Titus 3

CHAPTER III

Concerning the Position of Christians Among Men Generally

A Summary Statement of the Conduct

Titus 3:1

1 The wording is most compact, multum in parvo. Continue to put them in remembrance to be in subjection to rulerships, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every kind of beneficial work, to blaspheme no man, to be non-fighters, yielding, showing all meekness toward all men. In short, Christians are ever to be good citizens among all their fellow citizens.

Polybius and others remark about the seditious character of the Cretans so that some commentators think that this is the reason for Paul’s injunction. They refer to 1 Tim. 2:1, 2 where the Christians in Asia are asked to pray for their rulers and say that here they are asked to be in subjection and to obey. But a look at Rom. 13:1, etc., does not substantiate such a view. Besides, Paul uses only four words, which are entirely too few for such a pointed reference to a national characteristic. Moreover, he continues with admonitions regarding general conduct as citizens among other citizens. We have here a brief outline of the Christian obligation of a citizen with regard to the government and with regard to his fellow citizens.

Christianity holds us to the things which are compactly stated here. We are content to be in subjection to our governmental authorities and of our own will to be obedient to the laws they make for the communities in which we live. We have the very highest motive for this, namely our Lord’s will. This makes the very best citizens, such as obey for Christ’s and for con-conscience’s sake.

The two datives are abstract terms: “rulerships, authorities,” and thus say more than terms that name certain kinds of rulers and magistrates would do. Our submission and obedience is to be rendered to government as such irrespective of its particular form or of the persons in whom it is vested. All that the New Testament says on this matter is so important and far-reaching because the government of those days was pagan and in the hands of pagans, who were generally corrupt. We need think only of Pilate, of Felix who detained Paul in the hope of receiving a bribe, of Festus who denied Paul simple justice. A bright spot were the Asiarchs who warned Paul during the riot in Ephesus. What the Jewish Sanhedrin was its treatment of Jesus and of Stephen shows.

Yet ever Christians are to be subject, are to obey. The only limit to this subjecting is their own religion which, while it holds them to submission and obedience in all things secular and thus makes them the very best citizens, for that very reason forbids them to give up this their religion at the behest of any governmental demand even if the severest punishment and death itself be inflicted in consequence. The fact that such inflictions were bound to come Jesus himself plainly told his followers; his words soon proved true.

“To be ready for every beneficial work” means as citizens under their government and among their fellow citizens. The motive is again purely Christian and truly religious. This positive excludes the corresponding negative, all works that are evil, that do harm to others, and also failure to do beneficial works when opportunity for doing them offers itself. The clause is brief but covers everything.

Titus 3:2

2 “To blaspheme no one” means with curses and vicious epithets, denouncing some magistrate or some fellow citizen. As bad as some of these may be, the Christian does not give way to an ugly temper and to sinful language. “To be non-fighters,” picking up no casus belli, is followed by its opposite: ἐπιεικεῖς, Luther’s beautiful gelinde, “yielding” or “gentle”; we lack a real equivalent in both the Latin and the English. see Phil. 4:5 in extenso. People who are ever fighting are wretched citizens and neighbors; people who are willing to yield in gentleness are admirable, especially when they follow the gentle spirit of Jesus.

Paul amplifies: “showing all meekness toward all men.” Trench distinguishes between “yieldingness” and “meekness,” the former referring to conduct, the latter to the inward virtue back of it; hence Paul also uses the participle which urges us to show our meekness. The former yields what we might call our rights; it ever remembers that we are sinners among sinners and thus bears what the sins of others inflict upon us. The latter is the temper which does not make us assert ourselves; it is an unassuming, passive spirit, the opposite of harshness and haughtiness. Here it is referred to as governing us in regard to all men; elsewhere meekness is the right attitude also toward God.

Here we have an excellent text on Christian citizenship as far as our relation to government as well as to our fellow citizens is concerned. It rests on the new life which makes us citizens of heaven; our supreme interest in this world is to grace the gospel so as to win men to its banner.

What We Once Were and What We Now Are

Titus 3:3

3 “For” indicates that we are to note what is now said in regard to the previous injunctions. For we were at one time also on our part devoid of understanding, disobedient, deceived, slaving for lusts and pleasures of all kinds, leading lives in baseness and envy, detested, hating each other.

