Titus 1:1–16

Original Meaning

An Expanded Introduction (1:1–4)

IT IS NATURAL to compare the opening lines of this letter with those of 1 and 2 Timothy. Doing so may indicate differences between the two letters not only as regards Paul’s relationship to the recipients but also as regards the distinctive missions of these two apostolic delegates. In any given instance, however, a difference between the two letters may only be a matter of style or of emphasis rather than of substance.

One difference appears at the very beginning. Paul identifies himself both as “a servant” (doulos, “slave”) of God and as “an apostle” (v. 1).1 The word doulos appears in Philippians 1:1, a letter he coauthored with Timothy. In all the other Pauline letters, except 1 and 2 Thessalonians (which were authored by Paul, Silas, and Timothy), Paul identifies himself simply as an apostle. Paul does not use doulos in a self-deprecating way. A slave was owned by another person to whom obedience was required. If slavery meant obligation, apostleship meant authority, but both meant responsibility.

The following words appear in the opening lines of both Titus and 1 Timothy: “command,” “hope,” “true son” (2 Timothy has “dear son”), “faith,” and a prepositional phrase with kata. There are also the customary references to God and Christ as well as to grace and peace (Titus lacks “mercy”). In Titus 1:3 Paul refers to the proclamation entrusted to him by the “command of God our Savior”; in 1 Timothy 1:1 he is an apostle “by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope”; in 2 Timothy 1:1 he is an apostle “by the will of God.”

Four prepositional phrases beginning with kata (lit., “according to”) in verse 1 of the salutations of the Pastoral Letters call for attention. In 1 Timothy 1:1, “by the command [kat’ epitagen] of God” expresses the basis of Paul’s apostolic calling. In 2 Timothy 1:1 the idea of God’s command is replaced by the phrase “by [dia] the will of God,” but this is followed by kat’ epangelian (“according to the promise”). This phrase expresses not so much a basis for Paul’s call to apostleship as it does a correspondence with God’s promises. Two occur in Titus 1:1. Commentators stumble in trying to interpret the first of these: “for [kata] the faith of God’s elect and the knowledge of the truth.” The preposition kata does not seem to have the usual idea of basis or correspondence here.

The issues involved can be seen in Kelly, who questions whether, as some think, it means that “Paul preaches in accordance with the orthodox faith”— in other words, that “his message [is] in some way regulated by other people’s faith.” He understands it instead as meaning “in relation to” or “concerning,” pointing to “the sphere in which Paul exercises his apostleship and the ends he hopes to achieve by it.”2 The probable meaning is not that Paul’s message conforms to “other people’s faith,” but that his mission is in accordance with the faith of God’s very elect (i.e., a true faith) and with the truth that needs to be reaffirmed at Crete. The use of kata in the New Testament closest to its meaning here is John 2:6, referring to the stone water jars such as the Jews used “for [kata] ceremonial washing.” They were appropriate for and in accordance with that purpose.

This discussion should not overshadow but rather emphasize the double object (“faith” and “knowledge”) of that preposition. The faith that Paul wants strengthened in the church at Crete is not some vague pliant subjective feeling but the faith of God’s “elect,” who stand in the tradition of the Old Testament people of God. The word “elect” is not intended here to emphasize predestination but rather to identify these people as God’s own (Ps. 105:42–45, esp. v. 43; Isa. 65:9; cf. Rom. 8:33). “Knowledge of the truth” is important in Titus, just as it is in 1 and 2 Timothy (cf. 1 Tim. 2:4, 7; 3:15; 4:3; 6:5; 2 Tim. 2:15, 18, 25; 3:7–8; 4:4; see also v. 14 in the present chapter). The false teachings at Ephesus and Crete can only be corrected when truth is understood, but the same emphasis that characterizes 1 Timothy—namely, the blending of sound doctrine with godly living—is important here in Titus and is expressed already in Titus 1:1.

The correspondence between “truth” and “godliness” is expressed by yet another use of kata, this time before the word “godliness.” This expression probably means “truth that is appropriate to godliness” rather than “that leads to godliness” (NIV) or “truth that shows them how to live godly lives” (nlt). Genuine godliness requires a genuine foundation of truth. The false teachers lack both.

