CHAPTER I

TITUS

Commentary

on

Titus

Outline of Titus

Theme: The Apostle Paul, Writing to Titus, Gives Directions for the Promotion of the Spirit of Sanctification

Chapter 1: In Congregational Life.

A. The Address and Salutation.

B. Well-qualified elders must be appointed in every town.

C. Reason: Crete is not lacking in disreputable people who must be sternly rebuked.

Chapter 2: In Family and Individual Life

A. All classes of individuals that compose the home-circle should conduct themselves in such a manner that by their life they may adorn the doctrine of God, their Savior.

B. Reason: to all, the grace of God has appeared unto sanctification and joyful expectation of the appearing in glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Chapter 3: In Social (i.e. Public) Life

A. Believers should be obedient to the authorities. They should be kind to all men, since it was the kindness of God our Savior — not our own works! — which brought salvation.

B. On the other hand, foolish questions should be shunned, and factious men who refuse to heed admonition should be rejected.

C. Concluding directions with respect to kingdom-travelers (Artemas or Tychicus, Titus, Zenas, Apollos) and Cretan believers in general. Greetings.

CHAPTER I

Outline of Chapter 1

Theme: The Apostle Paul, Writing to Titus, Gives Directions for the Promotion of the Spirit of Sanctification

In Congregational Life

1:1–4 The Address and Salutation.

1:5–9 Well-qualified elders must be appointed in every town.

1:10–16 Reason: Crete is not lacking in disreputable people who must be sternly rebuked.

1:1–4

1 1 Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ in the interest of (the) faith of God’s elect and of (their) acknowledgment of the truth which accords with godliness, 2 (based) on the hope of life everlasting, which the never-lying God promised before times everlasting 3 — but in due season he revealed his word by that proclamation which by order of God our Savior was entrusted to me —; 4 to Titus (my) genuine child in terms of (the) common faith; grace and peace from God (the) Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.

1. Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ in the interest of (the) faith of God’s elect and of (their) acknowledgment of the truth which accords with godliness.

These are the opening words of a lengthy salutation. In Paul’s epistles only two are longer. For the sake of comparison note the following list which, arranged in an ascending series, indicates the number of words in the original for each salutation:

I Thessalonians	19	II Corinthians	41
II Thessalonians	27	Philemon	41
Colossians	28	I Corinthians	55
Ephesians	28 (or 30)	Titus	65
II Timothy	29	Galatians	75
Philippians	32	Romans	93
I Timothy	32

The present salutation (verses 1–4) resembles that in Romans more than it does any other. Here as in Romans Paul calls himself both servant and apostle (cf. II Peter 1:1), and speaks about a promise now fulfilled. Also, as in Romans and in several other epistles, he traces grace and peace (not “grace, mercy and peace” as in I and II Timothy) to the same twofold source, though the wording varies.

Here as elsewhere (especially in lengthy salutations) the salutation is in line with the character and purpose of the epistle. Thus, it comes as no surprise that in Titus, which stresses the idea that sound doctrine goes hand in hand with the life of sanctification and the doing of good works, the very salutation already mentions godliness (“the truth which accords with godliness”), and over against the mendacious character of the Cretans (Titus 1:12) makes mention of the never-lying God.

Paul is God’s servant¹⁸⁷ (“servant” also in Rom. 1:1; Phil. 1:1; cf. James 1:1; II Peter 1:1, but note variation in modifiers), and has received his authoritative commission directly from Jesus Christ, being therefore his apostle.

The service and apostleship are exercised “in the interest of” (that seems to be the meaning of κατά here; cf. John 2:6; II Cor. 11:21) the faith of God’s elect and (their) acknowledgment of the truth which accords with godliness; that is, they are carried out in order to further or promote the reliance of God’s chosen ones upon him, and their glad recognition or confession of the redemptive truth which centers in him; a truth which, in sharp contrast with the vagaries of false teachers, accords with (or here also “is in the interest of,” “promotes”) godliness, the life of Christian virtue, the spirit of true consecration.¹⁸⁸

2. Now all that has been said so far — Paul’s service and apostleship in the interest of the faith of God’s elect and of their acknowledgment of the truth which accords with godliness — rests on the hope of life everlasting, which the never-lying God promised before times everlasting.¹⁸⁹ This hope is an earnest yearning, confident expectation, and patient waiting for “life everlasting,” salvation in its fullest development (cf. John 17:24; Rom. 8:25). It was this salvation which the God who cannot lie (I Sam. 15:29; Heb. 6:18; cf. II Tim. 2:13; contrast Titus 1:12) “promised before times everlasting.”

Just as God’s grace was given to us in Christ Jesus “before times everlasting” (II Tim. 1:9), so also everlasting life was promised “before times everlasting.” Before the ages began to roll along in their never-ending course, that is, “before the world began” (A.V.), hence “from eternity,” the grace was given and the life was promised. When God decides to call into being a people for his own possession, the fulfilment of this decree is so certain that the grace which they will receive can be spoken of as having been already given, just as the life is described as having been already promised. Besides, strictly speaking, the text does not say, “God promised to them,” but simply, “God promised.” Nevertheless, the context (see verse 1) definitely implies that it is for the benefit of the elect out of Jews and Gentiles that this promise is made. That in the covenant of redemption from eternity such a promise (of the Father to the Son in the interest of all the elect) was actually made is clearly implied in the fact that believers are viewed as “given” to Christ by the Father, in order that they may inherit life everlasting in its most glorious manifestation (John 17:6, 9, 24; cf. also Ps. 89:3, based on II Sam. 7:12–14; cf. Heb. 1:5). Note especially John 17:24, “Father, I desire that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am, in order that they may gaze on my glory which thou hast given me, for thou lovest me before the foundation of the world” (John 17:24).

This “before the foundation of the world” doctrine, the exact phraseology, is not only Johannine but also definitely Pauline. Note Eph. 1:4, “He elected us for himself in him (i.e., in Christ) before the foundation of the world.”