This describes what we on our part also were, what the ungodly around us still are; note “also” we. Paul includes himself although he had been a Jew. The argument is strong: Shall we, after having been delivered from such a state, again fall back into it? The picture here drawn is only a partial presentation because the reference of v. 1, 2 is to our lives among men; this then, Paul says, is how we ourselves once lived among men.

Ἀνόητοι = mindless and thus without understanding = “in the vanity of their mind (νοῦς),” Eph. 4:18. The mind, which controls thought and will, functions in the unregenerate in a way that is wholly perverted. The first evidence is the fact that it leaves them “disobedient,” the opposite of the obedience noted in v. 1, and even more, namely “disobedient” to what the mind itself according to proper reason, nature, experience, and the natural conscience, should dictate.

“Deceived,” made to wander from the true and proper course, points to all the deceptions against which the unregenerate are so helpless. The next feature of this state is: “serving as slaves for motley lusts and pleasures,” letting them dictate their will and following such dictation, the mind being blind to what must result. Thus “leading lives (διάγοντες, sc. βίον) in baseness and envy.” Κακία denotes everything that is morally inferior, and then Paul names “envy” as one bad specimen. “Detested” is the passive outcome, to which is added the active “hating each other.”

Let the Cretans look back at their former condition; let them also look at what they see in the unregenerate about them at the present time. Then, as γάρ indicates, they will understand Paul’s injunction the better.

Titus 3:4

4 When, however, the benignity and the love of our Savior God for men appeared, not as a result of works in connection with righteousness which we on our part did, but in accord with his own mercy did he save us by means of the bath of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out upon us richly through Christ Jesus, our Savior, so that, by having been declared righteous by that One’s (God’s) grace, we got to be heirs in accord with eternal life’s hope.

This, Paul says, is what we became, what God made of us. The whole gospel is here compressed into one rich sentence. Here there are four terms to designate our Savior God’s love. So many are unusual even in the Case of Paul: χρηστότης—φιλανθρωπία—ἔλεος—χάρις. “Savior” is twice used. The saving work for all men is compressed into the one verb of the first clause so that the saving deed of God effected in our hearts is unfolded by the rest of the statement and ends with what we thereby got to be, namely heirs of life eternal.

The reason for Paul’s using “the benignity” and “the love of men” lies in the preceding verses. Both terms are forms of God’s ἀγάπη or “love” for the whole world of men. The former appears in Rom. 4:2; it is more than “the kindness” of our versions, more also than “the goodness.” See Trench who subscribes to Jerome: Benignitas sive suavitas, in which strength is blended with lenient, bland, tranquil association, apt for all good things, inviting to familiarity, sweet in address, etc.

While the two articles make the two concepts stand out in their distinctness, God’s benignity and his philanthropia, or affection for human beings (Menschenliebe) are well placed side by side. The latter word is rare in the New Testament; it is used in Acts 28:2 regarding the humanitarian feeling of pagans and in Acts 27:3 (adverb) regarding the humane act of Julius. Only in our passage is the word used with reference to God. While Paul brings out these two sides of God’s love he presently adds his mercy and his grace. A singular verb may be used with two subjects, the nature of which is so much alike.

Ἐπεφάνη, second aorist passive, repeats this verb from 2:11 where it is used regarding “the grace of our Savior God” which appeared as an epiphany “to all men.” The remarks made in 2:11 apply also here; in both places the aorist refers to the love of God which appeared in Jesus and in his whole redemptive work. “When” that made its epiphany, God “saved us”; yet that does not mean that these acts occurred together in point of time; the modifier of the second verb excludes such simultaneousness. Paul received baptism at a later time, and the Cretans received it still later. Note the stress that is laid on saving: “our Savior God—saved us—through Jesus Christ, our Savior.” This is the stronger because in 1:3, 4 we already had: “our Savior God—Christ Jesus, our Savior”; and in 2:10, 11, 13, where God is twice called Savior and Jesus once. The great act of saving and placing into eternal safety gives this title to both persons who, each in his own way, were and are active in man’s salvation. “Our Savior” is confessional and altogether in place as a possessive to characterize those in whom God’s and Christ’s salvation is actually being realized.