The same “hope” that enlivens Paul’s correspondence with Timothy (1 Tim. 1:1; 3:14; 4:10; 5:5; 6:17; 2 Tim. 2:25) appears here. It may seem strange that “faith and knowledge” rest on hope. However, this hope does not arise from the human heart, but has been “promised before the beginning of time” by “God, who does not lie.” This in effect propels the Scriptures to the foreground.3 This hope of eternal life that depends on the Word of the God “who does not lie” is also certain because it follows on our having been “justified by his grace” (3:7).

There is a chronological contrast between verses 2 and 3, “before the beginning of time” and “at his appointed season” (see 1 Tim. 2:6; 6:15). The testimony of the saving work of Christ and the future appearing of Christ are both said to be at its “proper [own] time” (1 Tim. 2:5–6; 6:14–15). However the word “appearing” (epiphaneia) used in 1 Timothy 6:14 and in Titus 2:13 (regarding the “blessed hope”) is not used in the present passage, but rather phaneroo, “to reveal, bring to light, manifest.” These concepts are related. Note how in 2 Timothy 1:10 God’s grace has been revealed (phaneroo; NIV, “brought…to light”), and it is coupled with “the appearing [epiphaneia] of…Christ.” “Word” in Titus 1:3 is not the Scriptures but God’s message, the gospel. The means by which this message came to light was the “proclamation” (nrsv, probably a better translation of kerygma than the NIV “preaching”).

The responsibilities of being faithful to a trust (“entrusted”) and obedient to “the command of God” are combined in this passage (cf. 1 Tim. 1:11 on being entrusted with the gospel; also 1:1, 3, 5; 4:11; 6:14, 17–18). Paul uses the emphatic “I” (ego) both here in Titus 1:3 and in 1 Timothy 1:11. His responsibility is emphasized not only by the ideas of a trust and a command, but by the preposition kata placed before the word “command,” now with the sense of “in conformity to” or “in accordance with.” This phraseology gives Paul not only responsibility, but also authority. He did not ask for this trust, it was given him by God’s command.

God is “our Savior” and as such has the right to decide how his saving message is to be announced. The address to Titus and the rest of the salutation are straightforward and brief. On the phrase “true son” and the other words of greeting see comments on 1 Timothy 1:2.

Bridging Contexts

ADDRESSING THE SOCIETY of Crete. The opening of Titus takes on particular significance when we reflect on the society in which Titus is ministering. The social commentary on the people of Crete in Titus 1:12 is well known: “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.” With Titus involved in the church situated in a society like that, there is a pressing need for a strong, unambiguous gospel. The opening of Paul’s letter achieves just that. God’s people are his “elect” (1:1), who can have a sense of security as the object of God’s purpose in even the most depraved and hostile society. Their faith is coupled with “knowledge” and its basis is “the hope of eternal life” (1:2). As in other Pauline literature, hope is not a subjective feeling but a certainty (see esp. Rom. 5:1–11; 8:18–39). In contrast to the mendacious Cretans, “God…does not lie” (Titus 1:2), and therefore the eternal life “promised before the beginning of time” is a firm object of the Christian’s hope.

God is working according to his schedule, “his appointed season” (1:3), and so at the right time he “brought his word to light” (we might say into open view) through the proclamation he “entrusted” to Paul. This “open view” is a characteristic teaching of the Pastoral Letters.13 It is important from two perspectives. (1) In the ongoing history of salvation, God progressively revealed truths and accomplished his will in a sequence of events, climaxed in the “appearing” of his grace through his Son. (2) In the competition with contemporary religions, the idea of the appearances of one or another god were celebrated. No doubt in this “conflict of religions in the early Roman Empire”14 it was important to demonstrate that Christianity also had its epiphanies.

