Titus Epistle To
See Timothy and Titus, Epistles to.
Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church
Titus, Epistle To
This is the third of the so-called Pastoral Epistles of Paul, following immediately after those to Timothy.
I. Authenticity. In this respect there are no specialties in this epistle which require any very elaborate treatment distinct from the other Pastoral Letters of Paul. SEE TIMOTHY, FIRST EPISTLE TO. If those two were not genuine, it would be-difficult confidently to maintain the genuineness of this. On the other hand, if the Epistles to Timothy are received as Paul’s, there is not the slightest reason for doubting the authorship of that to Titus. Amid the various combinations which are found among those who have been skeptical on the subject of the Pastoral Epistles, there is no instance of the rejection of that before us on the part of those who have accepted the other two. So far, indeed, as these doubts are worth considering at all, the argument is more in favor of this than of either of those. Tatian accepted the Epistle to Titus, and rejected the other, two. Origen mentions some who excluded 2 Timothy, but kept 1 Timothy with Titus. Schleiermacher and Neander invert this process of doubt in regard to the letters addressed to Timothy, but believe that Paul wrote the present letter to Titus. Credner, too, believes it to be genuine, though he pronounces 1 Timothy to be a forgery, and 2 Timothy a compound of two epistles.
To turn now from opinions to direct external evidence, this epistle stands on quite as firm a ground as the others of the pastoral group, if not a firmer ground. Nothing can well be more explicit than the quotations and references in Irenaeus, C. Haeres. 1, 16, 3 (see Tit 3:10); Clem. Alex. Strom. 1, 350 (comp. Tit 1:12), and Tit 3:3-4; by Tertull. De Prcescr. H1er. c. 6 (comp. Tit 3:10-11), and Adv. Marc. 5, 21; and by Origen, in many places (Lardner, Works, vol. 2, 8vo); to say nothing of earlier allusions in Justin Martyr, Dial. c. Tryph. 47 (see Tit 3:4), which can hardly be doubted; Theoph. Ad Autol. 2,. 95 (see Tit 3:5); 3, 126 (see Tit 3:1), which are probable; and Clem. Romans 2 Corinthians 1 (see ibid.), which is possible.
As to internal features, we may notice, in the first place, that the Epistle to Titus has all the characteristics of the other Pastoral Epistles. See, for instance, (Tit 3:8), (Tit 1:9; Tit 2:1; comp. Tit 1:13; Tit 2:8), , , (Tit 1:8; Tit 2:5-6; Tit 2:12), , , (Tit 1:3-4; Tit 2:10-11; Tit 2:13; Tit 3:4-5; Tit 3:7), (Tit 1:14; comp. Tit 3:9), (Tit 2:13), (Tit 1:1), ) (Tit 3:5; in Tit 1:4 the word is doubtful). All this tends to show that this letter was written about the same time and under similar circumstances with the other two. But, on the other hand, this epistle has marks in its phraseology and style which assimilate it to the general body of the Epistles of Paul. Such may fairly be reckoned the following: (Tit 1:3); the quotation from a heathen poet (Tit 1:12); the use of (Tit 1:16); the going off at a word (… … .. . Tit 2:10-11); and the modes in which the doctrines of the atonement (Tit 2:13) and of free justification (Tit 3:5-7) come to the surface. As to any difficulty arising from supposed indications of advanced hierarchical arrangements, it is to be observed that in this epistle and are used as synonymous ( … … Tit 1:5; Tit 1:7), just as they are in the address at Miletus about the year A.D. 55 (Act 20:17; Act 20:28). At the same time, this epistle has features of its own, especially a certain tone of abruptness and severity, which probably arises partly out of the circumstances of the Cretan population, SEE CRETE, partly out of the character of Titus himself. If all these things are put together, the phenomena are seen to be very unlike what would be presented by a forgery, to say nothing of the general overwhelming difficulty of imagining who could have been the writer of the Pastoral Epistles, if it were not Paul himself.
