a sure future for God’s people (v. 13), because the same Lord Jesus Christ who has already come as the manifestation of God’s grace (v. 14) will come again as the manifestation of God’s glory (v. 13). The aim of that grace was to create a people for God who would be characterized by their “zeal for good works” (v. 14b).
Although the whole passage reflects Paul’s theology of salvation as a past-present-future reality, the structure reveals that Paul’s chief concern is to advise God’s people about what salvation means for their present behavior (vv. 12 and 14b). This is apparently motivated by his further concern for the universality of salvation, including the “outsiders” on Crete.
This concern to remind the people that the gospel is the basis for Christian life (repeated in a more thorough way in 3:4–7) again suggests the more prophylactic nature of this letter, whose hearers would be more recent converts than those in Ephesus (1 Timothy).
2:11 / An explanatory for opens the paragraph and thus closely ties verses 11–14 to 2–10. It proceeds to explain why God’s people should live as exhorted in 2–10 (so that the message from God will not be maligned [v. 5] but instead will be attractive [v. 10]): because the grace of God that brings salvation to all people has appeared.
In the Greek text all of verses 11–14 form a single sentence, of which the grace of God stands as the grammatical subject. But contrary to the NIV (and KJV), Paul does not say that this grace appeared to all men; rather, as almost all other translations have it, and as both Paul’s word order and the usage in 1 Timothy 2:3–6 demand it, what has appeared (see disc. on 1 Tim. 6:14; epiphaneia) is grace from God that offers salvation to all people.
Paul does not indicate here the reference point for this revelation of God’s grace. Most likely he is thinking of the historical revelation effected in the saving event of Christ (v. 14; cf. 2 Tim. 1:9–10), but it could also refer existentially to the time in Crete when Paul and Titus preached the gospel and the Cretans understood and accepted its message (cf. 1:3 and 3:3–4). That at least is when the educative dimension of grace, emphasized in verse 12, took place.
2:12 / If the concern in this paragraph were to present a creedal or liturgical formula, as some believe, then theological logic would demand that the content of verse 14 appear next, since that verse expresses the historical revelation of God’s grace. Instead, however, the issue is first of all Christian behavior. Hence Paul appeals to the Cretans through Titus to recall their own reception of that grace, which occurred at their conversion, when they first heard the gospel.
As he will spell out in more theological detail in verse 14, God’s grace teaches us ethically in two directions. First, negatively, God’s people must say “No” to ungodliness (asebeia, cf. Rom. 1:18, the opposite of eusebeia, for which see disc. on 1 Tim. 2:2) and worldly passions (for this idea Paul usually says “fleshly” passions; cf. Gal. 5:16, 24). They are to give up such living, he says in verse 14, because Christ “gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness:”
Second, positively, they must live self-controlled (sōphronōs; see vv. 2, 5, 6 above), upright (dikaiōs; cf. 1 Thess. 2:10; see disc. on 1 Tim. 6:11), and godly (eusebōs; in contrast to asebeia) lives in this present age (in contrast to “the age to come”; see disc. on 1 Tim. 1:16). This likewise corresponds to the second statement about Christ’s work in verse 14 (“to purify for himself a people … eager to do what is good”). Together these two sides to Christian behavioral response reflect the “two ways” tradition, found in Judaism as early as Qumran and elaborated in detail in Christian documents at the beginning of the second century (Barnabas 18–21; Didache 1–6). Paul often presents Christian ethical instruction in this form (cf. “putting to death/bringing to life,” Rom. 6:5–14; “works of the flesh/fruit of the Spirit,” Gal. 5:16–26; “putting off/putting on” like a garment, Col. 3:8–14). Regularly, as here, what one must say “No” to (better, “renounce,” NEB) are worldly passions (Rom. 6:12; Gal. 5:24; Eph. 4:22), that is, desires that reflect the values of the present age with its antigodly mind-set.
The positive side in this passage picks up language regularly used in these letters, which is also that of Hellenistic moralism. Many in fact see the three words self-controlled, upright, and godly as expressing three of the four cardinal virtues of Platonism-Stoicism. One can scarcely doubt the correspondence, but in this passage, conditioned as it is by verses 13–14 and the three cardinal Christian virtues in verse 2, Paul is borrowing and adapting such language for Christian purposes, just as in Philippians 4:8–9.