Paul’s ministry is carried on “by the command of God our Savior” (1:3), language familiar from Paul’s correspondence with Timothy.15 The command involves a trust or stewardship, also a Pastorals theme. In 1 Timothy 1:11 Paul wrote of “the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.”16 In this way Paul writes with firmness, as he does at the beginning of 1 Timothy, against false teaching. Paul’s authority is now resident in what he wrote along with the personal gifting. Whatever theological training a servant of God may have, his or her authority lies in neither gifts nor training; it resides in God’s Word.

A society where there is mutual distrust, skepticism about religious claims, or fearful uncertainty about the future needs the kind of solid foundation and clear direction the revealed Word of God provides. But that truth needs to be heard and understood if it is to be accepted and appropriated as truth. One step in this is Bible translation. Another step, over which missionaries and theologians have labored especially during the last half of the twentieth century, has been the task of contextualization and indigenization. The Word of God needs to be applied meaningfully to each culture. While it is true that the gospel is appropriate and sufficient for all people of all cultures, it is now generally agreed that it needs to be “contextualized” to be understandable.

The means and extent of each contextualization have been discussed a lot. But more than communication is involved. Basic differences in worldview, understanding of the spiritual world, concept of life beyond death, standards of ethics, and so on call for different aspects of biblical truth. Near the beginning of the twentieth century A. Paget Wilkes, a missionary to Japan, became convinced that the gospel he was preaching, truth though it was, was not winning converts. He tried harder to listen to the Japanese people as they expressed their own thoughts, fears, and needs. Among these were uncertainty and apprehension about what lies after death. Wilkes thus began especially to emphasize those Scriptures dealing with resurrection and eternal life. A strong indigenous church in Japan is testimony of his ministry.17

There are common hopes and fears in societies around the world, but there are also particular belief systems, values, and popular philosophies that have generated different worldviews. Europeans and Quechuas, Wall Street brokers and hockey players, medieval serfs and sixteenth-century explorers, Chinese diplomats and computer programmers—each subculture or people group has had its own distinct failings and values. We are more accustomed today to preaching and to writing with a view to these, but so was Paul as he attempted to reach Jews, barbarians, the wise, slaves, and Cretans. Christians in all times and in all places have been entrusted with a gospel that must be meaningfully explained and applied if it is to communicate. Otherwise, the authority that we rightly ascribe to Scripture is muted.

The importance of order and leadership in the church. Day Runners and other so-called “organizers” appeal not only to highly organized people but also to disorganized people obsessed with the need for organization. Stephen R. Covey’s work, The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, and other books have had immense success in helping people put their lives in order. There apparently was a measure of disorder in Crete in the form of unfinished business. While it is possible for zealous Christians to be overly dogmatic about church government, chaos and anarchy are worse. Some years ago an independent church in the eastern United States seemed to be functioning well with a loose form of decision by consensus, without designated elders. Therefore, when a need arose for the church to discipline a particular individual, that man claimed no one in the church had authority to do so. It was not long before the church established an eldership.

Elders are to be “successful” people not so much in business but in self-discipline and character. To be sure, such people often are successful in business, but moral qualities are more important than that. Among the personal qualities mentioned in Titus 1:6–8 only one—“entrusted with God’s work”— has to do with spiritual ministry. But in verse 9 the overseer “must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught” so that he can “encourage others by sound doctrine” as well as “refute those who oppose it.” This is a direct response to the degenerate state of the society in which the church functioned and to the attacks of the false teachers who threatened that church.

To meet such attacks, the elders must have the respect of the believers. We have already seen in 1 Timothy 3:1–7 that the elders’ reputation in the surrounding community is important. But also these leaders must be well established and honored in the church if their handling of false teachers is to have the church’s support. Personal dynamics inevitably enter into such circumstances. Those whom the elders consider culpable in a matter often have friends and supporters who esteem them more highly than they esteem elders. That situation can cause a weakening of the elders’ perceived authority and eventually result in a church split or the triumph of the dissidents over the elders.

The saying “to the pure, all things are pure” has often been quoted out of context. It can easily be misconstrued to mean that good people never have to worry about thinking evil, or that somehow even impure things or thoughts are transformed into good. The point of the section in which this occurs is that those with evil thoughts and motives, who mentally transform even what is good into evil, often compensate by external ritual. But those whose minds are pure see the inherent good in God’s world and need no such alchemy. We have already met this mentality in the ascetic practices described in 1 Timothy 4:1–5.