To the objections of the German critics, founded upon the difficulty of ascertaining the proper date of this epistle, the best reply will be furnished by ascertaining, if possible, when and where the epistle was written (see below); but even should we fail in this, it would be strange were we to relinquish our conviction of the authenticity of an ancient writing simply because, possessing very imperfect information as to many parts of the alleged author’s history, we were unable to say with certainty when he was in circumstances to compose it.
I. Date. The only circumstances stated in the epistle itself calculated to aid us in determining this question are, that at the time it was written Paul had recently visited Crete (Tit 1:5); that he was about to spend the winter in Nicopolis (Tit 3:12); and that Apollos was about to visit Crete, on his way to some other place (Tit 3:13). There are three hypotheses that have been formed in order to meet these facts, especially the first, namely Paul’s visit to Crete.
1. We learn from the Acts of the Apostles that Paul visited Crete on his voyage to Rome (Act 27:7); but the shortness of his visit at that time, the circumstances under which it was made, and the improbability of his expecting to spend the ensuing winter at Nicopolis, place it out of the question to suppose that it was to this visit he refers in this epistle. As this is, however, the only visit recorded by Luke, in rejecting it we are forced to suppose another visit, and to find some period in the apostle’s life when it was probable that such a visit was paid.
2. It has been thought by Hug that the period referred to in Act 18:18-19 admits of our placing this visit to Crete within it. Paul, at that time, was on his journey from Corinth to Palestine, but on some account or other landed at Ephesus. This leads to the suggestion that the apostle must either voluntarily have departed from the usual course in order to visit some place lying between Corinth and Ephesus; or that he must have been driven by stress of weather from the course he meant to pursue. In either case the probability of his visiting Crete at that time is strong. We find, from the above statement made by Paul in this epistle, that Apollos, if at this time on his way from Ephesus to Corinth (Act 18:24; Act 18:27; Act 19:1), was to touch at Crete; which, it has been assumed, renders it not improbable that it was customary for ships sailing between these two ports to call at Crete by the way; and Paul may have availed himself of this practice in order to visit Crete before going to Palestine. Or he may have sailed in a ship bound directly from Corinth to Palestine, and have been driven out of his course, shipwrecked on Crete, and obliged to sail thence to Ephesus as his only remaining method of getting to his original destination a supposition which will not appear very improbable when we remember that Paul must have suffered several shipwrecks of which Luke gives no account (2Co 11:25-26); and that his getting to Ephesus on his way from Corinth to Palestine is a fact for which, in some way or other, we are bound to account. (Paul evidently, however, took that route as the only one of general travel, there being no vessel sailing direct from Corinth to Caesarea or Antioch.) It was while staying on this occasion at Ephesus that Hug supposes Paul to have written this epistle.
As confirmatory of this have been adduced the two other facts above referred to as mentioned in the epistle itself, viz. the visit of Apollos to Crete, and Paul’s intention to winter at Nicopolis. From Act 19:1 we learn that during the time Apollos was residing at Corinth, whence he had gone from Ephesus, Paul was engaged in a tour through the upper coasts (viz. Phrygia and Galatia; comp. Act 18:23), which ended in his return to Ephesus. This tour was commenced after the apostle had been at Jerusalem and Antioch (Act 18:22). It appears, therefore, that Paul left Antioch much about the same time that Apollos reached Corinth. But Apollos went to Corinth from Ephesus, Paul went to Jerusalem from Ephesus. At this city, therefore, they may have met; and before leaving it Paul perhaps wrote this epistle, and gave it to Apollos to deliver to Titus at Crete, on his way to Corinth.