Titus 3:5

5 The main part of the sentence begins at this point, and the two contrasting phrases are placed before the main verb for the sake of emphasis, which enables Paul to add all the further modification which is so highly important in this connection. Verses 4–7 are a perfectly constructed statement. “Not as a result (or outcome, ἐκ to indicate source) of works, of those in connection with (some kind of) righteousness, which (works) we on our part did (the English idiom is: have done) did God save us.” Let no one harbor such an idea or imagine that he has either done such works or that such works are possible.

Bengel and others divide this phrase and this relative clause and analyze them into several thoughts, but the combination forms a unit and states out of what our having been saved did not flow: not out of anything in the way of “works” (no article), works (τῶν) in connection with (ἐν) anything that can be called “righteousness,” works which “we on our part (emphatic ἡμεῖς) have done” (the verb and the subject are transposed so that the verb, too, is emphatic). The description of what works are utterly excluded is not complete until we reach the last word of the combination.

In his act of saving us God could not take and did not in any way take into consideration any works that had been done by us, for which we might in any way claim righteousness, i.e., such a quality accorded us by a verdict pronounced on us by God. Verse 3 shows the total absence of such works in our unregenerate past and the presence of nothing but the opposite kind of works. The remark that Paul does not say “works of law” is pointless; for if they were to be connected with “righteousness” the works done by us would have to meet some δίκη or norm, some law, in accord with which some judge could rightly declare us righteous.

Δικαιοσύνη is a forensic term. No norm exists according to which a righteous judge, in particular God, could declare us righteous; if any judge ever did such a thing he would thereby condemn himself as being unrighteous; his verdict would be false. In other words, Paul says more than that we did not meet the righteous requirements of the Mosaic law; we did not meet the requirements of any code of true moral law. We deserved utter condemnation as being unrighteous in all our works, yet in spite of this “our Savior God,” being a “Savior” indeed, “saved us,” his very name “Savior” and the very act “saved” pointing to us as such who were hopelessly lost with all our works.

His act of saving us was in toto an act of mercy: “in accord with his mercy,” αὐτοῦ is in contrast with ἡμεῖς. As distinguished from “grace,” ἔλεος or mercy implies our wretched, miserable state (sketched in v. 3). God’s act accorded with the pity which he had for us in our sad state. As the Savior God he had such mercy, and this he followed when saving us. If he had followed any other norm (κατά) such as the works which we ourselves had done he would have abandoned us, and we should have perished forever.

He saved us by the means that he himself had prepared (διά). Here Paul does not, however, name “the redemption in Christ Jesus” as he does in Rom. 3:24 but the subjective means of applying this redemption to the individual sinner “dead in his transgressions and his sins” (Eph. 2:1): “he saved us by means of the bath of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,” etc. Paul’s other great passage regarding baptism is Eph. 5:26 where we discuss λουτρόν at length: “the bath of the water in connection with spoken word,” and reject the R. V. marginal translation “laver.” As far as finding immersion in the word “bath,” this would be curious, indeed, when all of us constantly take baths without immersion. Our versions use “washing,” which conveys the meaning well. The genitives make the expression definite as so many genitives do. Christians know of only one “bath of regeneration,” etc.

It seems to make little difference whether these genitives are regarded as possessive: “bath belonging to regeneration”; or qualitative: “regenerating bath”; or objective: “bath effecting regeneration.” Any one of these genitives retains the main point, namely that this bath and this regeneration plus the renewing are inseparably connected: where the bath is, there the regeneration and the renewing are. And this bath is the means (διά) which God used when he saved us. This interpretation is, of course, troublesome to the Baptist Robertson (and to all others who deny baptismal regeneration) in his W. P., who offers the exegesis: “Man submits to the baptism after the new birth to picture it forth to men.” He regards this bath as being only a picture that men are to see, a mere symbol for the eye. Paul excludes this idea in a double way: God saved us by means of the bath, etc.,—this is the “bath of regeneration.” How can anyone think Paul would say: “God saved us by means of (διά) a picture of regeneration”? Compare Jesus’ own words to Nicodemus in John 3:3, 5.