Thus interpreted, Titus 1:2 is entirely in harmony with Pauline thinking, which regularly traces the salvation of believers to its origin in God’s redemptive plan from eternity (besides II Tim. 1:9 and Eph. 1:4 see also Rom. 8:29, 30; I Cor. 2:7; II Thess. 2:13; and see N.T.C. on I Thess. 1:4¹⁹⁰).

3. Verse 3 is really a parenthesis: — but in due season he revealed his word by (that) proclamation which by order of God our Savior was entrusted to me —.

From eternity God promised life everlasting, but “in due season” (here used as in I Tim. 2:6; 6:15; see footnotes 102 and 105; cf. also Gal. 4:4) he revealed it. Strictly speaking, however, it was not life everlasting itself in its glorious heavenly phase that was revealed to earth-dwellers (how could it be?), but the word of God with respect to it. Hence, the change from “life everlasting” in verse 2, to “his word” in verse 3. In the form of (or: by means of) the good news which Paul proclaimed and which by order of “God our Savior” (see on I Tim. 1:1) had been entrusted to him (see on I Tim. 1:11–13), this word or message of God with respect to Christ and his gracious gift had now been made manifest.

This parenthetical statement is in complete harmony with Paul’s teaching throughout. That teaching may be summarized as follows:

Full salvation in Christ for both Jew and Gentile, considered as equals, a salvation viewed as based solely upon Christ’s merits appropriated by faith, was:

a. objectively given and promised from eternity (I Cor. 2:7; Eph. 1:4; II Thess. 2:13; II Tim. 1:9; Titus 1:2);

b. hidden — i.e., the message with reference to it was hidden — in preceding ages and from the eyes of former generations (Rom. 16:25; Eph. 3:5, 6, 9; Col. 1:26a); hidden, namely, in the sense that it was not fully proclaimed, nor fully realized, nor fully understood by the men of the old dispensation, though it had been foreshadowed (Gen. 3:15; 12:3; cf. Gal. 3:8; Is. 60; 61; Joel 2:28, 29; Amos 9:11, 12; Micah 4:12; Mal. 1:11; also Ps. 72:8–11, 17; 87);

c. now fully manifested — i.e., the message with reference to it was fully manifested — by means of universal gospel-proclamation (see on II Tim. 1:10, 11; cf. Rom. 16:26; Eph. 3:3–9; Col. 1:26b–29). For “proclamation” or “preaching” (literally “heralding,” “kerugma”) see on II Tim. 4:2.

The glorious fact that the proclamation of the good news concerning life everlasting had actually been entrusted to one so unworthy as Paul, a fact which caused the heart of the apostle to overflow with gratitude, accounts for this interruption in the steady flow of the sentence.

4. To Titus (my) genuine child in terms of (the) common faith; grace and peace from God (the) Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.

The words of address closely resemble those in II Tim. 1:2 and even more closely those in I Tim. 1:2. Note how here, too, apostolic authority (Titus 1:1) and tender love (“my genuine child”) are beautifully blended.

Titus was Paul’s child because it was to the apostle as a means in God’s hand that he owed his spiritual life, though the time, place, and circumstances of his conversion have not been revealed (see p. 37). The designation child is a happy one, for it combines two ideas: “I have begotten you,” and “You are very dear to me.” Titus was, moreover, a genuine child, natural (not adopted), not a bastard son, not merely a nominal believer. Paul considers himself the father of Titus, not in the physical sense but “in terms of the common faith,” that is, with respect to the faith common to Paul and Titus. The phrase “in faith” (“my genuine child in faith”) in I Tim. 1:2 has virtually the same meaning. It is probably best to take faith, as here used, in the subjective sense, a true knowledge of God and of his promises revealed in the gospel and a hearty confidence in him and in his redemptive, Christ-centered love.

Upon this genuine child the apostle now pronounces grace and peace (cf. “grace, mercy, and peace” in I Tim. 1:2 and in II Tim. 1:2). Grace is God’s unmerited favor in operation in the heart of his child. It is his Christ-centered pardoning and strengthening love. Peace is that child’s consciousness of having been reconciled with God through Christ. Grace is the fountain, and peace is the stream which issues from this fountain (cf. Rom. 5:1).

This grace and this peace have their origin in God the Father, and have been merited for the believer by Christ Jesus. These two are the one source of grace and peace (the preposition from is not repeated). But though in all the other salutations of Paul (Rom. 1:7; I Cor. 1:3; II Cor. 1:2; etc., including the Pastorals: I Tim. 1:2; II Tim. 1:2) Christ is called Lord, he is here called “our Savior.” For the meaning of this word Savior, which occurs as often in Titus as in all the other Pauline epistles put together (six times: Titus 1:3, 4; 2:10, 13; 3:4, 6), and in this letter is used both with reference to “God” and to “Christ,” see on I Tim. 4:10. Here in Titus 1:4 the term is used in its full, redemptive meaning. Christ Jesus is the One who rescues from the greatest evil and bestows upon the rescued ones the greatest good. For the meaning of salvation see on I Tim. 1:15.

In view of the close similarity between Titus 1:4 and I Tim. 1:2, the reader is referred to the explanation of I Tim. 1:2 for a more detailed discussion. And see also N.T.C. on I and II Thessalonians, pp. 37–46.

1:5–9

5 For this reason I left you behind in Crete, that you might straighten out the things that remain to be done, namely, that you might appoint elders in each city in such a manner as I gave you directions. 6 A person (can be appointed) if he is blameless, one wife’s husband, having believing children (who are) not open to the charge of dissolute behavior nor unsubmissive. 7 For the overseer, as God’s steward, must be blameless, not self-pleasing, not hot-tempered, not (one who lingers) beside (his) wine, not given to blows, not greedy of shameful gain, 8 but hospitable, loving the good, self-controlled (or sensible), fair, pious, master of himself, 9 holding on to the trustworthy word which is in line with the doctrine, in order that he may be able both to encourage (others) by means of his sound teaching and to refute those who contradict (it).

5. In order that congregational life in the various cities of Crete may flourish, well-qualified elders must be appointed: For this reason I left you behind in Crete, that you might straighten out the things that remain to be done, namely, that you might appoint elders in each city in such a manner as I gave you directions.

