Titus Introduction

Introduction

1. Contents. The writer, professing to be Paul the Apostle and maintaining his right to be an Apostle, sends an affectionate greeting to his son in the faith, Titus (Titus 1:1). He reminds Titus that he left him in Crete to perfect the organisation of the Church in the island, by ordaining presbyters; and he now dwells on the moral qualifications and loyalty to the faith which these Church officers must have (Titus 1:6). He points out that the Cretans, a volatile folk, need sharp teaching to keep them accurate in speech and pure in life (Titus 1:10) The old should preserve a Christian dignity, not only for their own sake, but also as a sound example for the young, that they too may be good and true (Titus 2:1). Nor should Titus forget that his own example is paramount (Titus 2:7). Servants must find in obedience to their earthly masters a way to obey God (Titus 2:9). All need to be on their guard, for all alike are waiting for the quick return of Christ, the Redeemer (Titus 2:11). Titus must further remind the Cretan Christians that they have a duty also to the un-Christian world about them; they must be good citizens and good neighbours (Titus 3:1); for as, by no merit of ours, God raised us from a heathen to a Christian life, so we should try by an attractive goodness to win others (Titus 3:3). He urges Titus not to argue, but if a man is a 'heretic,' to give him two warnings, and then shun him (Titus 3:9). With a few personal words about his own plans, a final word of advice, and a reverent farewell, the letter closes.

Authorship. The authorship of these Epistles is one of the questions of NT. criticism upon which scholars are sharply divided. The objections urged against the Pauline authorship are of different kinds and varying degrees of weight, and may be briefly enumerated as follows: (a) Historical difficulties; (b) References to heresies; (c) Church organisation; (d) The description of St. Paul in the salutations; (e) Language and style.

(a) Historical Difficulties. It is impossible to find a place for these Epistles in the scheme of St. Paul's life, which is derived from the narrative in Acts and the references in the acknowledged Epistles. The journeys to which the Apostle makes reference are inconsistent with his movements as recorded in Acts. According to 1 Timothy 1:3, Timothy had been left at Ephesus while Paul proceeded to Macedonia; but in Acts 19:22; Acts 20:1; Timothy was sent from Ephesus to Macedonia in advance of St. Paul. In 1 Timothy 3:14 the Apostle intended to return to Timothy at Ephesus; but in Acts 20:4; Timothy was with him in Greece, and in Acts 20:14; Acts 20:17; St. Paul did not go to Ephesus, but sent for the Ephesian elders to meet him at Miletus. So in 2 Timothy 4:20 the reference to Trophimus cannot relate to the journey recorded in Acts 20:17 to Acts 21:8, for Trophimus accompanied the Apostle to Jerusalem (Acts 21:29). Again, the references in Titus 1:5; Titus 3:12, where St. Paul speaks of leaving Titus in Crete and asks him to meet him at Nicopolis, cannot be connected with the only occasion on which the Apostle visited Crete according to Acts (Acts 27:8), viz. when he was a prisoner en route for Rome, where Acts leaves him still under arrest.

These difficulties, however, are obviated when the tradition is accepted that St. Paul after his first imprisonment (Acts 28:30; Philippians 1:13) was set free in 62 or 63 a.d., and arrested again in 66 or 67. In the First Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians (about 97 a.d.) the writer speaks of St. Paul having 'gone to the extreme limit of the west.' This expression in a letter written at Rome seems to point to Spain. St. Paul had once hoped to visit that country (Romans 15:24); and in the 'Muratorian Fragment,' a document of date about 200 a.d., it is indicated that he had done so: a tradition which is mentioned later by Eusebius in the 4th cent., and Chrysostom in the 5th cent. If the genuineness of the Pastoral Epistles is established on other grounds, they give powerful testimony to St. Paul's activity during the period after Acts.

(b) References to Heresies. Many critics see in these Epistles, and especially in 1 Tim (1 Timothy 1:4; 1 Timothy 4:1; 1 Timothy 6:20), references to heresies which prevailed widely in the Church during the 2nd cent., and are classed under the name of Gnosticism. These heresies dealt with solutions of the problem of evil; they combined ideas from Jewish and heathen sources with Christian truth; they tended to represent Christ's earthly career and sufferings as only seeming, not real (Docetism); and they exalted knowledge (gnosis, whence the name) as a special privilege of the few, and superior to faith, the possession of the many.