Παλιγγενεσία occurs only once more in the New Testament, in Matt. 19:28, in a connection that is entirely different from baptism and personal regeneration; but the New Testament is full of the new birth, the new life, and all the imagery that goes with regeneration; we have mentioned John 3:3, 5, add at least 1 Pet. 1:3, 23. While this word is used frequently by pagan writers and appears also in the mystery cults, the gulf between Paul’s meaning and the pagan meaning is absolute; for paganism had no conception of the generation of a spiritual life in a sinner, a ζωή implanted by the Holy Spirit, to make spiritually alive a life that passes unharmed through physical death into glory and blessedness with God and Christ. Πάλιν in the compound “re-generation” (ἄνωθεν, John 3:3) is in contrast with our natural generation: this is a second generation, one that is spiritual, that starts a spiritual life; note John 3:4, 6. Yet this spiritual life affects not only our “spirit”; it affects the whole man, body and soul, makes him a child of God that is “born of the Spirit” and by this generation and birth becomes an heir of heaven.

Ἀνακαίνωσις = “renewing,” and καινός is in contrast to the old nature and life; it is new as being wholly different; see “the old man” and “the new man” in Eph. 2:22–24, where we also have νέος in the infinitive “be renewed,” the other Greek word for “new,” namely in the sense of never having been in us before. Regeneration is accompanied by a newness that is totally different from the former oldness (v. 3), yea, a newness nothing of which existed before.

Some would erase the difference between the two words for “new” and restrict us to our one English word “new,” but this is done without justification. Here the “renewing” that contrasts with the old life is the proper term since the old life has just been described (v. 3). The difference between “regeneration and renewing” as here used is that the former kindles the new life by an instantaneous act, the latter continues and develops this life by a constant growth and progress.

In the language of the Church regeneratio is used in both this narrow sense as it is here used by Paul, yet also in the wider sense as including the renewing (C. Tr. 921, 20). The genitive “of the Holy Spirit” (no article, proper name) designates the agent who regenerates and renews. We connect this genitive with both “regeneration and renewing” and not only with the latter. It is said that “regeneration” is an intransitive or passive term and cannot receive such a genitive and thus also a genitivus auctoris. It would be strange, indeed, if Paul would name the one who does the renewing and fail to say who does the regenerating.

God saved us by means of baptism. Baptism is a bath of regeneration and renewing, in both of which the Holy Spirit is the actor. That is why God could use baptism as such a means (διά), why baptism is by no means a mere symbol or picture but a true means of divine grace. It is not an opus operatum as when a crowbar turns over a stone but as when spiritual grace operates spiritually by the Holy Spirit’s entering the heart with his grace and kindling the new life. As physical generation and natural life are still an unsolved mystery to present-day scientists (Graebner, God and the Cosmos), so the spiritual rebirth is still more of a mystery. For this reason the regenerating agent is named here and in John 3, and for this reason Jesus spoke v. 7, 8 to Nicodemus.

For adults, who must first hear and believe the Word, baptism still remains the efficacious “bath” which Paul declares it to be. For Word and baptism, faith and regeneration ever go together. To reject baptism is to confess the absence of regeneration. Baptism seals regeneration for the adult, which is as close as we are able to define its regenerating effect in the adult.

Titus 3:6

6 The relative οὗ is not to be construed with the neuter “bath” but with the “Holy Spirit,” the genitive case being attracted from the accusative. Since the Spirit is a person, we translate “whom he poured out (aorist, not imperfect) upon us richly.” To be poured out richly cannot be predicated of a bath, not even of one that has much water; it can be predicated only of the Spirit. This is not a reference to Pentecost when the great outpouring took place through Jesus Christ but to baptism and the outpouring of the Spirit that takes place in this sacrament. This is true, the Spirit’s outpouring in the sacrament, and his effective coming and work in the Word and the Eucharist, rest on the great act that occurred at Pentecost; the great outflow continues with every individual application of Word and sacrament. The subjects reached by the Spirit grow more numerous. “Richly” means in abundant measure so as to effect the results that God, our Savior, desires, namely actually “to save us.”

This outpouring that occurs in every baptism is ever “through Jesus Christ, our Savior.” Paul might have used a verb and a wording with ὑπό, “by”; he uses διά, “through,” which matches John 14:16; 15:26 to correspond to God’s pouring out, God uses Jesus as the personal medium. Thus the three persons are connected with baptism: God, the Father, as our Savior, Jesus Christ, our Savior, as our Mediator (διά), and the Holy Spirit as our gift from both, as the person who effects our regeneration and renewing, he being the one to whom per eminentiam this work has been assigned as the work of redemption is that of the Son. We see that this agrees with Matt. 28:19. It agrees with what the Scriptures reveal in regard to all the opera ad extra; they are all communa. All three persons are engaged in them, each in his own way.