Evidently, on a certain journey by sea Paul and Titus had been together in Crete. The gospel had been proclaimed, little groups of disciples had been gathered, meeting-places had been arranged, but no official organization had been effected, or, if anything worthy of this name had been initiated, it had been left far from finished.

If the conjecture be correct that the stop-over in Crete occurred immediately after Paul’s release from his first Roman imprisonment, the following problem had at that time presented itself:

a. After a lengthy absence from his friends the apostle was anxious to see the old familiar faces and to revisit the churches previously established. This is understandable, for he was an intensely human, warm-hearted person. Also, he loved his Lord and longed to promote the good cause in every possible way. Moreover, he had made what might be considered promises of early visits (Philemon 22; Phil. 1:25, 26). Accordingly, for Paul himself a lengthy delay in Crete was out of the question.

b. Nevertheless, in Crete the business of organizing the various churches was far from finished, and undue haste in appointing men to office was contrary to Paul’s principles (I Tim. 3:6; 5:22).

The solution was: Paul must be on his way, and Titus must be left behind (cf. II Tim. 4:13, 20) in the island to straighten out the things that remained to be done, namely (κατά here used in that sense), to establish presbyteries. The apostle, who likes to stress the fact that God does not leave his work of grace unfinished (Phil. 1:6; I Thess. 5:23), is a true imitator of God also in this respect; for Paul, too, abhors unfinished business (see I Tim. 1:3 and I Thess. 3:10 for different applications of this same principle). And with respect to Titus, one could almost say that for him no task was too difficult to be attempted and no challenge too formidable to be met, in dependence on divine strength and wisdom (see pp. 36, 39).

The text implies that the apostle had given directions as to just how (ὡς = abbreviation for in such a manner as) elders must be appointed. This refers to the requirements for office which must be considered in appointing men to office. Since the verses which follow refer only to elders but it is clear from I Timothy 3 that it was Paul’s conviction that (at least in course of time) a church would also need deacons, we may assume that the apostle means that when the work to be done became too heavy for the elders, deacons should be appointed similarly (cf. Acts 6:1–6).

Accordingly, the directions as to the requirements for the office of presbyter or elder are here re-stated. They had been given orally while Paul and Titus were still together in Crete, and they are now repeated in written form: “For this reason (anticipative τούτου χάριν followed by ἵνα, as in Eph. 3:1, 14–16) I left you behind in Crete, that you might … appoint elders in each city” (“down the line,” hence, “city by city”). For the practice see Acts 14:23, and for this use of the preposition see Luke 8:1; Acts 10:23.

Possible reasons for the repetition in written form of a directive which earlier had been given orally:

(a) For the convenience of Titus, to assist his memory;

(b) For the confirmation of his authority in the event that this should be disputed;

Though Paul says, “that you might appoint,” he by no means excludes the responsible co-operation of the individual congregations (see Acts 1:15–26; 6:1–6, note same verb in Acts 6:3).

6–9. The list of requirements for elders or presbyters is introduced by the words: “If anyone is …” We have here another instance of abbreviated discourse (see N.T.C. on John 5:31, Vol. I, p. 206). Here as in I Tim. 5:10 it is not difficult to fill in the implied words. The meaning, as required by the preceding context, is, “If anyone is blameless, etc.…, he can be appointed,” or as I have translated: A person (can be appointed) if he is, etc.

The requirements listed occur in three groups:

(1) The person who is going to occupy such an important post must be of deservedly high reputation and if married (which will generally be the case) a good family-man (verse 6).

(2) He must not be the type of person who in his desire to please himself has lost interest in other people (except to vex them!) and who, if embroiled in a quarrel, is ever ready with his fists. A list of negative characteristics is given: qualities which the overseer must not have (verse 7).

(3) All his actions must give evidence of the fact that both in deed and in doctrine he wishes to be a blessing to others. A list of positive characteristics is given: qualities which the overseer must have (verses 8 and 9).

The three groups of requirements pertain to people who as to their age and dignity are called elders, and as to their task are called overseers. Though it is true that the text has the singular “the overseer,” this “the” is generic, one member representing the entire class viewed from the point of view of a definite characteristic (see N.T.C. on I and II Thessalonians, p. 55, footnote 41). One might paraphrase the meaning as follows, “For, any overseer, by reason of the very fact that he should live up to his name of overseer and should manage God’s own house, (being God’s steward; see on I Tim. 1:4; cf. I Cor. 4:1; I Peter 4:10), must be blameless,” etc. That for the author of the Pastorals the terms elder and overseer indicate the same person also follows from the fact that essentially the same requirements for an elder as are given here in Titus 1:5, 6 — that he be blameless, one wife’s husband, and have well-behaved children — are listed with reference to the overseer in I Tim. 3:2, 4. The hierarchical idea — the several “priests” and their “parishes,” outranked and governed by the one “bishop” and his “diocese” — is foreign to the Pastorals.

To avoid unnecessary duplication and at the same time to show the relation between the two rather similar lists of requirements (Titus 1 and I Timothy 3), I give the explanation of verses 6–9 in the form of a Table. Whenever the stipulated requirement has already been treated elsewhere (particularly in I Tim. 3) the reader is referred to the fuller explanation which can be found there.

Column 1 contains the list of requirements for elders or overseers as found in Titus 1. Column 2 gives the meaning in brief of each of these requirements. Column 3 lists those requirements of the Titus 1 list which are paralleled (either exactly or by means of a synonym) in the overseer-requirements-list as found in I Tim. 3. Column 4, similarly, shows the parallels in the deacon-requirements-list of I Tim. 3. And Column 5 lists antonyms of four overseer-requirements which find no parallel in I Tim. 3. These antonyms occur in the II Tim. 3 list of character-traits of people living “in the last days” (see the explanation of II Tim. 3:1–5).