Further. Paul went up to Jerusalem to keep the feast; after which he visited Antioch, and then traveled for some considerable time in Upper Asia. He, therefore, is supposed to have spent the winter somewhere in Asia Minor. (On the contrary, he seems to have rapidly passed through that region.). Now there was a town named Nicopolis, between Antioch and Tarsus, near to which, if not through which, Paul must pass on his way from Antioch to Galatia (Strabo, 14:465, ed. Casaubon, fol. 1587). May not this have been the very place referred to in Tit 3:12? In such a locality it was quite natural for Paul to desire to spend the winter; and as Titus was a native of Asia, it would be well known to him, especially if he knew what route the apostle designed to pursue. All this, it is held, supports the hypothesis that Paul wrote this epistle before leaving Ephesus to go to Syria.
Another circumstance alleged in favor of this hypothesis is the close resemblance in sentiment and phraseology between this epistle and the first Epistle to Timothy. This resemblance is so close, and in some particulars so peculiar, that we are naturally led to conclude that both must have been written while the same leading ideas and forms of expression were occupying the apostle’s mind. Now the First Epistle to Timothy is held by the maintainers of this theory to have been written after Paul had left Ephesus the second time to go into Macedonia, that is, about two years and a half after the period when Hug supposes the Epistle to Titus to have been written. To some this may appear too long a time to justify any stress being laid upon the similarity of the two epistles in this question of their respective dates; but when it is remembered that during the interval Paul had been dealing at Ephesus; with very much the same class of persons, to whom a great part of both epistles refer, and that both are addressed to persons holding the same peculiar office, the force of this objection will be weakened.
Against this date, on the contrary, may justly be adduced the many precarious, and (as above seen) some positively inaccurate, assumptions necessary to its support. The main objection, however, is the exceeding improbability that Paul, while on his way from Corinth to Palestine, which he was in haste to reach by a given day (Act 18:18; Act 18:20-21), could have found time to stop at Crete, found numerous churches there (Tit 1:5), and leave Titus in charge of them. Nor have we any evidence that on the voyage in question Paul was accompanied by Titus; nor yet that the individuals mentioned in Tit 3:12-13, were at that time so located with reference to Paul and Titus. For these and other reasons, this hypothesis must be discarded as too problematical throughout.
3. As to the time and place and other circumstances of the writing of this epistle, the following scheme of filling up Paul’s movements after his first imprisonment will satisfy all the conditions of the case: We may suppose him possibly after accomplishing his long-projected visit to Spain) to have gone to Ephesus, and taken voyages from thence, first to Macedonia and then to Crete; during the former to have written the First Epistle to Timothy, and after returning from the latter to have written the Epistle to Titus, being at the time of dispatching it on the point of starting for Nicopolis, to which place he went, taking Miletus and Corinth on the way. At Nicopolis we may conceive him to have been finally apprehended and taken to Rome, whence he wrote the Second Epistle to Timothy. 1 Other possible combinations may be seen in Birks (Horae Apostolicae 301 at the end of his edition of the Horae Pauline, p. 299301) and in Wordsworth (Greek Testament, 3, 418,421.’It is an undoubted mistake to endeavor to insert this epistle in any period of that part of Paul’s life which is recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. There is in this writing that unmistakable difference of style (as compared with. the earlier epistles) which associates the Pastoral Letters with one another, and with the latest period of Paul’s life; and it seems strange that this should have been so slightly observed by good scholars and exact chronologists, e.g. Archdn. Evans (Script. ioy. 3. 327-333) and Wieseler (Chronol. des capost. Zeitalt. 329-355), who, approaching the subject in very different ways, agree in holding the foregoing theory (No. 2) that this letter was written at Ephesus (between 1 and 2 Corinthians), when the apostle was in the early part of his third missionary journey (Acts 19). SEE PAUL; SEE TITUS.