Contemporary Significance

PROCLAIMING TRUTH IN a pluralistic society. Our pluralistic and postmodern society lies exposed to doubts and despair over whether it is possible that a system of truth is at all possible. Strange and unexpected messages grasp the attention of people looking for certainty. Sometimes these messages contain elements of truth. The early 1990s, for example, saw an increased interest in angels. By 1996 this interest was embodied in a television series Touched by an Angel, which hovered at or near the top of the Nielsen ratings.

An example of a different sort is the immense growth of the Mormon church since the 1950s. Although the alleged circumstances of its origins falter when probed historically, and although their doctrines run counter to those of orthodox Christianity, the “family values” and other moralistic practices of this religion (as well as its interest in the angel Moroni) have immense appeal around the world. The approach of a new millennium has brought with it an almost cultlike interest in things mystical. The last years of the 1900s and the opening years of the 2000s may be looked back on as an extraordinary opportunity for the proclamation of the certainties expressed in the opening verses of Titus.

Christianity has often been viewed in isolation from or even in competition with Judaism. But we should never forget that Christianity belongs to the ongoing revelation and historical activity of God among his special people that began with the call of Abraham about two millennia before Christ. Christ did not come in a historical vacuum, but as the culmination of God’s work, his inspiration of the Hebrew Scriptures, and the specific predictions about the Messiah. This, in turn, is set in the history of humankind, which resides within the work of God from eternity past. The eternal life proclaimed in the gospel was “promised before the beginning of time” (v. 2) and was brought to light in that gospel.

All this should be of great help in stating the case for the truth claims of Christ. The history of Israel and the messianic prophecies provide a solid foundation for the gospel and should be involved more than they are in our witnessing. It is common, and right, for those who bring the good news to Jewish people to refer to this, but it can also be a strong element in our Christian apologetic (i.e., the logical support for Christianity). The theme of truth in this passage is linked to the fact that God “does not lie” (v. 2).

Another apologetic element is that knowledge of this truth “leads to godliness” (v. 1). We often use changed lives as evidence of the truth of the gospel, and that is right. But this claim must be made with the honest acknowledgment that sincere adherents of other religions also often lead upright lives in conscious obedience to the ethical teachings of their faith. Moreover, the claim can be weakened by the failure of some Christians to be consistent with what they have been taught. Nevertheless, this letter, like the two to Timothy, insists that the Christian gospel should be backed up by Christian living, that is, by “godliness.” This was important in Crete, and it is equally imperative for our day, whether in Seattle, Atlanta, or Toronto, or in a football game, boardroom, or seminary chapel. As I write, yet another pastor has been arrested in the Chicago area—this time for planning, for sexual purposes, to meet with a girl he came to know on the Internet. His “date” turned out to be a law officer.

Must all the details of church order be followed today? The Contemporary Significance section for 1 Timothy 3:1–7 already has offered some suggestions for application on church order issues. The qualifications for elders given here in Titus are almost identical to the ones listed for overseers there. This similarity enforces the probability that they are important for churches anywhere. But are they uniformly applicable? Do they have any connection with specific cases? Do they arise out of conditions that, if they vary, call for other qualifications?

By way of comparison, some of the great doctrines of the church have themselves been articulated in the context of doctrinal strife. The various councils that produced these doctrinal statements were called to deal with particular circumstances, and therefore doctrines were shaped because of those circumstances. In spite of some of the political elements involved in their framing, the church has generally respected the doctrines thus formulated as being at the core of the Christian faith, especially those that deal with Christology. Likewise, the beginnings of various denominations were occasioned by circumstances that led the new churches to emphasize certain doctrines, practices, or values. Sometimes these have been idiosyncratic, reflecting the personalities and experiences of the founders, but insofar as they may have recovered and brought to public attention neglected truths, these should be acknowledged.