1	2	3	4	5
Titus 1	Meaning	I Timothy 3-Overseers	I Timothy 3-Deacons	II Timothy 3
Elders
blameless	not to be called to account (particularly with respect to the points to be mentioned in verses 6–9)	cf. above reproach (verse 2)	blameless, (verse 10)
one wife’s husband	faithful in the marriage-relationship	one wife’s husband (verse 2)	one wife’s husband, (verse 12)
having believing children (who are) not open to the charge of dissolute behavior nor un-submissive	having children who share the Christian faith of their fathers and who adorn that faith with a godly conduct. A man whose children are still pagans or behave as pagans must not be appointed elder. cf. Eph. 5:18	cf. managing well his own household, with true dignity keeping his children in subjection, etc. (verses 4, 5)	cf. managing well his children and his household (verse 12)
Overseers
For the overseer as God’s steward must be blameless, (This has already been explained.) not self-pleasing	(explanation of “not self-pleasing”) not self-indulgent to the point of showing arrogance to others (cf. II Tim. 3:2 and II Peter 2:10)			contrast and cf. “self-loving” (verse 2)
not hot-tempered	not given to outbursts of wrath	cf. not given to blows, not contentious (verse 3)
not (one who lingers) beside (his) wine	no wine-bibber, tippler, or drunkard	not (one who lingers) beside (his) wine (verse 3)	cf. not addicted to much wine (verse 8)
not given to blows	not eager to use his fists, not bellicose, no spitfire	not given to blows (verse 3)
not greedy of shameful profit	no embezzler, pilferer, Simonite (cf. Titus 1:11; also cf. I Peter 5:2 adverb)	cf. not fond of money (verse 3)	not greedy of shameful profit (verse 8)
but hospitable	“loving strangers”; here, especially, ready to befriend and to lodge destitute, traveling, or persecuted believers (cf. I Peter 4:9)	hospitable (verse 2)
loving the good	loving goodness, virtuous, ready to do what is beneficial to others			contrast and cf. “unloving toward the good” (verse 3)
self-controlled or sensible	of sound mind, discreet, sane (cf. Titus 2:2, 5)	self-controlled (verse 2)
fair	performing one’s duty toward man
pious (or “holy”)	performing one’s duty toward God (cf. I Tim. 2:8)			contrast and cf. “impious”; or “unholy” (verse 2)
master of himself	possessing the moral strength to curb or master one’s sinful drives and impulses (cf. Gen. 39:7–9; 50:15–21)			contrast and cf. “unrestrained” (verse 3)
holding on to the trustworthy word which is in line with the doctrine	clinging to and applying himself to the sacred tradition which is in harmony with the sound doctrine, that is, with the doctrine which, in turn, is based on Scripture		cf. keeping hold of the mystery of our faith with a pure conscience (verse 9)
in order that he may be able both to encourage (others) by means of his sound teaching and to refute those who contradict it	to the end that every overseer may be able by means of his sound teaching to incline will and heart to the joyful service of God, and to expose the errors of those who rebel; that is, to withstand these opponents, if at all possible bringing them to an acknowledgment of their error and to repentance; at least, convincing believers that these adversaries are wrong. Not all the overseers or elders are actually called upon to perform this task (see on I Tim. 5:17), but all must be able to perform it.	qualified to teach (verse 2)

1:10–16

10 For there are many insubordinate men, futile talkers and mind-deceivers, especially those of the circumcision-party, 11 whose mouths must be stopped, since (they are) such as upset entire families by teaching, for the sake of shameful profit, what is not proper. 12 One of them, a prophet of their own, made the statement:

“Cretans (are) always deceivers, evil brutes, bellies inactive.”

13 This testimony is true. Therefore reprove them sharply in order that they may be sound in the faith 14 instead of devoting themselves to Jewish myths and injunctions of men who turn their backs on the truth.

15 All things (are) pure to those who are pure; but to those who are contaminated and unbelieving nothing (is) pure; on the contrary, contaminated are even their minds and their consciences. 16 God they profess to know, but by their actions they deny (it), because they are despicable and disobedient and for every good work unfit.

10. The reason why men so highly qualified for spiritual office are especially necessary in Crete is now stated:

For there are many insubordinate men, futile talkers and mind-deceivers, especially those of the circumcision-party.

This group (verses 10–14a) is the same as is mentioned in I Tim. 1:3–11; note similarities:

Titus 1	I Timothy 1
insubordinate men (verse 10)	insubordinate men (verse 9)
futile talkers (verse 10)	certain individuals … have turned aside to futile talk (verse 6)
teaching what is not proper (verse 11)	in order that you may charge certain individuals not to teach differently (verse 3); cf. 6:3
always liars (verse 12)	liars (verse 10)
in order that they may be
sound in the faith (verse 13)	contrary to the sound doctrine (verse 10); cf. 6:3
devoting themselves to Jewish myths (verse 14)	not to devote themselves to endless myths and genealogies (verse 4); cf. 4:7a.

These men are present here in Crete in alarming numbers (“many insubordinate men”; contrast the “certain individuals” in I Tim. 1:3). This may have been due to the fact that their peculiar faults were in line with the Cretan national character and that they were under the strong influence of Jewish rabbis (outsiders, verses 14b–16). They are insubordinate; that is disobedient to the Word of God. Also, they are futile talkers, achieving no useful purpose, with their fictitious tales about Adam, Moses, Elijah, etc., and with their legalistic hair-splitting (cf. I Tim. 1:6); yet deceiving the minds (see M.M., p. 675) of the weak. Especially “those of the circumcision-party,” that is, Jewish church-members (cf. Acts 10:45; Gal. 2:12), belong to the class of futile talkers and mind-deceivers. They probably regarded their circumcision as a mark of superior excellence, entitling them to be heard and looked up to by others.

11. But Paul, disagreeing sharply with their opinion of themselves, says with respect to them and also with respect to the rest of the futile talkers and mind-deceivers: whose mouths must be stopped, since (they are) such as upset entire families by teaching, for the sake of shameful profit, what is not proper.

In telling Titus what should be done with such people, Paul uses a rare verb (see M.M., p. 246) which has as its primary meaning “to stop the mouth by means of a bridle, muzzle, or gag.” The deceivers, then, must not be tolerated but be silenced, and this should be done by Titus and by the elders, as the context would seem to indicate (verses 5–9).

