Chapter 1
MSB Book notes:
Titus is mentioned by name 13 times in the NT, including 9 times in 2 Cor. This book and the two to Timothy are the "Pastoral Epistles".
Fairly uncontested that Paul wrote the letter. Written between 62-64 AD. The last mention we have of Titus is that he went to minister to Dalmatia - modern Yugoslavia. Titus was probably also with Paul on his 2nd and 3rd journeys, so had some experience as a missionary. This letter to Titus was probably delivered by Zenas and Apollos.
Titus is never mentioned by Luke in Acts. We know, however, that Titus ministered with Paul in Crete, and was left there when Paul moved on. Paul later invites Titus to join him in Nicopolis for the winter. Titus is mentioned 9 times in 2Co, because he was there with Paul during the third missionary journey. Titus was very familiar with the teaching of the Judaizers, and had gone with Paul and Barnabas to the Jerusalem Council where that was the subject.
Having left Titus in Crete as he had left Timothy in Ephesus, Paul goes on to Macedonia. He likely wrote this letter in response to a letter from Titus, or a report he had gotten about Titus' work in Crete.
This book does not focus on explaining doctrine. The lack of doctrinal teaching suggests both that Titus was well grounded in these subjects and that the believers in Crete were also sticking closely with established doctrine. Some doctrines are affirmed in this short book, however, including God's sovereign election, saving grace, Christ's deity and second coming, substitutionary atonement, and regeneration and renewing of believers by the Holy Spirit.
Normal, standard, Pauline greeting. The offering of prayers is skipped here, as it was in 1Timothy. Vs 5 jumps right into the subject matter:
5 This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you-- [Tit 1:5 ESV]
Titus was left behind to get some things still undone "in order" and appoint elders. These were to come from every town, not just within the church it seems.
2021 - Could be there was only one church on the whole island, so it was best not to have all the elders from that one place where the church was. Or it could be that there were several churches, and elders for each church should come not only from that one town but all towns served by that church. Hadn't noticed this before, but it would make sense where churches are rare - and not two or three per block as we have here in the US - and people came from lots of surrounding towns to get there.
Qualifications are given for overseer, much like those given to Timothy in 1 Tim. Included in "overseer" is the ability to give instruction in sound doctrine, and rebuke those who contradict it. Overseers must be assertive if necessary. Paul mentions that among those who might need rebuke are the Judaizers, who recruit and teach for their own reasons, not for advancement of the gospel. Perhaps to claim Christians as Jewish proselytes?
Cretans characterized as liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons. Paul says this is a true report of them. They were to be rebuked sharply, not just rebuked. This verse:
15 To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled. [Tit 1:15 ESV]
Unbelievers are never credited with anything good at all. Goes back to Ezekiel I think, where it talks at length about those last second conversions moving things they did as unbelievers - which the world probably called good but that God does not credit to unbelievers - from the "nothing" column to the good works column. Think here of rich but unbelieving philanthropist, donating millions of dollars to orphans. With God, this gets no credit, this is filthy rags, because they don't believe. But a career criminal who once fed a starving dog gets credited for that at judgement if he later becomes a believer.
The consciences of unbelievers are defiled. This seems to be about those who are teaching false doctrine within the church, not about unbelievers in general. Professing believers who's works, whose lifestyle, who's teaching indicates that they are not believers at all. Paul is not sympathetic to these because they at least come to church. He calls them detestable, unfit for ANY good work. The idea seems to be that if anything, they need to be rebuked and evangelized, but under no circumstances given any authority or responsibility among the believers.
2021 - This "question" comes up over and over again. In many different NT books - I wonder if all those are Pauline books? The question is, how are these people within all these churches moving up to positions of leadership if they are not truly saved? How is it that the unsaved go right to the leadership positions and the truly saved are all in the audience listening to the false doctrine spewed out by the unsaved? Or...and this is still the same question...are they really saved but just so shallow, or so saturated with remaining worldly ambition, that they assume these positions with the goal of advancing only themselves, and teaching what gets them the most traction? Maybe they want lots of people looking to them as leaders so they can run for local judge? Maybe they want to bring as many Christians into to line with the rules of the local synagogue that they can all "pass" as Jews, and so promote their own business enterprises into inclusion in the circle of local Jewish businessmen - which might well be a hugely lucrative thing to do. How do we separate these? I don't think this particular passage is about how to tell them apart, so I won't try and "read that into" this text. BUT, is Paul tasking Titus here with silencing the saved who are still too worldly to lead, or silencing the unsaved who have been promoted one way or another to leadership position??? Which? And what are the clues?