The references to heresies in the Pastoral Epistles, however, are extremely vague and indefinite. There is no reference to Docetism, such as we find in 1 John (1 John 4:1), supposed to have been written at Ephesus before 100 a.d.; and the references to false doctrines in 1 Timothy 4:1; 1 Timothy 6:20 do not seem to require a 2nd-cent. date, or to conflict with the Pauline authorship any more than the references to heresies in Colossians 2:8; Colossians 2:18; Colossians 2:23 require that Epistle to be denied to St. Paul, and assigned to the 2nd cent. In the early Church, composed, as almost every congregation was, of elements diverse in race, education, and religion, it is not surprising to find the germs of false doctrine from the beginning, showing themselves sometimes in tendencies towards Jewish legalism (1 Timothy 1:7; Titus 1:14; Titus 3:9), as was the case among the Galatians at an earlier date; sometimes in philosophical speculations drawn from heathen sources (1 Timothy 4:7; 1 Timothy 6:20), as was previously the case among the Colossians. The heresies indicated in the Pastoral Epistles seem largely Jewish in origin. They are speculations about the Law (1 Timothy 1:7 cp. 2 Timothy 3:14), about genealogies (1 Timothy 1:14; Titus 3:9), about Jewish fables (Titus 1:14, and probably also 1 Timothy 1:4; 1 Timothy 4:7); and while the ascetic practices (1 Timothy 4:1) which some taught may have had some heathen elements, they are quite as likely to have been suggested by exaggerations of Jewish ceremonialism: see Romans 14:3; 1 Corinthians 8; 1 Corinthians 8; Colossians 2:16, and cp. 1 Timothy 4:4 with Acts 10:11.

(c) Church Organisation. It has been objected to St. Paul's authorship of these letters that the indications of Church organisation are such as point to a time later than that of St. Paul. Titus was appointed to 'ordain elders in every city' (2 Thessalonians 1:5) in Crete; and both he and Timothy were instructed as to the qualifications of 'the bishop' (Titus 1:7; 1 Timothy 3:1). Timothy was also given instructions regarding the deacons (1 Timothy 3:8). The organisation, however, does not seem when examined to be more developed than was necessary in the Churches almost from the beginning. Deacons had to be appointed at a very early date in the Church at Jerusalem-although the name was not then given them, the corresponding verb is used of their work—(Acts 6:4); and elders were appointed by St. Paul in every Church in Galatia on his first missionary journey (Acts 14:23); while at Ephesus, at the end of his third journey, they were evidently a recognised body (Acts 20:17) entrusted with the duties of overseeing and teaching the flock (Acts 20:28). Nor is the term 'the bishop' (1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:7) necessarily an indication of a post-apostolic date. For (1) it is largely held that the terms 'bishop' (episcopos) and 'elder' (presbuteros) are used synonymously in these Epistles, as they undoubtedly were at an earlier period (Acts 20:28 cp. Philippians 1:1); and (2) even if, as is also influentially maintained, 'the bishop' here means the principal minister of the Church, it would still be hazardous to pronounce the Epistles non-Pauline. Many good authorities trace back the beginnings of episcopacy to the apostolic age, and so it is by no means impossible that in an apostolic Epistle, written as late as 65-67 a.d., the term 'bishop' might occur in its later sense.

(d) Paul an Apostle. Another objection has been found in the fact that, in letters written to intimate friends and disciples, the writer should emphatically assert his apostleship. This trait, it is said, indicates that they were written by some one who was using the Apostle's name at a later time, as the Apostle himself did not mention his apostleship in letters written to those with whom he was on friendly terms, whether churches or individuals (Philippians 1:1; Philemon 1:1). But these Pastoral Epistles are not, properly speaking, private letters. They were probably intended to be read to the Churches: 'the author is writing with his eye on the community'; and the fact that heresy and incipient faction were to be guarded against, sufficiently explains the assertion of apostolic dignity.

(e) Language and Style. The difference in language and style which exists between these Epistles and the undoubted letters of the Apostle is felt by many to be a serious objection to their genuineness. It is impossible here to enter into details; but there are a great many words and phrases found in these books, which are absent from the other writings of St. Paul, and there are over a hundred and seventy words used which are not elsewhere present in NT. A number of these words are, of course, necessitated by the fact that new subjects are here discussed; but there are many which cannot be thus explained. And on this ground alone many refer the Epistles to a later writer, who, according to some, has incorporated in them (especially in 2 Tim) fragments of genuine lost letters of St. Paul.

