A Commentary in Simple English on Titus

NOTES

[0.1] I have used the dates favoured by Dr C J Hemer. Any dating can only be approximate, and the details do not affect the picture of Titus. (See ‘The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History‘, Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake, Indiana, 1990). Hemer (p.403) suggests the summer of 63 or 64 AD for Paul's visit to Crete.

[0.2] The reference by Eusebius (in the ‘History of the Church’ - p. 109 in the Penguin Edition) to Titus is based on a misunderstanding. Paul did not appoint Titus bishop of Crete. He left Crete for Nicopolis or Rome and Dalmatia and his work in Crete was to appoint elders (or bishops). Artemas or Tychicus followed him in Crete. Many modern scholars deny that Paul wrote Titus or 1 & 2 Timothy. There is a useful discussion in Hemer (op cit) pp 390-403.

[0.3] It is suggested that Aristarchus (Acts 27: 2) may have left Paul at Myra to go home. As far as I know, no one has suggested that Luke's ‘we’ in Acts could include both himself and Titus.

[0.4] One hesitates to mention the question of a different amanuensis! Yet the study of the wooden writing tablets from Vindolanda on Hadrian's Wall in the north of England has proved instructive. People who could write quite well still used an amanuensis to write the body of their letter. The use of wooden writing tablets only forty years after the time of Paul - and in the remotest corner of the Roman Empire - is also helpful. If Paul was in prison when he wrote 2 Timothy, might Paul not have written it on a series of wooden tablets rather than by an amanuensis on parchment? (See Alan Bowman, ‘Life and Letters on the Roman Frontier‘, British Museum Press, London 1994). This might explain why 2 Timothy is disjointed. But Bowman may understate the evidence for the use of wooden tablets in the East at this period.

[1.1] (1: 1) Calvin (Commentary, p 351) differs. ‘...the word 'servant' does not just mean ordinary subjection.... but means a minister to whom some definite office has been assigned.’

[1.2] (1: 2) The ‘covenant of redemption’ between the Father and the Son in eternity past can be glimpsed in Old Testament scriptures like Psalm 40: 6-8 and Psalm 2: 6-9. The Son covenants with the Father that He will come into the world to redeem His people.

[1.3] (1: 5) An article entitled ‘Leaders and Fathers’ by R A Campbell appeared in The Baptist Quarterly, Volume XXXVI No. 7. (July 1996) at p 315. It is interesting and a useful introduction to the question of church officers. Yet I find it less than convincing. I suspect that the author greatly underestimates the size of some of the early churches. Sometimes the church was effectively a split from the Jewish synagogue, and ideas on organization may have been inherited. House churches did not coalesce into a city church. Paul, for example, seems not to acknowledge that there is a ‘church at Rome’ at the time of writing Romans. This was the situation in the cities of Crete and it made Christian witness vague. Indeed, it can be argued that the first part of Paul's ministry in Acts was evangelism directed to those very areas that are not listed in Acts 2: 8-11. Plot Paul's journeys on a map marked with these areas, and this is quite apparent. Then from the time of Paul's stay in Ephesus his role is largely organizing Christians into churches. We must not make too much of the fact that Paul does not speak of ‘a church’ in Rome or in Crete. Yet one wonders whether this is significant. The Christians were not yet organised into churches.

[1.4] (1: 6) For a detailed discussion see S Page in JSNT 50, June 1993 at p 105; ‘Marital Expectations of Church Leaders in the Pastoral Epistles‘.

[1.5] (1: 6) P H Towner (p 225) discusses the question of the age up to which the conduct of children of a potential elder was material. There may be parts of the world where this is a live question today. But a Jewish boy became a man at age 13. A Roman son always remained subject to the life and death authority of the head of the family. And here we are dealing with a largely Greek society. As with so much in Titus, the church must always seek to do better than the world can.

[1.6] (1: 9) The use of ‘healthy’ here (and again in verse 13) is interesting. The Greek of the Pastoral Epistles is different from the other Epistles of Paul and is now thought to be rather like that of Luke and Acts. So was Luke, the doctor, at Paul's elbow as he dictated these letters?

[1.7] (1:12) ‘One of themselves’ may mean a fellow Cretan. Or it may mean that Epimenides was a false prophet like them. Paul's use of these four lines of poetry is of great interest.

[1.8] (1: 16) It is clear enough that these legalists tried to avoid everything which would ‘defile’ them, that is, what was ‘detestable‘. But Paul says: ‘That is just what they are‘. They tried so hard to obey the law. Yet they were disobedient.

[2.1] (2: 3) ‘Slanderers’ in R.S.V. and N.I.V. is perhaps too strong. ‘Scandal mongers’ has the merit of condemning the much milder, yet nonetheless harmful, evil of gossip.

[2.2] (2: 11) ‘The Works of Richard Sibbes‘, Volume 7, The Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh 1982, p 294.

[2.3] (2: 11) I am conscious that the idea of dawn is not really present in ‘epiphaneia’ which Paul uses several times in the letter. Several translations do, however, employ the word and it is probably the best way to introduce the idea behind the English ‘appearing‘. Towner (p 244) says it is ‘a technical term for the manifestation or "Epiphany" of a god (or hero) to bring help.’

[2.4] (2 : 13) There are some wise words about hope in John Owen's Treatise on Spiritual Mindedness, Part I Chapter V:-
‘From a mistake of its nature...few Christians labour after it, exercise themselves unto it, or have the benefit of it; for to live by hope they suppose infers a state not only beneath the life of faith and all assurance in believing, but also exclusive of them‘. (Volume 7, p 321 in the Banner of Truth edition: London 1965)

[2.5] (2: 13) It will be seen from the footnotes in many Bibles that there is a debate about the exact translation of the Greek at this point. It may mean ‘the glory of our great God, that is, of our Saviour, Jesus Christ‘; or it may mean ‘the - one! - glory which belongs both to our great God and also to the Saviour Jesus Christ.’

We rejoice in this testimony to the Godhead and divine glory of our Saviour. But it is not wise to use this verse in debate - say - with Jehovah's Witnesses.

[3.1] (3: 1) The Baptist Quarterly in July 1996 (Volume 36 No 7) at p 349 carried an article by N G Wright entitled ‘Baptist and Anabaptist attitudes to the state: a contrast’ which is a useful exploration of some of the issues. Lenski (p 926) follows the tradition of Luther. ‘We are content to be in subjection to our governmental authorities...’ and so on. The tradition of Calvin makes more allowance for resistance to bad laws and evil government. Behind this issue is the whole question of the relationship of church and state.

[3.2] (3: 5) Towner (p 255) sees the background to the word 'mercy' here in the Old Testament ‘hesed’ or ‘covenant faithfulness‘. But this is an example of the whole problem of New Testament Greek. To what extent is the Greek of the Septuagint influencing New Testament meaning? And did the Hebrew concept really come through in the Greek speaking synagogue? And was the early church generating its own use of language as distinct from the common Greek of that day?
But I cannot claim that the explanation I offer has any validity in first century terms!

Towner (p 257) says: 'The reference to washing...is most likely a reference to spiritual washing rather than to the rite of water baptism'.

D Guthrie (p 217) says: 'Most commentators take this washing to refer to baptism.'

[3.3] (3: 8) See R A Campbell in JSNT 54 at p 73 for a useful analysis of the ‘faithful sayings‘.