We see the attitudes of the "noisy ones": Insubordinate - but to whom? Anyone with authority over them in the church?
Empty talkers - As in their teaching really conveys no doctrine, no maturity?
Deceivers - this is about purposely, knowingly embracing what they know to be wrong. No...this is purposely being untruthful in order to persuade others into wrong behavior.
So each of these is an identifiable behavior...if you know the truth. I doubt the insubordination would be public, where all could see it, but would have to be reported and investigated and determined to be true. This is church discipline - but our churches nowadays don't pursue this much at all. Would a preacher announce to the congregation that one of the deacons was being insubordinate to him? Seems very unlikely. If a church doesn't do this, it leaves the doors open to the insubordinate. And if there were only the two of them present, then there's no reason to even bring the accusation. How about the empty talkers? Their whole Sunday School class may sing their praises - because the class is going to be full of the like-minded, who count it sufficient that they are attending church, but have no real ambition to learn and grow and advance and sacrifice and so on. Do we need the Sunday School Superintendent to go and listen a few times - as happens with teachers in our public schools - and determine whether the teaching is all milk or has some meat to it? I've never heard of a church doing this either, but it sure seems like it should be done. And per this verse, the primary criteria should not be eloquence and popularity, but full vs empty. But not just anyone can be the "listener" to these teachers. And last, the deceivers. Perhaps the most difficult of all in some cases, and very very easy in others. For instance, a Sunday School teacher asking for money for himself because he is the ox trampling out the corn, is pretty obviously being deceptive about that verse. What about a teacher who employs the people he teaches, and talks about how you are to work hard, no matter conditions or pay, for a brother that has hired you. That is also pretty easy - IF someone recognizes it as wrong teaching and reports it per church discipline. What if it is more subtle...What if the teacher came from another religion that believes emphatically that baptism is required for salvation, and they bear down on that with the scriptures that church used as proof of baptismal regeneration - the verse in this very letter - and so they "incite" a doctrinal dispute within the church. And let's say they persist in this even after being warned by the pastor and elders about it? If they persist, then they are both 3, and 1 aren't they? So in each case, the noisy ones need to be identified, reported, and investigated to determine if there is a real problem. There needs to be a known structure within the church for bringing concerns to the elders and pastor. Even if the problem is with an elder or a pastor - in fact this is very likely to be the case. So no teacher is above "inspection", no overseer is beyond being overseen by others. It should be part and parcel in every church that the teachers are observed, and counseled by those in authority in the church - which would be the elders and the pastors.
Interesting that none of this really comes down to a determination of whether anyone is saved or unsaved. It comes down to whether they are submissive to the leadership as a whole, whether they accept correction, whether they are "above review". If we look at it this way, then we leave it to God to check the book for the name, and our focus is on what we can know - which is whether the saints are being provided for by those given office over them.
And just one more topic here - In the church I attend, very much of the church's business is handled in committees, and I am sure only a small percentage of things are ever brought before the whole church. Surely there is little or no real opportunity for all church discussion of most issues. All the "whole body" ever does is accept or reject the recommendation of a committee comprised of people they usually don't know and had no part in appointing to the committee. It seems to me that those on these committees should be as much on the list of those who are to be "overseen" by the church as teachers are. Their lives ought to be under constant scrutiny. And...is this a good way to run a church, or is it just the "modern" way to run a church? It probably gets decisions made faster and the decisions are more in accord with the top leadership's preferences. And that doesn't seem wrong.
Also see comments on 3:9-11 below....
2024 - This verse:
15 To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled. [Tit 1:15 ESV]. A bit paradoxical, but a profound truth also. The saved sin, but remain pure. All that we do is forgiven before it happens because Jesus paid for it and himself forgave it. For the lost, even the best, highest, good deed is as lepers bandages. You cannot do a good thing in God's eyes while dancing on the body of His Son. While considering Christ just an historical anomaly. While thinking "Well thanks for dying for me, but since I didn't ask you to do that, I owe you nothing for it." The way people see Christ is binary. He is either all or nothing, yes, or no, white or black. So many think they can make it on their own merit, because they are better than so many who are worse. But this verse denies them that position, in so many words. They are defiled, unclean, impure, and they will not get anywhere near a Holy God.
Moving on to chapter 2. I thought this was going to be a short morning in 2021. Not working out that way.