Titus 3:7

7 Here ἵνα expresses more than purpose; it expresses actual result: “so that, by having been declared righteous by that One’s grace, we got to be heirs in accord with eternal life’s hope.” This is not purpose, which still leaves the question as to whether the purpose came to be attained in us or not; it was attained, which means result. Our versions read as though the result may not have been attained, or as though the outpouring of the Spirit wrought only the potentiality or possibility (“might be,” etc.) of our getting to be heirs. No; we then and there, in and by baptism, in and by the Spirit bestowed in baptism, actually “became heirs,” etc., (the passive form γενηθῶμεν is always used in the sense of the middle; the Koine formed such passive forms of intransitive verbs and had a special liking for them). We regard the aorist as ingressive: “we got to be.” Once getting to be such heirs means that we remain what we got to be.

The terms match: this regeneration or new birth makes us God’s children, God’s sons, and thus heirs, even heirs by birth (John 3:8b). “Heirs” own but do not yet enjoy their inheritance; it is not yet paid out to them. Paul therefore says: “We got to be heirs in accord with eternal life’s hope.” “Life” matches “regeneration.” By baptism we were saved from our spiritual death; the true spiritual life was kindled in us by the Spirit; as children of God we then and there became heirs of God who are waiting in hope for the great inheritance, “life eternal” in glory. Κατά says that what we got to be is “in accord” with this hope. The genitive is objective: hope “for life eternal.”

Now we understand the aorist ἔσωσε, “God, our Savior, did save us” in baptism; this aorist is not eschatological, is not dated in the future, but is dated at the time of baptism; then and there “he did save us,” but as yet only as heirs with the glorious life of heaven yet to be given them although, as heirs, we already own it. Our Savior God and Jesus Christ, our Savior, are placed on the same level by this word “Savior” and in this act of saving us just as in 1:3, 4 “Savior” says this about both persons, and 2:10, 11 about God, and v. 13 about Christ.

The result clause would be complete without the participial addition, but its addition is most valuable. It specifies the judicial act which established us as heirs: “by having been declared righteous by that One’s grace.” Ἐκείνου refers to the more remote antecedent “our Savior God,” the subject of all the previous verbs, and not to “Jesus Christ, our Savior,” the subject of no verb but only the genitive with a preposition. If the grace of Jesus were referred to, αὐτοῦ should be used and not ἐκείνου. Paul makes the same statement here that he made in Rom. 3:24 so that all the comment given there can be repeated. Only the tense differs, for the present participle used in Rom. 3 describes how God continually declares believers righteous by his grace (the dative being the same as in our passage) while the aorist refers to the declaration already made regarding Paul and Titus who are baptized. So we repeat only this much: the participle is forensic: in heaven God, the Judge, pronounced the verdict that declared righteous and by that verdict cancelled all guilt.

This he did “by his grace,” the pure undeserved favor extended to the guilty; yet this was not done arbitrarily, for the ransoming of the guilty, mentioned in Rom. 3, has here been mentioned in 2:14 and thus needs no repetition. This grace is intended for all men, yet it can act only in the case of believers as far as justifying is concerned; the rest spurn the ransom as well as the grace. See all that is said in connection with Rom. 3:24.

Titus 3:8

8 Paul closes this paragraph regarding what we were and what we now are by adding the strong assurance: Faithful the statement, the one just concluded (compare this formula in 1 Tim. 1:15; 3:1; 4:9; 2 Tim. 2:11). Hence Paul adds: and concerning these things I intend that thou speak with confidence so that they who have believed God may keep devoting care to excellent works to take the lead (in them).

On βούλομαι, “I intend,” see 1 Tim. 2:8 (also 5:14). Titus has been and is still carrying out Paul’s intention as his ready and willing apostolic representative. Titus is to keep on in his confident, assured affirmation “concerning these things,” the plural now spreading out what “the logos or statement” embraces. As sure and trustworthy as this logos is, which sums them up, so assured Titus is to be in presenting all that is contained in this logos. He is not to act like those mentioned in 1 Tim. 1:7, who do not even know the things about which they are making confident affirmation; Titus is to affirm what is sure, what he knows to be so. His own confident assertions are not to rest on his own convictions but on this Word and its real and objective contents. The infinitive is middle and not passive.