III. Design and Contents. The task which Paul had committed to Titus, when he left him in Crete, was one of no small difficulty. The character of the people was unsteady, insincere, and quarrelsome; they were given to greediness, licentiousness, falsehood, and drunkenness, in no ordinary degree; and the Jews who had settled among them appear to have even gone beyond the natives in immorality. Among such a people it was no easy office which Titus had to sustain when commissioned to carry forward the work which Paul had begun, and to set in order the affairs of the churches which had arisen there, especially as heretical teachers had already crept in among them. Hence Paul addressed to him this epistle, the main design of which is to direct him how to discharge with success the duties to which he had been appointed. For this reason the apostle dilates upon the personal qualifications of Church officers and members, and their functions, with such local allusions as rendered these directions, especially pertinent. After the introductory salutation, which has marked peculiarities (Tit 1:1-4), Titus is enjoined to appoint suitable presbyters in the Cretan Church, and specially such as shall be sound in doctrine and able to refute error (Tit 1:5-9). The apostle then passes to a description of the coarse character of the Cretans, as testified by their own writers, and the mischief caused by Judaizing. error among the Christians of the island (Tit 1:10-16). In opposition to this, Titus is to urge sound and practical Christianity on all classes (Tit 2:1-10), on the older men (Tit 2:2), on the older women, and especially in regard to their-influence over the younger women (Tit 2:3-5), on the younger men (Tit 2:6-8), on slaves (Tit 2:9-10), taking heed meanwhile that he himself is a pattern of good works (Tit 2:7). The grounds of all this are given in the free grace which trains the Christian to self-denying and active piety (Tit 2:11-12), in the glorious hope of Christ’s second advent (Tit 2:13), and in the atonement by which he has purchased us, to be his people (Tit 2:14). All these lessons Titus is to urge with fearless decision (Tit 2:15). Next, obedience to rulers is enjoined, with gentleness and forbearance towards all men, these duties being again rested on our sense of past sin (Tit 2:3), and on the gift of new. spiritual life and free justification (Tit 2:4-7). With these practical duties are contrasted those idle speculations which are to be carefully avoided (Tit 2:8-9); and with regard to those men who are positively heretical, a peremptory charge is given (Tit 2:10-11). Some personal allusions then follow: Artemas or Tychicus may be expected at Crete, and on the arrival: of either of them Titus is to hasten to join the apostle at Nicopolis, where he intends to winter; Zenas the lawyer, also, and Apollos, are to be provided with all that is necessary for a journey in prospect (Tit 2:12-13). Finally, before the concluding messages of salutation, an admonition is given to the Cretan Christians, that they give heed to the duties of practical useful piety (Tit 2:14-15).
IV. Commentaries. The following are the special exegetical helps on the whole of this epistle exclusively: Megander, Expositio [includ. Timothy] (Basil. 1536, 8vo); Willich, Expositio (Lips. 1540, 8vo); Hoffmann, Commentarius (Frcft. 1541, 8vo); Culmann, Notae (Norib. 1546, 8vo); Alesius, Explicatio (Lips. 1550, 8vo); Espencasus [Romans Cath.], Commentarius (Par. 1568, 8vo); Hunnius, Expositio (Marp. 1587,1604; Vitemb. 1610, 8vo); Rhodomann, Commentarius (Jen. 1597, 8vo); Maglian [R. C.], Commentarius (Lugd. 1609, 4to); Sotto [R. C.], Commentarius [includ. Timothy] (Par. 1610, fol.); Taylor, Commentary (Camb. 1612, 4to; 1658, fol.); Scultetnus, Observationes [includ. Timothy and, Philem.] (Frcft. 1624; Vitemb. 1630, 4to); Goupil [R. C.], Paraphrasis (Par. 1644, 8vo); Daille, Sermons [Fr.] (ibid. 1655, 8vo); Hobert [R. C.], Expositio [includ. Timothy and Philem.] (ibid. 1656, 8vo); Wallis, Expositio (Oxon. 1657, 8vo); Fecht, Expositio (Rost. 1692,1700, 4to); Rappolt, Observationes, (in his Opp. 1, 781); Breithaupt, Exercitatio (Hal. 1703, 4to); Outhof, Verkltaarting (Amst. 1704, 4to); Zentgrav, Commentarius (Arg. 1706, 4to); Gebhard, Paraphrasis (Gryph. 