2:13 / As in other places in the PE, Paul sets the Christian imperative in the context of “already/not yet” eschatology (see disc. on 1 Tim. 6:11–16; 2 Tim. 1:8–12). We are “to live godly lives in the present age,” while we also wait for its future consummation, the glorious appearing … of Jesus Christ. However, the way Paul expresses this hope in this passage has been the subject of lengthy discussion. Literally, the text reads: “awaiting the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ.” Some of the ambiguities in the clause can be easily resolved. The blessed hope probably means “the hope that brings blessing, or blessedness.” The first “and” is almost certainly equal to “even” or “namely” (thus, “the hope that brings blessing, namely, the appearing …”).
But after that there is wide disagreement at three points: First, how are we to understand “of the glory”? Is it descriptive (the glorious appearing, as NIV)? Or is it objective, the “what” of the manifestation (as GNB, RSV, et al.). In this case the latter have the better of it. The Second Coming is the final manifestation of God’s full glory, as the first advent was the manifestation of God’s “grace” (v. 11) or, as in 1 Timothy 1:11, was the beginning of the manifestation of God’s glory through the gospel.
Second, did Paul mean to say our great God and Savior (NIV, GNB, = a twofold designation of one divine Person) or “the great God and our Savior” (GNB margin, KJV, referring to the two divine Persons)? Here the NIV (GNB, RSV) has the better of it, since (a) the single definite article before great God is best understood as controlling both nouns together, (b) the term God and Savior is stereotyped terminology both in the LXX and Hellenistic religions, and (c) nowhere else is God the Father understood to be joining the Son in the Second Coming.
Third, to what, then, does Jesus Christ stand in apposition? All who side with the KJV on the second question see it as in apposition to our Savior, as a kind of balance to the adjective great. Thus: “Our great God [the Father] and our Savior Jesus Christ:” Most of those who take the position of the NIV on the second question see it as in apposition to our great God and Savior. It thus becomes one of the few unambiguous statements in the Pauline corpus that Jesus is God (cf. NIV, RSV contra GNB on Rom. 9:5). If so, then Paul may well be using it in opposition to Hellenistic cults, including the imperial cult, as an affirmation that Jesus Christ alone is the great God and Savior (see Harris, Hanson). The third option, which resolves the difficulties and carries none of its own, is to see it in apposition to “the glory of God.” What will finally be manifested is God’s glory, namely, Jesus Christ. (On the use of glory, see disc. on 1 Tim. 1:11; cf. 2 Cor. 4:4, 6; for a similar grammatical construction see Col. 2:2 lit., “the knowledge of the mystery of God, namely, Christ himself.”)
In order to make his present point Paul would not have had to use the name of Christ at all. What he has said about the parousia is sufficient: We wait for the manifestation of the glory of our great God and Savior, which all would automatically understand to refer to the Second Coming of Christ. But he then adds the personal name, Jesus Christ, because he has some more things he wants to say about him (as in Col. 2:2), which leads to verse 14.
2:14 / What more he has to say concerns salvation as a past event, effected in the crucifixion of Christ, in which he gave himself for us. This is thoroughly Pauline language (e.g., Gal. 1:4), echoing the words of Jesus in Mark 10:45. In this instance Paul offers two reasons for Christ’s giving himself for us, corresponding to the “two-way” ethical response in verse 12. It reflects the imagery of the Exodus, where God redeemed his people by delivering them from Egypt. First, he died to redeem us (NIV, RSV; “rescue us,” GNB; “free us,” Goodspeed) from all wickedness (a direct verbal parallel to the LXX, Ps. 129:8 [130:8 in English]). This corresponds to the believers’ renouncing “ungodliness and worldly passions” in verse 12. Second, he died to purify for himself a people that are his very own. Much of this language is verbally dependent on the LXX of Ezekiel 37:23. The adjective translated that are his very own, meaning “a people set apart for himself,” is from Exodus 19:5 (cf. Deut. 7:6; 14:2; 26:18). Again, Paul has appropriated the language used of God’s people in the OT for the new people of God (cf. 1:1).
The purpose of this two-sided redemptive act was to create “a people for himself” who are characterized as eager to do what is good (lit., “full of zeal for good works”; cf. Deut. 26:18). This of course corresponds to living “self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in this world” (v. 12). With this, the paragraph has come full circle. The concern throughout has been with these “good works,” but they are to be seen as the proper response to God’s grace revealed and made effective in the saving death of Jesus Christ.