Just how this silencing should be done is not indicated in the present passage. See, however, on I Tim. 1:3, 4; 1:20; 4:7; II Tim. 2:16, 21, 23; 4:2; Titus 1:13b; 3:10. At first the errorist should be tenderly admonished so that he may be won for the truth. If he refuses, he must be sharply reprimanded and told to desist. The person who persists in his evil ways must be shunned by the church and disciplined. The supreme measure, excommunication, may have to be employed in order to safeguard the church and in order to bring the sinner to repentance. In the church of God there is no such thing as “freedom of misleading speech.” Reason: it would be too dangerous. The teachers of false doctrine “upset (cf. John 1:15) entire families,” causing them to wander away from the truth (see on II Tim. 3:6). They do this by teaching “what is not proper,” that is, “Jewish myths and injunctions of men” (see on verse 14). And their purpose is to acquire shameful profit, profit that is shameful because the men who are after it are anxious to enrich themselves even at the expense of the downfall of others. They are utterly selfish, aiming at nothing but money and prestige. (Cf. I Tim. 3:3, 8; 6:5; Titus 1:7; and on the entire subject of remuneration for spiritual work see N.T.C. on I Thess. 2:9.)

12. These Jewish church-members of the Pharisaic type and tinged with incipient gnosticism, which led at times to licentiousness and at times to asceticisms (see on I Tim. 4:3, 4), were Cretans — there were many Jews in Crete (cf. Acts 2:11) —, and, in addition to being influenced by unbelieving Jews (see on 14b–16), had absorbed the worst character-traits of their non-Jewish countrymen. This had not been a chore, for the Jew and the Cretan had something in common. The employment of trickery or deception for selfish advantage characterized both (cf. John 1:47 with Titus 1:12). An honest Jew or an honest Cretan seems to have been an exception. And certainly the combination Cretan-Jew was not a happy one.

As to the Cretans, they were condemned “out of their own mouth.” Says Paul, One of them, a prophet of their own, made the statement:

Cretans (are) always deceivers, evil brutes, bellies inactive.

A prophet of their own would be more apt to brag about his countrymen to others than to condemn them. Yet, condemn them is exactly what their own prophet had done. By Clement of Alexandria (Stromata I. xiv. 59) and by Jerome the devastating characterization is attributed to a poet and reformer whose date is variously given as somewhere between 630 and 500 b.c. His name was Epimenedes, a native of Cnossus near Iráklion (= Candia) on Crete’s northern shore, where even today one can visit the museum that contains the unique treasures of the Minoan Age. In a hymn “To Zeus” Callimachus (about 300–240 b.c.) had quoted the first words, “Cretans (are) always deceivers.” To the question whether or not Paul himself had actually read Epimenedes not all give the same answer. Some hold that since the quotation is really a proverb, it may have been derived by Paul from widely disseminated oral tradition. Others believe that it is not necessary to confine Paul’s reading-knowledge within such narrow limits.¹⁹¹

Now by the ancients Epimenedes was considered a prophet, “a divinely inspired man” (thus Plato), “a man dear to the gods” (thus Plutarch). Paul does not mean to say that the Cretan reformer was actually a prophet in the Scriptural sense. He means, “a man who by them and by others was considered a prophet, a spokesman of the gods.” With reference to Epimenedes’ so-called prophetic activity Plato (Laws I. 642 D and E) wrote as follows:

“That divinely-inspired man Epimenedes … was born in Crete, and ten years before the Persian War, in accordance with the oracle of the god, went to Athens …; and when the Athenians were filled with fear by reason of the Persians’ expeditionary force, he made this prophecy: They will not come for ten years, and when they do come, they will turn back again, having accomplished nothing that they had hoped (to accomplish), and having suffered more woes than they will have inflicted.”

By many Epimenedes was regarded as one of “the seven wise men” of the ancient world. These seven were: Bias of Priene, Chilon of Sparta, Cleobulus of Lindus, Pittacus of Mitylene, Solon of Athens, Thales of Miletus, and Epimenedes of Crete or Peiander of Corinth or Anacharsis the Scythian (see Plutarch, Lives, Solon XII. 4–6; cf. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata I. xiv).

It was this same Epimenedes who according to Diogenes Laertius advised the Athenians to sacrifice “to the appropriate god,” which advice may have led to the erection of that well-known “altar to an unknown god” which provided a starting-point for Paul’s proclamation of the living God (Acts 17:23).

The quotation from Epimenedes here in Titus 1:12 is a line which consists of six metrical feet (hexameter verse), somewhat like Longfellow’s (Evangeline):

“This is the forest primeval. The murmuring pines and the hemlocks …”

I have tried to preserve the rhythm, and have therefore rendered the line as follows:

“Cretans are always deceivers, evil brutes, bellies inactive.”

Their representation as deceivers or liars may have arisen from their claim that they had on their island the tomb of Zeus. But the reputation of the Cretans for telling lies for selfish purposes (notice context, verse 11) was so widely spread that it had given rise to the noun “Cretism,” meaning “Cretan behavior,” that is, “lying” (Plutarch, Aemilius 26); and to the verb “to Cretize” or “to speak like a Cretan,” which meant “to tell lies,” “to deceive” (e.g. Polybius VIII. 19). Cf. “to Corinthianize,” meaning “to live a profligate life like a Corinthian.”

The expression “evil brutes” describes the savage and cruel character of the Cretans of the days of Epimenedes and of the days of Paul and Titus. They would push everyone out of the way in order to gain an advantage for themselves. Some see in this descriptive epithet an allusion to the mythical Cretan Minotaur, half bull half man, whom Minos hid in the Cretan labyrinth, where, until Theseus slew this monster, he devoured the Athenian youths and maidens sent as a tribute every nine years.

“Bellies inactive” marks the Cretans as lazy gluttons, sluggish and sensual gormandizers.