What, then, about matters of church order? Here the church has embodied different perspectives and practices. As to sacraments and ordinances, almost all Christians believe that baptism and the Lord’s Supper were intended by the Lord Jesus for the church in every age and circumstance, though their meaning and practices differ. As to church leadership, forms also differ, though some leadership is generally acknowledged as biblical and necessary. In Paul’s churches there was usually some structure, even in the charismatic climate of Corinth. Spiritual leadership is preferable to both bureaucracy and anarchy, though most Christians would not put the form of leadership on the same level of importance as the essential doctrines.

As to the qualifications for overseers, we can probably agree that what is listed in Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3 describe a kind of moral character that is desirable among all believers and that should be required in any age. But are some qualifications more important than others in different circumstances? After we give due considerations to the original meaning and matters of bridging contexts discussed above and in connection with 1 Timothy 3, what principles can be applied specifically in a contemporary church?

The stipulation of being the husband of one wife, even if understood to mean the heart attitude of faithfulness, will be applied differently in different cultures today—from those where multiple marriage is common to an American church with mainly new Christians, who may have few capable persons who have not been divorced. While there is often no simple, clear-cut way of determining an “innocent party” in a divorce, some churches are trying to weigh the factors in a divorce. Was there marital infidelity on the part of one but not the other? What other factors eroded the marriage? Who initiated the divorce? Did the person being considered for eldership become a Christian after the divorce? If there was a remarriage, is the present marriage healthy? The answers to such questions may justify admitting the person to eldership.

And does the fact that these Pastoral Letters were written at a time when female leadership would have been unthinkable and offensive to their society affect how we apply the reference to elders as husbands today? Some think that the reference to the elder being a husband was not intended as a requirement, but was simply circumstantial. This issue calls for careful consideration. Are deacons required because there are directions concerning them in 1 Timothy, or are they optional because they are not mentioned in Titus? Some suggestions were made in the sections on 1 Timothy 3, so the most appropriate comment here may be a plea for thoughtfulness, common sense, and humble acknowledgment that sincere, spiritually minded Christians have differed. As in other matters, the unity of the Spirit must be maintained (Eph. 4:3).

Strong discipline is sometimes required. Verses 10–16 require strong application. Although Paul’s counsel, especially to Timothy, is to be gentle in correction, there are times when firm disciplinary action and public rebuke are called for, particularly those who are “rebellious” and “deceivers” (v. 10), “ruining whole households” for “dishonest gain” (v. 11), “corrupted” (v. 15), denying God, “detestable,” and “disobedient” (v. 16). It is hard to deal with such people if there is no strong, recognized leadership in the church.

This is a case where plural leadership is important. In one situation (referred to earlier), in a small church blessed with a mature, wise congregation, there had seemed no need for elders. But when one member abused his wife and said (correctly) that no one had the authority to confront him, the church decided elders were needed. In time he threatened to kill one of the elders, and the church was at that point able to deal with him. The message of Titus 1:1–16 for today is that not only leadership, but also leadership vested with authority is needed to handle any situation and any personal hostility that may arise.

The elders must have a good reputation themselves if they are to be qualified to address sin. They must be doctrinally sound in order to deal with error, and they must be known as those whose children are responsive to their parenting so they can be expected to be evenhanded, just, and competent in their discipline of those who, if not silenced, would destroy the church. In all of this, the goal today, as always, must be restoration. In this case it means acknowledging error, being sound in the faith, and deliberately rejecting all who teach falsehood (v. 14).

If these false teachers see everything through impure eyes, their assessment of what is pure will be affected. As with those who search the Internet for sexually impure websites, they will take into their “minds and consciences” what is impure (v. 15). Their relationship to God and society will be distorted and corrupted. Since this is all a matter of the inner person and since such individuals claim to know God (v. 16), no one will realize what is taking place. Paul Little, the popular InterVarsity evangelist of the 1950s and 1960s, said that a Christian who seems suddenly to have a moral blowout has probably experienced an unobserved slow leak. This passage should serve as a wake-up call to all who are becoming attracted by impure sights and thoughts, who are entertaining offbeat ideas about life and doctrine, and whose profession of God is greater than the reality.