1714, 4to); Koehnen, Verklaaring (Utr. 1724, 4to); Vitringa, Verklaaring (Franek. 1728, 4to); Rambach, Erklarung [includ. Galatians] (Gies. 1739, 4to); Van Haven, Commentatio (Hal. 1742, 4to); Hurter, Cozmmentarius (Schafh. 1744, 4to); Mosheim, Erklarung (ed. Von Eincnm, Stend. 1779, 4to); Kiinol, Explicatio (Lips. 1788, 4to); Van den Ess, Compositio (L. B. 1825, 8vo); Paterson, Commentary [includ. Timothy] (Lond. 1848,18mo); Graham, Commentary (ibid. 1860,12mo). SEE EPISTLE. Titus, bishop OF BOSTRA, in Arabia, was driven from his see, under Julian, A.D. 362; returned under Valentinian; and died about A.D. 371. He wrote Contra Manichoos Lib. III, which is extant in a Latin translation in Biblioth. Pair. tom. 4. A discourse On the Branches of Palm, Greek and Latin, and a Commentary on Luke, in Latin, have been published under his name, but are questioned. Mosheim, Eccles. Hist. 1, 248. See Herzog, Real- Encyklop. s.v.
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
Titus, Epistle to
was probably written about the same time as the first epistle to Timothy, with which it has many affinities. “Both letters were addressed to persons left by the writer to preside in their respective churches during his absence. Both letters are principally occupied in describing the qualifications to be sought for in those whom they should appoint to offices in the church; and the ingredients of this description are in both letters nearly the same. Timothy and Titus are likewise cautioned against the same prevailing corruptions, and in particular against the same misdirection of their cares and studies. This affinity obtains not only in the subject of the letters, which from the similarity of situation in the persons to whom they were addressed might be expected to be somewhat alike, but extends in a great variety of instances to the phrases and expressions. The writer accosts his two friends with the same salutation, and passes on to the business of his letter by the same transition (comp. 1 Tim. 1:2, 3 with Titus 1:4, 5; 1 Tim.1:4 with Titus 1:13, 14; 3:9; 1 Tim. 4:12 with Titus 2:7, 15).”, Paley’s Horae Paulinae.
The date of its composition may be concluded from the circumstance that it was written after Paul’s visit to Crete (Titus 1:5). That visit could not be the one referred to in Acts 27:7, when Paul was on his voyage to Rome as a prisoner, and where he continued a prisoner for two years. We may warrantably suppose that after his release Paul sailed from Rome into Asia and took Crete by the way, and that there he left Titus “to set in order the things that were wanting.” Thence he went to Ephesus, where he left Timothy, and from Ephesus to Macedonia, where he wrote First Timothy, and thence to Nicopolis in Epirus, from which place he wrote to Titus, about A.D. 66 or 67.
In the subscription to the epistle it is said to have been written from “Nicopolis of Macedonia,” but no such place is known. The subscriptions to the epistles are of no authority, as they are not authentic.
Fuente: Easton’s Bible Dictionary
Titus, Epistle To
TITUS, EPISTLE TO.This Epistle was written by St. Paul (Tit 1:1) to Titus while the latter was acting as his delegate in Crete (Tit 1:5). It may have been a reply to a request from Titus for guidance, or may have been written by the Apostle on his own initiative, to assist his delegate in the difficulties that faced him. St. Paul had come to Crete in company with Titus (Tit 1:5), but, having to leave before he could complete his work there, he left Titus behind to set in order things that were wanting.
As far as our records tell us, this was the first missionary visit of St. Paul to the island. No doubt on his journey as prisoner from Csarea to Rome he was windbound under its lee, sheltering from unfavourable winds at Fair Havens (Act 27:7-8); but we are not told that he landed on this occasion, and it is probable that, as a change of wind was being anxiously waited for, he was unable to leave the ship. In any case there was no opportunity then granted him of prosecuting any effective evangelization.