The Cretans, then, are untruthful, selfish, and pleasure-loving. Now some writers consider the action of Paul in quoting this devastating verdict with respect to the character of the Cretans as singularly untactful, a “smear” upon the good name of an entire population. However, the character of the Cretans displayed itself so clearly that confirmation of the severe judgment comes from every direction and is not limited to a single century. The reader should see this for himself. In addition to the noun “Cretism” = lie, and to the verb “to Cretize” = to deceive, to tell lies, we have the following (the dates given are mostly approximate):

Polybius, Greek historian (203–120 b.c.):

“So much in fact do love of shameful profit and greed prevail among them that among all men Cretans are the only ones in whose estimation no profit is ever disgraceful” (The Histories VI. 46).

Cicero, Roman orator, statesman, and philosopher (106–43 b.c.):

“Indeed, (men’s) moral principles are so divergent that the Cretans … consider highway-robbery (or “brigandage”) to be honorable” (Republic III. ix. 15).

Livy, Roman historian (59 b.c.–a.d. 17):

“The Cretans followed (Perseus) in hope of cash” (XLIV. xlvi).

Plutarch, Greek essayist and biographer (a.d. 46–120):

“Of his soldiers (only) the Cretans followed him, not through being favorably disposed (toward him), but because they were as devoted to his riches as are bees to their honeycombs. For he was carrying along vast treasures, and he had handed out for distribution among the Cretans drinking-cups and mixing bowls and other utensils of gold and silver, valued at fifty talents” (Aemilius Paulus XXIII. 4). Werner Keller, The Bible as History, New York, 1956, pp. 172, 173, hints that the ancient Cretans were “powerful drinkers” and submits interesting archaeological evidence: the fact that large numbers of wine cups and beer mugs, the latter fitted with filters, were found in the settlements of the Philistines who, as Scripture says (Amos 9:7), came from Caphtor, that is, Crete.

13 and 14. It is not surprising therefore that Paul says, This testimony is true. The character of the mendacious, grasping Cretans was so clearly displayed by their actions that Paul cannot do anything else than confirm the judgment that was expressed in Epimenedes’ hexameter.

An attempt has been made to show that the verdict of Epimenedes and of Paul is really a self-contradiction. This is done by means of the following bit of sophistry:

“A Cretan, Epimenedes, said that Cretans always lie. He must therefore himself have lied when he said this. Therefore it is not true that the Cretans always lie. Or (even worse): Therefore, the Cretans do not lie. But if the Cretans do not lie, then Epimenedes, a Cretan, must have spoken the truth. But then he, too, being a Cretan, was a liar when he said that Cretans always lie.” And so we are back at the place from which we started.

But certainly all that was meant by Paul was that Crete was notorious for its many constant liars. His statement leaves ample room for the following propositions:

a. Even Cretan liars sometimes speak the truth.

b. Some Cretans are not outstanding liars.

c. This particular Cretan, namely Epimenedes, spoke the truth when he described Cretans as being, generally speaking, constant liars.

Therefore reprove them sharply in order that they may be sound in the faith. The errorists and those who listen to them must be reproved (cf. II Tim. 4:2) sharply (cf. II Cor. 13:10), decisively, and this not only by the elders (see on verse 9 above) but also by Titus himself, in order that they may be (that is, may become) what at present they are not, namely, sound (cf. I Tim. 1:10) in their stand with respect to the truth as revealed in Christ.

Paul continues: instead of devoting themselves to Jewish myths and injunctions of men who turn their backs upon the truth.

To escape the impact of the law of God the errorists were devoting themselves (see on I Tim. 1:4) to “Jewish myths,” that is, to fanciful stories about ancestors; and to “injunctions of men,” that is, to man-made commands. These, too, were probably to a large extent Jewish in character. To the extent in which they were, they were said to be based on the law of God. Actually, however, they obscured the real intent and meaning of the law. Cf. Matt. 5:43; 15:3, 6, 9; Mark 7:1–23; Luke 6:1–11; and see N.T.C. on John 5:1–18.

The Cretan deceivers, accordingly, busied themselves with Talmudic anecdotes and hair-splitting legal decisions for which the claim was made that they were derived from the law. The injunctions which they praised and tried to force upon others were actually the commands of “men who turn their backs upon the truth.” By these men the Jews are meant, particularly Jewish rabbis and scribes. The situation, then, was as follows:

The stedfast believers in the island of Crete mingled daily with other church-members who were not so stedfast but were willing to lend an ear to loud-mouthed Judaistic deceivers, tinged with gnosticism. These false teachers, in turn, were under the influence of men who stood entirely outside the church, namely, Jews, Pharisaic propagandists, who completely rejected Christ, turning their backs upon God’s redemptive truth as revealed in his Son.

15. The nature — at least in part — of the subversive doctrine that was literally being sold (taught by false teachers with a view to “shameful profit”) in Crete is suggested by the words of verse 15. The deceivers, who in turn were being deceived by outside-deceivers, namely, by the Jews, were denying that: All things (are) pure to those who are pure; but to those who are contaminated and unbelieving nothing (is) pure; on the contrary, contaminated are even their minds and their consciences.¹⁹²

The false teachers inside the churches of Crete were trying to reconcile Jewish bondage (ceremonialism) with Christian freedom. Many of them, no doubt, had been trained from early childhood in the religion of the shadows, and it was hard for them to understand that with the coming and death of the Lord these shadows had disappeared. Influenced, as they certainly were, by the impenitent Jews outside the church, they attach a degree of saving value (a value which even the law itself had never taught) to ceremonial ordinances — and even more to Pharisaic refinements of these ordinances — concerning what was “clean” and what was “unclean” with respect to articles of food, pieces of furniture, the human body, etc. They regarded purity as being an attribute not of the mind and conscience of man but of material things. As was shown in connection with I Tim. 4:3, they were probably also strengthened in this error by pagan dualism which regarded matter as being sinful in itself. But the main sinister influence here in Crete seems to have come from the Jews.