The argument from language, however, is by no means conclusive. The differences from the other Pauline Epistles in language and style may be the consequence of lapse of time. As the Apostle became older and travelled over new ground, meeting with new experiences, and making new converts, it would not be wonderful if he gained a wider command of language, and adopted a different mode of expression, according to the necessities of the case. As Farrar points out ('St. Paul': Excursus 27), 'St. Paul was the main creator of theological language.' He 'had to find the correct and adequate expression for conceptions which as yet were extremely unfamiliar. Every year would add to the vocabulary, and the harvest of new expressions would always be most rich where truths already familiar were brought into collision with heresies altogether new.' It has recently been ascertained by an examination in detail of about two hundred words which are not elsewhere found in the NT. that none of them had its origin later than St. Paul, that nearly half of them are found in the Septuagint, that over fifty are found in classical writers and writers who flourished not later than St. Paul, and that almost all the rest can be explained as necessitated by new subjects, or formed from Pauline or biblical words, or as otherwise consistent with the apostolic authorship. The argument from language would be valid and conclusive had it been shown that a number of words used in these Epistles did not come into use until after St. Paul's day. The fact that none can be shown to be of later date, but that almost all can be proved to be contemporaneous with the Apostle, indicates that there is nothing in the language of the Pastorals to conflict with their claims to be St. Paul's. It may be added that even critics adverse to the Pauline authorship recognise in these letters the reflexions of thoughts and ideas characteristic of the Apostle. Many think they see incorporated in them reminiscences of the Apostle and private notes he had written to companions and friends (e.g. 2 Timothy 1:15; 2 Timothy 4:6; Titus 3:12), and describe them as Pauline, though not by the Apostle himself. Advocates of a 2nd-cent. date admit that a detailed comparison of the Pastorals with the letters of Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp, exhibits the former as 'astonishingly superior': and acknowledge that the writer was saturated with the contents of the genuine Epistles of St. Paul. Apart, therefore, from the historical and internal difficulties which have been dealt with, the Epistles suggest the apostolic authorship, and bear the marks of St. Paul's personality; and as these difficulties seem all to be capable of explanation, we need have little hesitation in receiving them for what they profess to be.

The External Evidence for the Pastorals is both early and good. They were probably made use of in the Epistles of Ignatius and Polycarp in the first quarter of the 2nd cent.; Irenæus (circ. 180) quotes from 1 Tim as a genuine letter of St. Paul; and they seemed to have been known to the writer of the letter from Vienne and Lyons about the same date. Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria, the African contemporaries of Irenæus, also speak of them as St. Paul's. Clement of Rome, who flourished in the end of the 1st and beginning of the 2nd cent., has many parallels to passages in the Pastorals; and, though some scholars think that this arises from their origin in a similar atmosphere, and amid a common phraseology, it is quite as likely that the similarities are due to Clement's acquaintance with the contents of these letters. Marcion, the Gnostic of the 2nd cent., omits these Epistles from his collection of authoritative Christian writings, and that, too, although he was 'a Pauline enthusiast,' accepting only St. Luke's Gospel, and the other ten Epistles of St. Paul. But Marcion was bound to reject these letters, if he was to save his doctrine, which they condemned by implication, root and branch; and no argument against their genuineness can be based upon the evidence of so interested and so prejudiced a witness. The external evidence therefore goes to support the view that St. Paul was the author.

Value of the Epistle. It will be seen that the chief value of the Epistle lies in its common-sense and spirituality, and is not dependent upon date or authorship. Even those critics who believe it pseudonymous explain that, in an age of different literary ethics from ours, a pupil honoured his master by writing in his name what he believed his master would write were he still alive. As the Epistle has, all through Christian history, been a store-house of good advice for Church officers, so it must continue to be, whatever the outcome of modern scholarship about it. “We catch a glimpse of the development of the ministry, and of a growing insistence on orthodoxy, which seem to some recent scholars beyond what we see in former writings of St. Paul. This contention cannot be granted without serious qualification; for even those most willing to question the early crystallisation of Christian tradition are now more and more tending to admit that, before the last decades of the 1st cent., Christianity was definitely organised; and the movement towards an intellectual basis for faith was certainly well within St. Paul's active career—even if 'faith' to him was ordinarily 'a firm hold upon spiritual realities,' it often stood squarely for 'the Christian system,' whether doctrinal or institutional (e.g. Romans 1:5; Galatians 1:23; Philippians 1:27 cp. also Acts 6:7; Acts 13:8; Acts 14:22; Acts 16:5; Acts 24:24). Moreover, even in this Epistle, soundness in doctrine means soundness in morality rather than soundness in creed (see on Titus 2:1). However, though we grant the most radical view of this advance of organisation and doctrine, the questions arising from it are no longer of first importance; because those who look to primitive authority for ministry and creed are increasingly assured that the development as well as the inception of Christianity is a divine act, so that for them the divine authority of ministry and creed is not weakened if a document be proved of somewhat later date than it was formerly thought to be. For all readers, therefore, the interest of the Epistle is not so much historical or controversial, as practical and spiritual. Once admitted to canonical Scripture, it holds its place on its own merits.