It has been thought possible that the visit alluded to in our Epistle might have taken place during the Apostles lengthened sojourn at Corinth (Act 18:11) or at Ephesus (Act 19:10). Such a visit is possible, but we have no record of it; while the general literary style of the Epistle marks it distinctly as belonging to the same group as 1 and 2 Timothy, which group on strong grounds must be held to belong to that period of St. Pauls life which intervened between his two Roman imprisonments (see Timothy [Epistles to]).
From the Epistle it is evident that, though the Cretan Church was lacking in organization, yet it was of some years standing. We read of several cities having congregations in need of supervision (Tit 1:5), and of elders to be chosen from among those who were fathers of believing (i.e. Christian) families (v. 5); while the heresies dealt with are those that are in opposition to true doctrine, rather than such as might occur in a young Church through ignorance of truth.
The Cretan character was not high. Ancient writers describe their avarice, ferocity, fraud, and mendacity, and the Apostle himself quotes (Tit 1:12) Epimenides, one of their own poets, as saying Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, idle gluttons. Christianity, without the discipline of a firm organization, springing up in such soil, would naturally be weakened and corrupted by the national vices. We are not surprised, then, to find the Apostle in this Epistle laying the chief emphasis on the importance of personal holiness of character, and insisting that right belief must issue in useful, fruitful life (Tit 1:15-16; Tit 1:2 passim Tit 3:8; Tit 3:14). The chief errorists mentioned by him are unruly men, vain talkers, and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, who led men astray for filthy lucres sake (Tit 1:10-11), men who professed that they knew God but denied Him in their lives (Tit 1:16), and men who were heretical (RVm [Note: Revised Version margin.] factious, Tit 3:10). The type of error to be resisted is also seen in the caution given to Titus to avoid foolish questions, genealogies (i.e. Jewish legendary history), and strifes and fightings about the Law, as unprofitable and vain (Tit 3:9).
These dangers to the Christian faith are very similar to those opposed in 1 Timothy; with, however, this difference, that none of those mentioned here seems to have its origin in the incipient Gnosticism which in a measure affected the Church in Ephesus, where Timothy was in charge. The false doctrines in Crete are predominantly, if not exclusively, Jewish in origin, and it is known that Jews abounded in Crete.
The ecclesiastical organization, entrusted to Titus for establishment, is of the simplest kind, merely the ordination of elders (Tit 1:5; spoken of as bishops v. 7)officers which it had been the custom of the Apostle from the first to appoint in the Churches he established (Act 14:23). The appointment of presbyters was left entirely in the hands of Titus; but while this was so, it is evident that it would he necessary for him to consult the congregations over whom the elders were to be appointed, for he is charged to select only those whose reputation should be blameless in the eyes of their fellow-Christians. Further, the presbyter is spoken of as Gods steward, so that the authority committed to him by Titus was ultimately derived from God and not from man. No mention is made in this Epistle of deacons, deaconesses, or widowsa fact which so far distinguishes it from 1 Timothy.
The Epistle claims to be written by St. Paul (Tit 1:1); and its authenticity is established by the same considerations as establish that of 1 and 2 Timothy, with which Epistles it is closely allied in general situation, external attestation, and literary style. For a discussion of the questions involved in this connexion the reader is referred to art. Timothy [Epistles to].
The Epistle was probably brought to Titus by the hands of Zenas and Apollos (Tit 3:13).
Charles T. P. Grierson.
Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible
Titus, Epistle to
See PASTORAL EPISTLES.
Fuente: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Titus, Epistle to
The genuineness of this Epistle is attested by a large body of evidence, and seems never to have been questioned, except by the heretic Marcion, and that upon the most frivolous grounds, until, in recent times, it was attacked by Eichborn and De Wette. But their objections are of such a nature that it is unnecessary to enter upon any examination of them here.