Ἵνα expresses intended result: “so that they may continue to devote thought and care on excellent works.” The genitive is to be construed with this verb, which, as a verb of emotion, governs this case (R. 509.) Some would construe it with the following infinitive. This infinitive is added only to enhance the idea.

This verb does not mean “to maintain” (our versions); the R. V.’s margin is also faulty, for it leaves the impression that doing good works means “managing matters of business,” the honest profession of Christians being to do good works. Goodspeed follows Field’s lead in this and draws the genitive to the infinitive: “make it their business to do good,” which M.-M. 451 approve. The infinitive means “to preside” (1 Tim. 5:17), “to take the lead in” (R., W. P.). It thus enhances the idea of devoting care to excellent works, such care that will make these Christians stand foremost like elders who preside.

They are not to lag or to be dragged along but are to have their place in the front rank. The meaning but not the word is “so as to excell.” The subject, which is saved until the end, is emphatic: “they who have trusted God,” i.e., since their conversion and on into the present. By their devotion to excell they are to show that they have put their fullest confidence in God. The participle is to be construed with the dative and not with a preposition and means: trusted in God as regards what he says and promises.

We make a new paragraph at this point; others make it at verse 8.

What and Whom to Shun

At the end of the letter Paul says a few words on this point. These things are excellent and profitable for men, not only for Christians, but also for others with whom Titus and the Christians come into contact. Since they are noble, excellent in themselves, these things are certainly also profitable for men. Both adjectives are intended to be understood spiritually. Nor need we debate regarding what “these things” signify; they are all the excellent things that this letter contains, which are certainly spiritually profitable to human beings (generic article). Titus has the blessed work of leading all the Cretan Christians in bringing these things to their fellow men. It is still our task today.

Titus 3:9

9 Now the negative side: But silly questings and genealogies and strifes and battles about the law continue to turn thy back on, for they are unprofitable and in vain.

Paul refers to silly, foolish seekings, questings and questionings, by which people want to find or to find out things that amount to nothing (see the compound noun in 1 Tim. 1:4). “Genealogies” have been explained in 1 Tim. 1:4, which see. These first two nouns belong together, for the silly questings were to a large extent concerned with filling in the genealogies recorded in the books of Moses and spinning stories around these fictitious names.

The next two also belong together: “strifes” or disputes about such things; and then, again specifying, “battles about the law”; the Greek has a mere adjective: νομικάς. This recalls the senseless, ignorant “law teachers” mentioned in 1 Tim. 1:6, who did not know what the law was for and turned it into fancies. On all four nouns compare 2 Tim. 2:23; Tit. 1:14. We have already said that the Cretan and the Ephesian errorists seem to have been of the same type. They were full of a lot of silly stuff that was unworthy of serious attention and created nothing but fussing and fighting with true Christians and deceived those Christians who were not yet well grounded.

These things, Paul says, “continue to turn thy back on,” the same present middle imperative which is used in the similar direction to Timothy (2 Tim. 2:16, which see). Paul means, “treat them with contempt because it is useless to do anything else.” Such things are “unprofitable,” no advantage or profit can be derived from them; and they are at the same time “in vain,” erfolglos (as distinguished from κενός, gehaltlos, with no content), no proper goal being reached by discussing them. Paul’s judgment is corroborated by all Christian experience.

Titus 3:10

10 A heretical person, after one and a second admonition, disdain to be bothered with, knowing that such a one has been perverted and sins, being self-condemned.

C.-K. 86 says that αἱρετικός means ketzerisch, “heretical,” also in this passage. He then defines αἵρεστς and says that we should not go to the philosophical schools for getting the sense of the word but to passages like 1 Cor. 11:19; Gal. 5:20; 2 Pet. 2:1. Schlatter remarks that the hairetikos is the possessor of a definite will which obtains its contents from the context while αἵρεστς in its later significance characterizes the man who holds to it. Paul passes from reprehensible opinions to a man who holds and seeks to spread them. How the opinions are to be treated v. 9 states; how the man is to be treated we are now told, namely in the same way as his noxious opinions. The precise opinions referred to we know sufficiently from 1 Tim. 1:4, etc., which see. Yet this statement is concerned with any heretical person, no matter what heretical opinions he holds.

