1:1 The letter to Titus shares with the letters to Timothy the designation “pastoral.” The image is that of a pastor caring for and advising an established Christian community, rather than that of an evangelist spreading the word to new communities. Although the opening of the letter identifies Paul as the writer, there is a broad consensus among biblical scholars that all the pastoral letters were written by a disciple or follower of Paul some decades after his death. However, it is not certain that all three were written by the same hand, as significant differences have been noted between 1 Timothy/Titus on the one hand, and 2 Timothy on the other. (Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament, p.639, n.2.)
The author calls himself a “slave” of God, although as is customary, most English translators have chosen to render this instance of the Greek doulos as “servant” to escape the negative connotations which burden our English word “slave.” However, the Greek word does not carry this distinction, so the proper and literal translation is indeed “slave.” In the genuine letters of Paul, he calls himself a slave of Jesus Christ (Romans 1:1; Philippians 1:1) but never refers to himself with the phrase found here, “slave of God.”
1:3 The “word” referred to here is the logos, which Christian writers identified with Jesus. See John 1:14, as well as the comment to John 1:1.
Here God is referred to as “our Savior,” and in the next verse the title of Savior is bestowed upon Jesus as well. In the Old Testament, God claimed the title of Savior for himself, and did not mention Jesus or anyone else as a co-savior. See, for example, Isaiah 49:26; 60:16.
The rarity of the word “savior” in the genuine letters of Paul and in the New Testament generally, outside the pastorals, was noted in the comment to 2 Timothy 1:10.
1:4 The addressee, Titus, is not mentioned anywhere in the book of Acts, which gives an account of Paul’s early activity in establishing various Christian communities. However, Paul himself mentions Titus as a valued associate throughout 2 Corinthians, as well as in Galatians 2:1,3.
1:5 The task of Titus is to appoint elders in the churches of Crete. Thus, at the time this letter was written, churches were no longer local self-governing Christian organizations, but were under the supervision of distant overseers, who appointed their officers. The appointment of elders was important in order to ensure that churches adhered to the doctrines approved by the author, and did not follow rival Christian teachers, who are described in v.10 as “empty talkers and deceivers.”
1:7-9 These required qualities of a bishop overlap in large measure with those given in 1 Timothy 3:2-7. However, there are some differences. Most notably, the list here in Titus adds conformity to doctrine as an essential trait, although this was absent in the Timothy list, which focuses exclusively on personal qualities. Also notable is that the author of Titus does not mention that a bishop must be well thought of by outsiders. (1 Timothy 3:7)
1:10 “Those of the circumcision” are most likely a group of Christians who favored a more strict adherence to traditional Jewish practices than the faction represented by the author. We need not think of them as Jewish Christians, i.e., converts from Judaism to Christianity, but simply a group that considered the commandments of the Hebrew scriptures as continuing to apply to Christians. In Galatians 2:12, the phrase very clearly refers to the group of Jerusalem Christians, led by James the brother of Jesus, who did not share Paul’s view that Jesus’s resurrection had exempted Christians from adhering to the food laws and to circumcision. The main point here is that in these early days, there was not unity among the followers of Jesus, but division and disagreement within the Christian community itself over what the essential requirements were for being a Christian.
1:11 Those who differ from the orthodox line “must be silenced.” This is a sharp contrast to the advice in 2 Timothy 2:25, where the reader is told to correct his opponents “with gentleness.” The real Paul had no desire to treat opponents with gentleness, as we read in Galatians 1:8-9 that anyone preaching a different gospel is to be “accursed.”
Not only must these heterodox teachers be silenced, but “they have no right to teach” (RSV) their doctrines. The incompatibility of Christian attitudes with our modern ideas of freedom and tolerance could not be more clear.
The unauthorized preachers are accused of preaching for “disgraceful profit.” But apparently, Paul had to defend himself from similar charges, judging by 2 Corinthians 11:7-9. It is not specified why such gain would be disgraceful. In 1 Timothy 5:17, Christian elders who performed especially well were considered worthy of double wages, so it cannot be the mere fact that these heterodox preachers were paid for their services that makes them disgraceful.
1:12-13 In a singularly tactless remark, considering that the churches to be organized are in Crete (1:5), the author brands all Cretans as “liars, evil beasts, and lazy gluttons.” He follows this quotation with the assurance that “This testimony is true,” showing that he is not merely quoting, but also approving of the sentiment expressed. But if all Cretans are indeed liars, how will Titus ever find any men who are blameless (1:6) to fill the post of elder or bishop?
The Cretan prophet to whom the slur is attributed may be Epimenides of Cnossos, “a half-mythical sixth-century Greek.” (The Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 11, p.530.)
1:14 We do not know which Jewish myths the author has in mind. Possibilities include “developments in Jewish apocrypha with their stress on calendric details and on the roles of angels,” “Jewish gnostic speculations about human origins,” or a “syncretism that combined Jewish and gnostic elements.” (Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament, p.643.)
2:1 The author again advocates adherence to “sound doctrine.” The word literally means “that which is taught.” A pre-occupation with doctrine is a feature of the pastoral letters, in contrast with the rest of the New Testament. One would not notice this by relying solely on the KJV translation. There are two different Greek words that refer to what is taught: didache and didaskalia. The KJV translates both of these as “doctrine,” but the modern English translations render didache as “teaching” – as in “the crowds were amazed at his teaching” in the NASB translation of Matthew 7:28 – while translating didaskalia as “doctrine.” The distinction usually made is that didaskalia implies the established positions approved and handed down by the church authorities, while didache refers to that which is taught by a specific teacher, e.g., by Jesus. The prevalence of didaskalia in the pastoral letters indicates that we are dealing with a period in which church organization was relatively advanced (compared to the days of Paul) and in which the church officials were concerned with solidifying a body of belief that all members of the proto-orthodox faction were expected to adhere to.