Sadly, it is sometimes the person who seems most spiritual who is farthest from God. Spirituality is not to be measured in terms of Bible knowledge, pious prayers, or attendance at religious gatherings. Every reader of this commentary knows that, but we value spirituality so highly that we pursue the appearance even when the reality is lacking. Spirituality is a matter of the extent to which the Holy Spirit is motivating, empowering, and changing our lives. He is holy and he is spirit, so no unholiness or fleshly, carnal motives are compatible with his work in our lives. The Holy Spirit produces holy people. Holiness plus obedience, faith, and love for God and other people produce Christian character as Christ is “formed” in us (Gal. 4:19). Today’s church is so activist, program-oriented, and overt in its worship that the character of the participants easily slips to a lower level of priority.

Doing good. We have seen again and again in the Pastoral Letters that doing good (v. 16) is of primary importance. Clearly a major distinction between true and false teachers is behavior. Morals and ethics count. It is common to compare Romans and Galatians with James, the latter being seen as teaching the evidential and practical side of good works. The Pastorals far outstrip James in the number of references to the goodness and good works expected in a true believer.

The preceding comments have pointed out the importance of holiness and Christian character. The truly spiritual person will not seek to display her or his inner holiness, but the inner self will nevertheless be seen, and rightly so, in the doing of good works. “By their fruit you will recognize them” (Matt. 7:20) is still good advice.

1. The Old Testament refers to Moses as the “servant of the LORD” in Deut. 34:5; Josh. 1:1, 13, 15 and frequently elsewhere in that book. The same expression is used of Joshua in Josh. 24:29; Judg. 2:8, and of David in the heading of Ps. 18 and 36. This recalls also the “servant passages” in Isaiah and the ministry of Christ as the Servant of the Lord.

2. Kelly, Pastoral Epistles, 226.

3. Cf. 2 Peter 1:16–21, which, after presenting the transfiguration as an assurance of the truth about Christ, says, “And we have the word of the prophets made more certain…for prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”

4. The other words translated “ordain” are ordinary words, such as tithemi (“to place, do, arrange, set in place”; see 1 Tim. 2:7, where the KJV has “ordained” and NIV “appointed”). They are not hierarchical terms, and none of them refers to the pastor of a church. This language pattern of the KJV has undoubtedly affected views of ordination over several centuries, by making it appear that the New Testament church had a technical term for ordination. The NIV improves on this by putting “ordain” in the footnotes as an alternative to “appoint.”

5. Kelly, Pastoral Epistles, 32. Young (Theology of the Pastoral Letters, 74–84) has a section on sound teaching in the Pastorals, followed by useful treatments of “teaching and learning in the ancient world” and on the popular philosophers. The concluding brief section in that chapter questions whether doctrine in the Pastoral Letters is to be equated with later orthodoxy. Like the rest of her stimulating book, this section calls for interaction.

6. For an understanding of these two words and their cognates see LSJ, 1084 and 1954.

7. Dibelius/Conzelmann, Pastoral Epistles, 135, quoting Polybius, Histories 6.46, on this topic: “So much in fact do sordid love of gain and lust for wealth prevail among them, that the Cretans are the only people in the world in whose eyes no gain is disgraceful.” In that quotation “sordid love of gain” translates the Greek aischrokerdeia, a cognate of aischrokerdes, a trait Paul says should not characterize elders (see v. 7 and comments above).

8. On this matter see especially Lock, Pastoral Epistles, 132–35; Dibelius/Conzelmann, Pastoral Epistles, 136–37. There is evidence that Epimenides, to whom the quote is attributed, was considered a prophet in ancient times. Other Greek writers also criticized the Cretans, with lying being only one of the charges. The reason for that being singled out may be that the Cretans made a preposterous claim that Zeus was buried on their island. This, of course, was not only highly offensive to Callimachus, whose scores the Cretans on that point in his Hymn to Zeus, but to others as well. Any people who brazenly claim to have the actual grave of the chief of the immortal gods and not be ashamed of that claim can certainly not be trusted.

9. See, for example, Knight, Pastoral Epistles, 299–300, and, less vigorously, Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 180.