Authorship and Date. Till recent times, with essential unanimity, this Epistle was ascribed to St. Paul. It is true that the heretic Marcion omitted it from his list of St. Paul's Epistles, but his doctrinal reasons for this are so evident as to rob his omission of significance. In the last cent., when biblical criticism began, Titus was set down as a forgery of the 2nd cent. To-day critics are finding in it what they believe undoubted fragments of St. Paul, and are calling it 'sub-Pauline,' with a date between 90 and 120 a.d. The trend even among radical scholars is, therefore, toward the traditional view of authorship.

The authorship is wisely left more or less open. The discovery of a few pages of early Christian MS might turn the question one way or the other. A few points are becoming clear; the first of which is that if St. Paul is the author, he was released from his first Roman imprisonment, and, in the interval before his final imprisonment, visited some of his Churches. We may safely say that if the Epistle is his, he wrote it about 64 a.d. If authentic, this Epistle (with 1 and 2 Tim) practically proves that St. Paul was released after the imprisonment recorded in the Acta. There is much in known Roman procedure to commend such a theory; the argument from silence is the most formidable obstacle.
The difficulties attending the ascription of the Epistle to St. Paul are important in the aggregate rather than separately. A fairly good answer can be made to each objection. (1) Writing personally to an intimate friend, the author asserts his apostleship too strenuously; but St. Paul was old and worn, and one who, younger, wrote Galatians, would, even to an intimate, be apt to say what we find in the opening words of Titus: old men much in the public eye are always quite aware that private correspondence, not strictly confidential, is wont to reach many persons, (2) If the author was St. Paul, he put an emphasis upon organisation and orthodoxy quite unlike himself in his other Epistles. But St. Paul was older, new experiences drive to new moods, the exigencies of the Church created new needs, therefore there would be reason for conservatism. Men now, with sense of responsibility, tend to become conservative in age, however radical in youth. Besides, organisation and orthodoxy in this Epistle are stressed only for moral and spiritual ends: they seem to have little value in themselves. There is only slight advance upon St. Paul's other Epistles here. (3) The facts of Church organisation implied in both Titus, 1 and 2 Timothy seem too far beyond the facts revealed in St. Paul's earlier Epistles; but the most ardent believer in organisation can find in these Epistles only a still indefinite organisation, the functions of the officers are not clear, and the bishop seems at most only emerging from among the presbyters; certainly he is very far from the official described by Ignatius. Knowing the development that came later, we should expect the ministry in the year 64 to be much like this fluid picture in the Pastoral Epistles. (4) The most serious difficulty is the change in language and style from St. Paul's former modes of expression. In 46 verses are 26 words not used in any other known Epistles of St. Paul. Favourite words and particles are quite absent, and other expressions and turns (common to Titus, 1 and 2 Timothy) take their place. Even the lapse of several years seems inadequate to explain the change of style; but the spirit of St. Paul, more subtle than language, is evident; so that the best explanation if we ascribe the Epistle to St. Paul, is to say that he left unusual liberty to his amanuensis. For a fuller discussion see 'General Intro to the Pastoral Epistles.'

The Pastoral Epistles
General Introduction

The two Epistles to Timothy and the Epistle to Titus constitute a group by themselves, and are usually called 'The Pastoral Epistles,' because they deal to a large extent with matters of Church organisation and government. That they were all written by one author is generally agreed, not only by those who accept the tradition that St. Paul was the writer, but also by those who reject it. It will be convenient, therefore, to discuss the points common to all three, before dealing with each in detail.

Date. Accepting the Pauline authorship, we may conclude that these Epistles were written during the interval between the first and the second imprisonment of St. Paul at Rome. The Apostle arrived in Rome (Acts 28:16) probably early in the year 59. He was a prisoner there, dwelling in his own hired house (Acts 28:16; Acts 28:30) for two years. There the Acts of the Apostles leaves him. His appeal, however, seems to have been sustained and himself afterwards set at liberty. If he visited Spain, it must have been immediately after his release. Subsequently he revisited the scene of his earlier labours in Macedonia, and possibly in Ephesus (1 Timothy 1:3). Timothy had been in Ephesus for some time, and the Apostle asked him to remain there for a longer period. To instruct him further regarding his action in the difficult situation he had to face, St. Paul wrote the First Epistle to him from Macedonia, perhaps in 65 or 66. About the same time, or very soon after, he wrote the Epistle to Titus. From it we learn that Titus was in Crete, where he had been left by the Apostle (2 Thessalonians 1:5), who had visited the island probably on his way to Macedonia. St. Paul asked him to join him in the winter of the same year at Nicopolis. From Nicopolis St. Paul returned to Rome, whether under arrest or of his own will we cannot tell; but if he arrived a free man he was very soon a prisoner. From prison he wrote the Second Epistle to Timothy asking him to come to him (2 Timothy 4:9). Where Timothy was at that time does not appear. He seems to have left Ephesus, otherwise he would have known of Trophimus having been invalided at Miletus, which was close by, and also of the visit of Tychicus (2 Timothy 4:12; 2 Timothy 4:20). The Apostle felt that he was nearing his end (2 Timothy 4:6); he had already appeared before his judges (2 Timothy 4:16), but he evidently expected to be condemned. The Second Epistle to Timothy was thus written shortly before the Apostle's martyrdom in 67 or 68.