Jesus had combated this error vigorously. He had said, “Not what goes into a man but what comes out of him defiles him, for from within come evil thoughts” (see Matt. 15:11, 15–20; Mark 7:14–22; Luke 11:38–41; and cf. Prov. 4:23). The early church had followed where Christ had led (as is implied in Acts 10:9–16; 11:1–18; 15:20). Paul, too, in his other epistles had consistently defended the thesis that “nothing is unclean in itself” (Rom. 14:14, 20; cf. I Cor. 6:12; 10:23; Gal. 2:11–21; Col. 2:16–23), and that it is the disposition of the heart and the purpose of the mind which render a matter clean or unclean (Rom. 14:23; I Cor. 10:31). In Romans and I Corinthians this basic truth had been applied in one direction (to eat without regard to the weaker brother is sinful); here it is applied in another direction (to eat with an unbelieving mind or contaminated conscience is defiling).

“All things (are) pure to those who are pure; but to those who are contaminated and unbelieving nothing (is) pure.” The expression “all things” is best explained by Paul himself. It amounts to “every creature of God” (I Tim. 5:5), that is, everything that was created by God for consumption as food. It is not the impure thing which makes men impure, as the Jews erroneously held (see N.T.C. on John 18:28), but it is impure men who make every pure thing impure, a truth foreshadowed in Hag. 2:13.

Pure men are those who have been cleansed from their guilt by the blood of Christ and, having been regenerated by the Holy Spirit, are being constantly cleansed by that same Spirit from the pollution of their sins (see on Titus 3:5; then Matt. 5:8; John 3:3, 5; I Cor. 6:11; Eph. 1:7; 5:26, 27; I John 1:7, 9; see also N.T.C. on John 13:10; 15:3). These are the ones who do not reject what God has created as good foods but “partake of them with thanksgiving” (see on I Tim. 4:3, 4).

On the other hand, those who are contaminated, befouled, or polluted, namely, the Jews, and having rejected Christ are at the same time unbelieving, have thereby defiled all of God’s pure gifts. Even their minds, those organs which reflect on things spiritual and guide the will, and their consciences, that is, their moral selves in the act of passing judgment upon their deeds, are — and unless God’s grace intervenes, remain; note perfect passive indicative — contaminated. (For the concept conscience see on I Tim. 1:5.) This is evidenced by the fact that their moral judgments are perverted and that they do not arrive at godly sorrow.

16. The description of “men who turn their backs upon the truth,” a description begun in verse 14b, continues. Referring, then, to the Jews (particularly, the Pharisaic leaders who, though outsiders, are exerting a sinister influence upon the false leaders within the churches of Crete), Paul adds: God they profess to know. As did their fathers long ago (Deut. 6:4), so also these Jews proclaim to all who are willing to listen that they know the one true God as their awn God (see N.T.C. on John 8:54, 55; and cf. Rom. 2:17). “We know him,” they declare; and they mean, “with a knowledge intuitive and direct” (note the verb used in the original).

Now it was indeed true that to their forefathers God had revealed himself in a very special way, as to no other nation (Ps. 96:5; 115; 135; 147:19, 20; Amos 3:2; Rom. 3:1, 2; 9:1–5); but instead of realizing that greater opportunity implies greater responsibility, especially with respect to those who do not know God (cf. Gal. 4:8; I Thess. 4:5), they had become boastful and had completely rejected the Messiah. Hence, Paul is able to assert that though these Jews profess to know God, yet by their actions they deny (it). Their actions belie their profession. (The verb deny, though not occurring in the earlier epistles of Paul, is found again and again in the Pastorals; see on I Tim. 5:8; II Tim. 2:12, 13; 3:5; Titus 2:12.) For a vivid account of the actions of the Jewish leaders whom Paul has chiefly in mind see Matt. 23. These actions may be summarized in two words: hypocrisy and rejection of the Christ. By wrongly influencing false teachers in Crete they are continuing to reject him.

The reason why they commit these evil acts is now stated: because they are despicable and disobedient and for every good work unfit.

They do what they do because of what they are in their inner nature. It is not surprising that Paul characterizes those who are “defiled in mind and conscience” (see on verse 15) as being despicable, detestable, or abominable in the eyes of God. Again, they are despicable because, in spite of being such sticklers for man-made rules and regulations (cf. Is. 1:12–15; Jer. 6:20; Amos 5:21–23; Matt. 23:23–33; Luke 18:11, 12) — or shall we not rather say: because of this very fact? — they are disobedient to God’s holy law. Hence, instead of being “men of God for every good work thoroughly equipped” (see on II Tim. 3:17; cf. II Tim. 2:21), they are the very opposite: “for every good work unfit” (after testing rejected as worthless), completely incapable of performing any work that proceeds from faith, is done according to God’s law, and redounds unto his glory.

Synthesis of Chapter 1

See the Outline at the beginning of this chapter.

In addressing this letter to Titus, here described as Paul’s genuine child in terms of the common faith, the apostle introduces himself as a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ. He declares that he fulfils this mission in order to promote the faith of God’s elect and their acknowledgment of the truth which harmonizes with (or: which furthers) the life of Christian devotion. He regards his apostleship and their devotion as being based on the hope of life everlasting. It is that hope which encourages both Paul and believers in general to be true to their calling. The God who, in sharp contrast with the Cretans, never deceives anyone, promised life everlasting before the never-ending time-process began; that is, he made that promise “from eternity.” In due season his word with respect to this great salvation began to be fully and authoritatively proclaimed in the “preaching” (kerugma, proclamation) of Paul, to whom it had been entrusted.

Upon Titus, Paul pronounces “grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.”

It was in the interest of promoting the spirit of sanctification in the life of the congregations that Paul had left Titus behind in the island of Crete. With this purpose in mind Titus is now being reminded in writing of the order which previously had been given to him orally, namely, that he should straighten out what remained to be done, and should accordingly appoint elders in each city. The requirements for the office of elder have been summarized on pp. 345–349.