2:5 This is one of many verses in the New Testament that counsel women to be submissive to their husbands, and to men in general. Others are Ephesians 5:22-23; 1 Peter 3:1; 1 Corinthians 11:9 and 14:34; 1 Timothy 2:11-12.
2:6 While the young women were urged to love their husbands and children in the previous verse, here we have no such corresponding advice for the men.
2:9 Here the author counsels the pastor to teach slaves to be submissive to their masters. Unlike in 1 Timothy 6:2, the advice is not limited to those slaveholders who are believers. And unlike Colossians 4:1, there is no advice for masters to treat their slaves fairly. Note that women and slaves get the same advice. Also note that the goal of this submissiveness on the part of slaves to their masters is to “adorn the doctrine of God our Savior,” whose doctrine must therefore include approval of slavery. This causes no problem if the present world is so devalued that freedom in the real world is worthless in comparison with the heavenly reward to come. But the natural consequence of this view is to tolerate all manner of injustice which perpetuates unequal and exploitative social relationships.
2:11-12 If the grace of God has indeed has appeared for the salvation of all men, then why does God blind the eyes and harden the hearts of some men, so that they cannot see the truth? (John 12:39-40) And if God desires that all be saved (1 Timothy 2:4), why are only a few chosen for salvation? (Romans 11:7; Matthew 22:14) And if salvation is for all men, why did Jesus deliberately hide the truth from many by speaking in parables? (Luke 8:10)
To say that the grace of God has trained people to live “soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world” seems a strange interpretation, if this world is indeed “passing away” as Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 7:31.
2:13 It is rare in the New Testament to see Jesus specifically referred to as God. Outside of the gospel of John, it occurs in 2 Peter 1:1. Although the Greek in both these instances may be read as referring to two separate beings – God and Jesus Christ – the most natural reading of the text is to understand Jesus Christ to be both God and Savior. But to consider Jesus as a god contradicts the view found in 1 Timothy 2:5, where Jesus Christ is referred to as “a man” who mediates between God and men. This contradiction creates an inescapable dilemma for the apologists. Either Jesus is a god, which contradicts 1 Timothy 2:5 (as well as Acts 2:22), or Jesus is not a god, which contradicts the doctrine of the Trinity. The Trinity, of course, is nowhere mentioned in the Bible, but is nevertheless a widely held belief among most modern Christians, both Protestant and Catholic.
The TIB notes that the language applied here to Jesus (i.e., God and Savior) was also applied to other gods of the Hellenistic world. “The language here is obviously framed in reaction to that of the emperor cult and of the mystery religions. Ptolemy I was named ‘savior and god’; Antiochus and Julius Caesar, ‘god manifest’; Osiris, ‘lord and savior.’ In common usage the compound epithet meant one deity not two. It should therefore not be surprising that a late Christian writer should speak of Jesus in the same twofold fashion, claiming for him the divine titles which others ascribed to their gods.” (The Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 11, p.540.)
2:14 Compare Jesus’s words in Mark 10:45.
3:1 The theme of submissiveness continues, with advice to submit to the rulers and authorities. The real Paul issued the same command in Romans 13:1. These rulers and authorities need not be, and often are not, Christian. A dilemma arises if the ruling authorities demand behavior which is immoral. What does the Christian do then? Based on the advice here no rebellion, or even civil disobedience is allowed. But Peter – the rock upon whom Jesus said the church would be founded (Matthew 16:18) – refuses to submit when ordered by the religious authorities to stop preaching in Jesus’s name, on the grounds that “We must obey God rather than men.” (Acts 5:29)
3:2 Against this advice to speak evil of no one, we have Paul’s wishes for those who are troubling the Galatians about circumcision. Paul hoped that the knife would slip and that they would “mutilate themselves.” (Galatians 5:12)
3:5 Salvation is through God’s mercy, and not through any actions of our own. This is consistent with Paul’s position in Romans 3:24 and 9:11. But it conflicts with the view that salvation comes from the individual’s confession of faith in Jesus (John 3:16; Acts 10:43; 16:31; Romans 10:9). And both these schemes conflict with James 2:20-26, where we read that “a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” Thus, the New Testament contains at least three different views of how a person can be saved: by God’s mercy (i.e., grace), by faith, and by works. They cannot be reconciled. If salvation is based on God’s arbitrary choice (grace), then it cannot also be dependent on an individual’s own actions, either through faith or works. Neither can faith and works be reconciled, as is shown in the comment to James 2:14-26. The debate over faith vs. works is well known, but it is less often noted that salvation through grace represents yet another alternative means of salvation, which conflicts with both the others.
3:9 We must wonder whether the advice to avoid “foolish controversies and genealogies” would extend to the contradictory genealogies of Jesus presented in Matthew 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38.
3:10 This maxim gives the wayward brother fewer opportunities to correct himself than does Jesus’s own teaching in Matthew 18:15-22. When asked by Peter how many times he should forgive a brother who sins, Jesus answered: “Not only seven times, but seventy times seven.”
3:12 These final details may be intended to give the letter an appearance of reality. However, the city of Nicopolis is not mentioned in connection with any of Paul’s travels recorded in Acts or in the genuine letters, so it is not possible to determine whether Paul could have actually spent time there.