It is confusing to introduce distinctions such as fundamental and non-fundamental, for these need careful definition before they are used in any connection, to say nothing of the present one. An αἱρετικός is one who holds an ἅιρεστς or a number of them, a chosen view of his own apart from the teaching of the Scripture. In Acts 24:14 Paul denies the charge that he holds to an αἵρεστς, and he does that because he believes all things which are written in the Law and the Prophets (i.e., the Old Testament) and has no opinion of his own on a single point.

We thus have no difficulty in understanding the adjective. Paul says that a man is hairetikos who holds to such things as the myths, the genealogies, and the ignorant teaching of law mentioned in 1 Tim. 1:4–11, empty, ignorant, phantastic, vain though they were. Thus any teaching that forsakes Scripture and certainly such as contradicts Scripture stamps a man as hairetikos. He chooses for himself what the church, by choosing Scripture, must repudiate and disown. Whether this be little or much makes little difference since to the extent to which he chooses his own ideas to that extent the person concerned is hairetikos. One additional point, we think, lies in the word, namely that the hairetikos comes out and stands for his separatistic, antiscriptural opinions (call them “views”) to the damage of true Christians; he may, of course, also be an agitator.

What is to be done? One or two admonitions or remonstrances are to be administered. Νουθεσία is “the word of remonstrance, of reproof, of blame, where these may be required” (Trench). There is to be nothing like strife and battle (v. 9). An earnest, thorough talking-to is what is meant. One application may suffice and succeed. If not, “a second” is to follow, of course, not pro forma, but deeply serious. If that too fails, and if it appears that further efforts are useless, then “disdain to be bothered with” such a man. That applies not merely to Titus but to the churches as well. The imperative is iterative and applies to every man of this kind. On the verb see 1 Tim. 4:7; 2 Tim. 2:23.

To be sure, men of this sort want to remain in the congregation. Why does Paul then not demand their expulsion? Because their hairesis already excludes them, and disdaining to be bothered with them settles the matter. We may note Rom. 16:17, 18. What would become of the church if it continued its fellowship with such people? Every organization discards and shakes off its discordant members. If it fails to do so it suffers the consequences. Matt. 12:25. The church is greater than any other organization or body.

Titus 3:11

11 The participial clause is causal: since Titus knows. And the thing he knows is obvious, namely that “perverted has such a one been,” the verb is placed forward for the sake of emphasis. The passive leaves unsaid who perverted him, the perfect tense states that this is now his condition. R., W. P., makes the meaning of the verb too strong: “turned inside out”; it means “turned out from,” namely out of the true doctrine and teaching in which all true Christians must remain. The passive leads us to think of the father of lies who did this turning.

Paul puts his finger on the main point: this man has allowed himself to be separated from the divine truth and has frustrated the efforts to bring his heart back to that truth. He is the separatist, his hairesis makes him sectarian to whatever extent it has carried him. Paul says that Titus knows that, and since Titus leads the Cretan churches, they, too, will know it and will disdain to continue fellowship with such a person.

“And is sinning” points to this man’s guilt. Paul says that it is known. A man who is wrong and remains so despite the “admonition” certainly “sins,” ἁμαρτάνει, the common word for sinning. How does such a man “sin”? The participle answers and even states the gravity of the sin: “as being self-condemned,” as himself pronouncing an adverse judgment upon himself. Neither Paul nor Titus and the church need to condemn him, the hairetikos himself does this.

His guilt and this verdict upon himself agree as they, of course, ought to. The very word hairetikos implies that this man has the truth before him but rejects it and prefers his own contrary ideas. Then comes the nouthesia or remonstrance; this, too, the man rejects. His guilt is evident, also his self-condemnation, for his rejection is the adverse judgment pronounced by himself. He is not a pagan who never heard the truth, who is wrong because of invincible ignorance.

Today thousands openly disagree with Paul. When one has been turned away from the true teaching of God and Christ, this is not considered as sinning and as self-condemnation. Such men are not blamed in the churches, they often receive no remonstrance, they are often highly honored, nor do the leaders of the churches or the churches themselves obey v. 9; they themselves may have been turned and in varying degrees become hairetikoi. Although they themselves are guilty they naturally seek to acquit themselves, and thus they also acquit ethers. Paul’s word to Titus still stands, and its verdict Christ himself confirms.