That the idea of sanctification in congregational life is, indeed, uppermost in the apostle’s mind as he pens this chapter is clear from the reason which he gives, showing why men so highly qualified for office are especially necessary in the churches of Crete. He speaks of false teachers within the bosom of the churches, insubordinate men, futile talkers, mind-deceivers, men interested in shameful profit; of Cretans whom he describes as “always deceivers, evil brutes, bellies inactive”; and of a certain class of Jews whom he pictures as “men who turn their backs upon the truth,” and are “contaminated in mind and conscience.” Accordingly, wise leadership and saving discipline is a “must,” in order that sanctification may replace contamination.

Interesting recent articles on Crete are the following: “Greece, The Birthplace of Science and Free Speech,” in Everyday Life in Ancient Times, published by The National Geographic Society, Washington, D. C., 1953, see especially pp. 189, 191, 202, 203; and “Crete, Cradle of Western Civilization,” in The National Geographic, November, 1953, pp. 693–706. See also E. G. Kraeling, op. cit., p. 463.

¹⁸⁷ Translators and commentators will probably never reach agreement with respect to the question whether δοῦλος, as used here and in similar passages, should be rendered slave or servant. In favor of slave is the fact that Paul’s Master has bought him, hence owns him, and that the apostle is completely dependent upon this Master, a relation of which he is fully aware. On the other hand, this very rendering is jarring to our ears because the word “slave” generally conveys to our minds the idea of involuntary service and harsh treatment. All in all, it would therefore seem that if the choice is between slave and servant, the rendering servant deserves the preference here. See also N.T.C. on John, Vol. II, p. 306, footnote 184. However, it must be admitted that here, as happens frequently, no translation is able in one word to convey the full, rich meaning of the original.

¹⁸⁸ Various concepts in this verse have been discussed more fully elsewhere. For the idea of apostleship see on I Tim. 1:1. For the idea of election see N.T.C. on I Thess. 1:4. For the expression “Jesus Christ” see the comments on I Tim. 1:1; cf. N.T.C. on I Thess. 1:1. And for godliness see on I Tim. 2:2; 3:16; 4:7, 8; 6:3, 5, 6, 11; and II Tim. 3:5.

¹⁸⁹

Does the expression “on the hope of life everlasting” really modify the entire first verse? In other words, is hope here viewed as a kind of energizing cause both of Paul’s apostolic ministry and of the elect’s complete devotion to God? This would seem to be the most natural view. Also, it harmonizes with Paul’s teaching elsewhere:

Thus, with respect to a. hope viewed as a spur to faithfulness in the performance of his own task (and that of Timothy), he says, “For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God” (see on I Tim. 4:10).

And with respect to b. hope viewed as an incentive for holy living of believers in general, the passage Titus 2:11–14 is very clear. (Other passages proving a. or b. or both are the following: I Tim. 1:16; 6:19; II Tim. 1:12; 2:5, 11, 12; 4:1, 7, 8, 18; then also Acts 26:6, 7; Rom. 4:18; 8:20; I Cor. 9:10; 15:58; I Thess. 1:3, 9, 10; 2:12; 4:13.) Surely, if even Jesus “for the joy that was set before him” endured the cross (Heb. 12:2), believers have a right to regard their future salvation as a legitimate (though not as the only!) incentive for a life of consecrated service here below.

But several commentators accept only a. as far as the present passage is concerned. They interpret as follows:

Paul’s ministry and apostleship are:

(1) “in the interest of the faith of God’s elect,” etc.,

and

(2) “based on the hope of life everlasting, which,” etc.

The phrases (1) and (2) are viewed as co-ordinate modifiers of “Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ.”

Though this view may be correct, it would seem to be exposed to the following objections, making it less probable:

In the first place, in that case would not (2) be more naturally introduced by some specifying particle?

Secondly, thus narrowly conceived, is not the antecedent of the expression “(which is based) on the hope” rather remote?

Thirdly, when the words which immediately precede this expression mention other things (furtherance in faith, acknowledgment of the truth, the exercise of godliness) which according to Paul’s consistent teaching are also stimulated by this living hope, as has been shown, what good reason is there to say that only Paul’s apostolic ministry is based on it?

Other views of the construction are even less satisfactory.

A.V. Authorized Version (King James)

N.T.C. W. Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary

¹⁹⁰

The objections that have been raised against this explanation are as follows:

(1) It cannot be truly said that life everlasting was promised from all eternity. This objection has already been answered.

(2) He who in this connection thinks of God’s eternal decree is forced to conclude that God gave the promise before eternity.

Answer: Not at all; he gave it “before times everlasting,” that is, “from eternity.”

(3) The verb promised is in the aorist tense (middle voice). Hence, it must refer to just one event, probably to the promise in Gen. 3:15.

Answer: It is not true that the aorist tense necessarily refers to only one event. Rather, its function is to summarize, to give a “capsule view.” But even if it did refer to only one event, that event could be the (humanly conceived) promise of God in the covenant of redemption.

M.M. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan (edition Grand Rapids, 1952)

¹⁹¹ Cf. R. Stob, Christianity and Classical Civilization, Grand Rapids, 1950, pp. 61, 62, and A. T. Robertson, “Paul the Apostle,” in I.S.B.E., especially IV, 3.

¹⁹²

In agreement with most commentators I regard the proverb “All things (are) pure to those who are pure” to be part of Paul’s own teaching. It was either coined by himself or else it had been phrased by another (perhaps by Jesus Christ himself; cf. Luke 11:38–41) and then taken over by him and quoted over against the Jewish differentiation between “pure” and “impure.”

Other interpreters (for example, J. Van Dijk, Paraphrase Heilige Schrift, Timotheus, Titus en Philemon, p. 68) regard it as a saying of the false teachers as an excuse for their immoral teaching and conduct.

But that view fails to reckon with the fact that these errorists were for the most part “of the circumcision” (verse 10), people who esteemed very highly the Jewish Halacha (verse 14; cf. also verse 16 and 3:9). Their rules regarding morals were far more likely to be rigid than loose (see I Tim. 4:3; cf. Col. 2:21). — Besides, if Rom. 14:14, 20 and I Tim. 4:4, 5 contain positive Pauline teaching, why not Titus 1:15?

↑ Back to top