10. Note that the NIV and NRSV clearly bring out the human factor in the Isaiah passage, but not here in Titus 1:14. The NKJV and REB have “of men” and “human” respectively, but the NIV and NRSV have only “those.”

11. For the word “conscience” see comments on 1 Tim. 1:5, 19. For sayings similar to these see Lock, Pastoral Epistles, 135–36.

12. In such passages as 1 Cor. 9:27; 2 Cor. 13:5–6; Heb. 6:8 this word carries more the idea of being rejected as useless or as not genuine.

13. Words in the epiphaneia/epiphaino (“appearance, appear”) group occur in 1 Tim. 6:14; 2 Tim. 1:10; 4:1, 8; Titus 2:11, 13; 3:4. The verb phaneroo (“manifest”) is found in 1 Tim. 3:16; 2 Tim. 1:10; and here. The idea is revelation, manifestation, coming to light. See esp. the repeated mention in Titus 2–3.

14. This is the title of a classic work on the subject by T. R. Glover (London: Methuen, 1909).

15. So far in the Pastoral Letters such command language has appeared in 1 Tim. 1:1, 3, 5, 18; 4:11; 5:7; 6:13, 17; and will recur in Titus 2:15. Words about “convicting” are in 2 Tim. 3:16; 4:2; Titus 2:15.

16. Cf. 1 Thess. 2:4, where Paul said he was “entrusted with the gospel.”

17. Alphacus Nelson Paget Wilkes, The Dynamic of Service (London: Japan Evangelistic Band, 1931; also Kansas City, Mo.: Beacon Hill, n.d.).

Original Meaning

The Need for Elders (1:5–9)

“I LEFT YOU“ in verse 5 does not mean that Paul simply dropped Titus off on the island of Crete but implies that Paul himself was there and then left Titus behind. Paul had been there briefly one previous time on his way as a prisoner to Rome (Acts 27:7–15). Crete had been the scene of the great Minoan civilization but had languished in relative obscurity for more than a millennium. It was incorporated into the Roman empire in 67 b.c. Judaism was active there during the time of the New Testament, and some Cretans were in Jerusalem when the Holy Spirit was poured out on Pentecost (Acts 2:11). The existence of a Christian community after that was probably what drew Paul there for a visit after his release from Roman imprisonment. This group of believers were apparently not well organized. If Paul made only a brief stop there, it is understandable why he left Titus to rectify the situation.

There is some ambiguity in the words “straighten out what was left unfinished,” because “straighten out” implies the existence of something that needs correction, while “what was left unfinished” implies something not yet complete. Put together, the words imply that there was some residual disorganization after Paul left, which could be remedied by what had not been done before: appointing responsible leadership. The island, approximately 156 miles long and ranging from 8 to 35 miles wide, had a number of towns scattered throughout it. In each of these towns Titus is to appoint elders. The requirements for elders that follow are probably more for the Cretans to learn than for Titus.

The Greek word in verse 5 for “appoint” is kathistemi. Of the ten words translated “ordained” in the KJV this is the only one that has a clearly “official” meaning (besides its use regarding the high priest in Heb. 5:1; 8:3).4 The word for “elders” (presbyteroi) in Titus is apparently the same as the episkopoi in 1 Timothy 3 (see comments there and in Introduction).

The first requirement for an overseer in 1 Timothy 3:2 is to be “above reproach” (lit., “cannot be criticized”). Here in Titus 1:6 the word “blameless” is a different word (lit., “cannot be accused”). The dominant idea in both lists is that an elder must have an untarnished reputation. On the translation “husband of but one wife” and related issues, see comments on 1 Timothy 3:2; it is probably better to translate this “faithful to his wife.”

There is a significant difference between the latter part of verse 6 and 1 Timothy 3:4. In 1 Timothy the elder is to manage his family well and “see that his children obey him with proper respect.” Here the elder’s children are to “believe,” as well as not be open to the charge of being “wild and disobedient.” This seems to make the parent responsible for a child’s salvation, and, by extension, would make church leadership dependent on the elders’ children. But the Greek word translated “believe” is an adjective (pistos), which can also mean “faithful” or “trustworthy” (see 2 Tim. 2:2, where it is translated “reliable” in the NIV and “faithful” in the NRSV). Thus, the meaning here may be broader than it seems at first. The fact that the emphasis in both 1 Timothy 3 and here is that elder be a person of good reputation, coupled with the fact that he receives his children’s “respect,” makes it probable that this is the emphasis here.