The Conclusion of the Letter

Titus 3:12

12 Whenever, I shall send Artemas to thee or Tychicus, be diligent to come to me to Nicopolis, for there I have decided to winter.

The indefinite temporal clause states that at some time soon to be determined Paul intends to send either Artemas or Tychicus to Titus. When he does so, Titus is to proceed with diligence to Nicopolis to join Paul who has decided to spend the winter in that city. It is a fair conclusion that one of these two men is to take the place of Titus in Crete; which one is as yet undetermined. Titus may thus arrange his work and his plans accordingly. We know nothing further about Artemas (perhaps an abbreviation of Artemidorus). Only this seems plain, that he was one of Paul’s able and trusted assistants who was in the same class with Titus and Tychicus. This adds another man to the group of Paul’s assistants. Tychicus we know quite well.

Zahn, Introduction, II, 53, etc., lists nine cities that have the name Nicopolis in commemoration of some victory or other. Paul refers to the one in Epirus, which was by far the most important and famous city of this name and had been founded by Augustus as a memorial to the victory at Actium. Here Paul intends to spend the winter, of course, for work in which Titus is to be his assistant. Paul was not yet at Nicopolis; the letter was not written in this city. We do not know where Paul was when he wrote this letter; he was apparently somewhere in Macedonia (1 Tim. 1:3). See the introduction.

Titus 3:13

13 Zenas, the jurist, and Apollos send forth with diligence on their journey that nothing may be lacking to them.

Like a general, Paul moves his lieutenants into strategic positions. Zenas is new to us. It is debated whether νομικός, which is evidently added to distinguish this man from some other Zenas, signifies a Roman jurist or lawyer or a former Jew who was learned in the Old Testament law. This man’s name is Greek; hence he seems to be a jurist, a juris consultus or jurisperitus (the Latin terms). Apollos is the man named in Acts 18:24, etc., last named in 1 Cor. 16:12. He now appears as one of Paul’s assistants.

The verb means “to outfit and to expedite for a journey.” This implies to provide necessary funds, clothing, and baggage, and usually also to accompany a part of the way. We cannot assume that these men were now with Titus; for Paul would then have sent them salutations and would have stated whither they were to go. They were with Paul, had received their directions from him, and carried this letter to Titus who was to help in sending them on. We have no means of knowing their ultimate destination, not even whether both were bound for the same place.

Titus 3:14

14 Besides, let also our people be learning how to take the lead in excellent works for imperative need so that they may not be unfruitful.

This statement is typical of Paul. He looks out for the two travelers and at the same time has the spiritual benefit of the Cretan Christians in mind. Titus does not, of course, have sufficient means to send Zenas and Apollos on; his diligence is to be exercised in getting what may be needed from the churches. Δέ adds the thought that thus “our own” (people) are to be learning how to stand in the front line in good works for imperative needs; translate it “moreover” or “besides.” We do not find a contrast in the substantivized possessive adjective “our own” as though it were said in oppotion to people who are not our own, pagans, errorists, false Christians.

When it is used with an infinitive μανθάνω = to be learning how and not to be learning that (R. 1041). Here the Cretans have an opportunity to practice a little. On the infinitive “to take the lead” see v. 8. “Our own” are to stand forward, in the front line, when it comes to “excellent works for imperative needs.” We read the genitive and the phrase together. The infinitive is placed between them in order to make the whole a unit. The last clause expresses contemplated result: “so that they may not be unfruitful.” For if our people do not step forward with good works when necessities are to be provided they will scarcely learn how to do other good works and will thus remain unfruitful.

Titus 3:15

15 There salute thee all those in my company (μετά), i.e., all Paul’s assistants who are at this moment with him on his tour through Macedonia. These are salutations for Titus personally. Salute those who love us in faith. “Us” = Paul and those in his company. Titus is to convey the salutation of these to all who love them with fraternal affection (φιλέω). The implication is that all Cretan believers do, indeed, so love Paul and his associates.

Grace with all of you is briefer than in 2 Thess. 3:18 but has the same sense.

Soli Deo Gloria!

R A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. 4th edition..

M.-M The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and other non-Literary Sources, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan.

C.-K Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.