It has been supposed, on apparently good grounds, that the apostle wrote this epistle at Ephesus shortly after he had visited Crete (Tit 1:5), and when he was about to spend the winter in Nicopolis (Tit 3:12). From the close resemblance between this epistle and the first epistle to Timothy, we are naturally led to conclude that both must have been written while the same leading ideas and forms of expression were occupying the apostle’s mind.
The task which Paul had committed to Titus, when he left him in Crete, was one of no small difficulty. The character of the people was unsteady, insincere, and quarrelsome; they were given to greediness, licentiousness, falsehood, and drunkenness, in no ordinary degree; and the Jews who had settled among them appear to have even gone beyond the natives in immorality. Among such a people it was no easy office which Titus had to sustain when commissioned to carry forward the work Paul had begun, and to set in order the affairs of the churches which had arisen there, especially as heretical teachers had already crept in among them. Hence Paul addressed to him this Epistle, the main design of which is to direct him how to discharge with success the duties to which he had been appointed. For this purpose the apostle dilates upon the qualifications of elders, and points out the vices from which such should be free (Titus 1).
He then describes the virtues most becoming in aged persons, in the female sex, in the young, in servants, and in Christians generally (Titus 2). From this he proceeds to enjoin obedience to civil rulers moderation, gentleness, and the avoidance of all idle and unprofitable speculations (Tit 3:1-11). He then invites Titus to join him at Nicopolis, commends to him certain brethren who were about to visit Crete, and concludes with the apostolic benediction (Tit 3:12-15).
Fuente: Popular Cyclopedia Biblical Literature
Titus, Epistle to
One of the Pastoral Epistles, so called because addressed to an individual servant of the Lord. It was apparently written after Paul’s first imprisonment at Rome (when otherwise could he have left Titus at Crete? Tit 1:5), and before his second imprisonment. From whence it was written is not known: its date may be about A.D. 64. The epistle urges the maintenance of good works and order in the church, and states the principles on which they are founded.
After the introductory salutation in which the counsels of God are referred to, and the acknowledging of truth which is according to piety, Paul states for what purpose he had left Titus at Crete: 1, to set in order things that were still left incomplete; and 2, to establish elders in every city, which elders are in Tit 1:7 called ‘bishops,’ or overseers. The qualifications for such an office are then given: no particular gift is essential, but blameless moral character is indispensable, and soundness in the faith. There were at Crete many deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, whose mouths must be stopped.
The Cretans had a bad reputation nationally, as appears from one of themselves who had said, “The Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” (The quotation is from Epimenides, a poet of the sixth century B.C. His sayings were quoted as oracles, which may account for his being called a ‘prophet.’) They were to be rebuked sharply that they might be sound in the faith. To the pure all things are pure, but nothing is pure to the defiled and unbelieving, the mind and conscience being defiled.
Titus 2. Titus was to speak things that became sound teaching, with exhortations suited to those of different ages, and to servants, himself being in all things a pattern of good works, and his teaching such as could not be condemned. Then follows a summary of Christianity as a practical power in man, by the teaching of grace. The grace of God that carries salvation for all has appeared, teaching how a Christian is to live, awaiting the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and Saviour Jesus Christ, who died to redeem such from all lawlessness, and to purify to Himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.
Titus 3. Titus was to teach subjection to worldly powers and obedience to every good work. They had been characterised by ungodliness, but the kindness and love of the Saviour-God having appeared, He according to His mercy had saved them by the washing of regeneration (the moral cleansing connected with the new order of things in Christianity: cf. Mat 19:28), and renewal of the Holy Spirit, which He had richly poured out upon them through Jesus Christ their Saviour (the ‘renewal’ is more than new birth, it is the Spirit’s active energy in the believer), that, having been justified by His grace, they should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. Titus was to insist on the maintenance of good works, but foolish questions were to be avoided. A heretic, after two admonitions, was to be abandoned: he was self-condemned. A few personal details are added, and the epistle closes with the benediction.