Church Organisation. The state of Church organisation exhibited in these Epistles is exactly what might be expected to have existed in the later years of St. Paul's life. When the Apostle in his first missionary operations had made a number of converts in any town or district sufficient to constitute a congregation, he appointed presbyters to minister and rule in it (Acts 14:23), perhaps also, as many maintain, a leading or presiding presbyter (episcopos) with special authority—all of them looking to the Apostle as their superior. When he, however, was no longer able himself to visit and control the various presbyters, and set in order the things that might be amiss, he selected one of his companions and assistants to act in his stead. This was the state of things in Ephesus (1 Timothy 1:3) and Crete (Titus 1:5). St. Paul had appointed Timothy and Titus to be his delegates in these places, though their duty in that capacity may only have been temporary (2 Timothy 4:9; 2 Timothy 4:21; Titus 3:12).

One of their duties was to appoint presbyters (elders) and (if presiding presbyters had been already introduced) bishops in these Churches (1 Timothy 3:1; Titus 1:3), who were to bear rule over the brethren (1 Timothy 5:17), and to teach and preach (1 Timothy 5:17; Titus 1:9). The functions of these officers, however, are not minutely detailed: it is their character upon which the Apostle dwells. The qualities in which they are to be preëminent are moral qualities, and they are to be held in honour in proportion to their diligence induty and faithfulness in teaching (1 Timothy 5:17).

Besides them, there were to be deacons appointed, whose duties would be much the same as those of the deacons appointed in Jerusalem in the earliest days of the Church (Acts 6:1). They would have charge of the temporal affairs of the Church, but might, like Stephen, also have part in purely spiritual work. The Apostle in their case also dwells not upon their functions, but upon their character (1 Timothy 3:8). Perhaps also deaconesses were appointed, charged with the care of the women in the Church and with the duty of commending the gospel to women outside its pale (1 Timothy 3:11, where many translate 'their wives,' RV 'women,' as 'deaconesses': see note there).

Christian Doctrine. Much stress is laid by the Apostle upon the proclamation of the true faith. Exception has been taken to the genuineness of the Epistle on the ground of the Apostle's insistence upon sound doctrine. But nothing could be more natural, as nothing was more necessary, than that emphasis should be laid upon doctrine, when heresy was rampant, and that the importance of the truth should be asserted in presence of false teaching. In any case, the doctrines taught are doctrines which St. Paul was continually insisting upon: God's desire that all men should be saved (cp. 1 Timothy 2:4 with Romans 3:29; Romans 10:12); Christ's manifestation as our Saviour, and His giving Himself as a ransom (1 Timothy 2:6); His death and resurrection (2 Timothy 2:8; 2 Timothy 2:11; 2 Timothy 4:8); our spiritual union with Him (2 Timothy 2:11; 2 Timothy 3:11); salvation not of works, but of free grace (Titus 3:5), etc. So in characteristically Pauline fashion practical teaching is closely connected with doctrinal, and the moral aspect of faith in Christ is impressed upon the recipients of the letters. It is doubtless important to 'hold fast the form of sound words,' but it is because the results of 'sound doctrine' are manifest in life and conduct (1 Timothy 1:9; 2 Timothy 4:3; Titus 2:1). A feature of the Epistles is the recurrence of the phrase 'Faithful is the saying,' used to introduce maxims of truth or duty. This expression occurs five times, viz. 1 Timothy 1:15; 1 Timothy 3:1; 1 Timothy 4:9; 2 Timothy 2:11; Titus 3:8. It would seem to point to the fact that favourite sayings or watchwords were current among the Christians by this time—perhaps extracts from manuals of instruction, which had already begun to be prepared for the use of the presbyters in preparing converts for baptism—which were quoted by the Apostle.