2:15 / Having set before them the theological basis for “good works” (God’s saving grace manifested in Christ’s redemptive act), Paul now turns to urge Titus to teach these things. Such tauta (these things) imperatives are frequent in 1 Timothy (see 4:6, 11, 15; 5:7, 21; 6:2, 11); this is the only occurrence in Titus (again, suggesting it is less urgent). These things refers at least to 2:2–14, perhaps to 1:10–16 as well. In any case the charge picks up three verbs that appear earlier. Teach (“speak”) these things (cf. 2:1), he is told, which is a two-sided command. Encourage (“urge”; 2:6) the church; rebuke (1:13) the wayward. And do this with all authority, which, of course, is his by his relationship to Paul.
This little interlude is then concluded with a rare personal word to Titus: Do not let anyone despise you. This is reminiscent of 1 Timothy 4:12, but it lacks any mention of Titus’ youth. This may suggest that Titus is older than Timothy; at least, it reflects a slightly different concern toward what Timothy was encountering in Ephesus from what Titus might be expected to in Crete.
Following this brief aside, reminding the people, as it were, of why Titus is there and of his authority, Paul will return in 3:1–11 to his concern that God’s people exhibit good works, not only as the proper response to his love, but also for the sake of the “lost” who observe their behavior.
For further reading on the nature of the language of this paragraph, see esp. D-C, pp. 142–46, who see the paragraph as a wholesale adoption of Hellenistic moral-religious language, including terms from the cult of the emperor. S. C. Mott (“Greek Ethics and Christian Conversion: The Philonic Background of Titus 2:10–14 and 3:3–7”) sees an adoption of Philonic ideas. However, in both cases what seems to be missed is the thoroughly “Paulinized” way the language is now used (as with “wisdom” in 1 Cor. 1–3; “knowledge,” etc., in Colossians; and “the heavenlies” in Ephesians). Paul has regularly shown himself a master at using the language of opponents or the situation to which he is writing and “breaking” and “molding” it to his own ends (cf. on autarkēs, “self-sufficiency,” in Phil. 4:10–13; see disc. on 1 Tim. 6:6–8).
For a very readable discussion of Paul’s theology reflecting the scheme of salvation as a past-present-future reality based on the work of Christ, see A. M. Hunter, The Gospel According to St. Paul (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1966).
2:11 / Because of the combination of grace being “manifested” (epephanē) and “instructing” (paideuousa, see note on v. 12), D-C comment: “ ‘Grace’ in this context does not recall the grace of God of which Paul writes, but rather the ‘graces’ of the epiphanous gods in their manifestations (as they are praised, e.g., in the cult of the ruler)” (p. 144). One can hardly imagine a comment that is at once more influenced by presuppositions and more thoroughly off the mark than this one.
2:12 / The word for teaches (paideuousa), which Paul uses in its more common LXX sense of “discipline” in 1 Tim. 1:20 (cf. 1 Cor. 11:32), is seen as the “giveaway” for the non-Pauline character of this paragraph, since it is a key word in Hellenistic moral philosophy. See, e.g., the classic on the Hellenistic mind by W. Jaeger, entitled Paideia: The Ideals of Greek Culture (Oxford, 1939). Thus Barrett contends: “In Paul grace is not educative, but liberating:” But two things must be noted: First, the use of paideuō reflected here has already been taken over into Hellenistic Judaism (Wis. 6:11, 25 [cf. 11:19, showing the author knew both meanings of the word]; Sir. 6:32). Thus this usage fits with what is found throughout the letters—the language of Hellenistic Judaism. Second, ethical instruction regularly occurred as a part of Paul’s gospel. Otherwise, passages like 1 Thess. 1:5b–10 (cf. 4:1ff.) and 1 Cor. 4:17 (cf. 10:33–11:1) make little sense at all.
On the matter of the possible relationship of Paul’s language to the four cardinal virtues, see especially S. C. Mott (“Greek Ethics and Christian Conversion”).
2:13 / There is a considerable literature on this verse. The most recent and up-to-date discussion, which will also put one in touch with this literature, is by M. J. Harris, The position espoused in the present commentary was first suggested by F. J. A. Hort, The Epistle of St. James (London: Macmillan, 1909), pp. 47, 103–4.
2:14 / It should be noted that this concern for “good works” is not non-Pauline, as some suppose. Paul avoids this language in the earlier controversial letters because his opponents were trying to establish a righteousness based on “works of Law.” But from the beginning Paul expected the encounter with grace to issue in proper behavior, which only later he calls “good works” (cf. Eph. 2:8–10).