The NIV inserts an unwarranted “and” between “believing” and “are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient,” as though the latter were an additional requirement. Instead, the second phrase enlarges on the meaning of that previous word. Elders must be open to any inquiry about their children’s behavior, which again is a matter of reputation. Good and wise parents can influence their children’s actions and encourage them to be trustworthy, but they cannot control their spiritual response to God. The children should not incur any accusation of being “wild” (the word used here is translated “debauchery” in Eph. 5:18 and “dissipation” in 1 Peter 4:4) or “disobedient” (cf. Titus 1:10, where this word is translated “rebellious”). Thus, the phrase in verse 6 describes outrageous behavioral activity that would bring public disrepute on the eldership and the church.

In verse 7, episkopos (“overseer”) is used, suggesting that overseers and elders are identical. An alternate view is that the word means “bishop,” or at least an individual with a broader span of responsibility than (other?) elders. If so, the qualifications that follow are specific to bishops rather than merely to elders. However, with no break in the flow of characteristics but being an integrated whole (as in 1 Tim. 3:1–7), this is unlikely. Rather, the opening gar (NIV “since”) implies that this is not an additional series of requirements but an explanation or foundation for what has preceded.

The overseer/elder is to be “blameless” (the same word as in v. 6) for a specific reason: He acts as God’s steward (oikonomos; NIV, “entrusted with God’s work”). The series of qualifications that follows specifies behavioral patterns that cannot characterize an elder if he is to be considered blameless. No elder should be “overbearing”—a word used to describe the terrible false teachers of the last days in 2 Peter 2:10 (NIV, “arrogant”); it can also be translated “self-willed” or “stubborn.” “Quick-tempered” is a weak translation of an adjective that denotes not merely a matter of losing one’s temper, but of being inclined to anger, irascible. The next three characteristics to be avoided—drunkenness, violence, and pursuit of “dishonest gain”—have counterparts in 1 Timothy 3:3, 8 (see comments there).

The desirable characteristics cited in verse 8 include two that appear in 1 Timothy 3:2: hospitality and self-control (on the latter, the same idea with related words occurs in 1 Tim. 2:9, 15; 2 Tim. 1:7; Titus 2:2, 4–6, 12). “Righteous” describes God in 2 Timothy 4:8; in 1 Timothy 1:9–10 the word is used for “the righteous,” who stand in contrast to the lawbreakers. The word for “holy” can also mean pure or devout (cf. 1 Tim. 2:8). The last word, “disciplined,” does not appear elsewhere in the New Testament but its cognates do, including the aspect of the fruit of the Spirit translated “self-control” (Gal. 5:23).

Note that these characteristics are not intended to be unique to elders, for in one form or another they describe the ideal character of all Christian men and women. Their function here is to portray a morally well-rounded person, who will not disgrace the Lord and his church.

It may seem strange that more is said in Titus (1:9) about the need for an elder to be doctrinally sound and able to refute heretics than was the case in 1 Timothy 3:1–7, since the former letter deals more strongly and repeatedly with false teachers and teaching. While the present passage does go on to talk about the need to refute error (Titus 1:10–16), the content here is less strong than in 1 Timothy and is pursued further only in 3:9–11. The difference may be that in Ephesus elders already existed (Acts 20:17–35), the need for doctrinal instruction by elders was already apparent, and the great need was to realize that sound doctrine needed to be blended with godly living in contrast to the lives of the heretics. In Titus, on the other hand, although the Cretan soil was ready to nourish erroneous ideas, the need for teaching elders may not have been pointed out to them previously. Kelly says that the “twofold task of building up the faithful and eliminating error” in the latter part of Titus 1:9 is the elders’ or overseers’ “chief challenge.”5