TEXT [Commentary]

black diamond   II.   Leadership (1:5-16)

A.   Criteria of Appointment (1:5-9)

5 I left you on the island of Crete so you could complete our work there and appoint elders in each town as I instructed you. 6 An elder must live a blameless life. He must be faithful to his wife,[*] and his children must be believers who don’t have a reputation for being wild or rebellious. 7 A church leader[*] is a manager of God’s household, so he must live a blameless life. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered; he must not be a heavy drinker,[*] violent, or dishonest with money.

8 Rather, he must enjoy having guests in his home, and he must love what is good. He must live wisely and be just. He must live a devout and disciplined life. 9 He must have a strong belief in the trustworthy message he was taught; then he will be able to encourage others with wholesome teaching and show those who oppose it where they are wrong.

NOTES

1:5 appoint. The verb kathistēmi [TG2525, ZG2770] is used for an official appointment and authorization (cf. Luke 12:14; Heb 5:1; 8:3). Knight (1992:288) argues that this verb designates the final act (involving the laying on of hands) in an assumed process, but the verb itself gives no indication of what sort of proceeding would be followed.

elders. The terminology of leadership in the churches varies in the NT: presbuteros [TG4245A, ZG4565], meaning “elder” is found in 1:5; 1 Tim 4:14; 5:17, 19; cf. Acts 11:30; 14:23; 15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23; 16:4; 20:17; 21:18; Jas 5:14; 1 Pet 5:1, 5; 2 John 1:1; 3 John 1:1; Rev 4:4, 10; 5:5, 6, 8, 11, 14; 7:11, 13; 11:16; 14:3; 19:4; episkopos [TG1985, ZG2176], meaning “overseer” (NLT, “church leader”) is found in 1:7; 1 Tim 3:1-2; cf. Acts 1:20; 20:28; Phil 1:1; 1 Pet 2:25; 5:2. The following are less titles than functions: proïstamai [TG4291, ZG4613], used for “managing” (Rom 12:8; 1 Thess 5:12; 1 Tim 5:17; cf. 1 Tim 3:4-5, 12); hēgeomai [TG2233, ZG2451], used for “leading” (Acts 15:22; Heb 13:7, 17, 24). Though popular as a modern title, “pastor” or “shepherd” (poimēn [TG4166, ZG4478] and cognates) was seemingly not much used as a title in the first century; it was, however, descriptive of the leadership function (as a human role, Eph 4:11; as a role of Christ, Heb 13:20; 1 Pet 2:25; as descriptive of a function, Acts 20:28-29; 1 Cor 9:7; 1 Pet 5:2-3; cf. also Rev. 2:27; 7:17; 12:5; 19:15).

in each town. Lit., “according to city”; distributive sense of kata [TG2596, ZG2848] (according to).

1:6 An elder must. Lit., “If someone is.” This clause is either an awkward addition to the preceding “appoint” or, more likely, leaves out the implied apodosis (e.g., “then appoint that person”) at the end of v. 6.

live a blameless life. The Greek word translated by this phrase, anenklētos [TG410, ZG441], pertains “to one who cannot be accused of anything wrong” (L&N 33.433; cf. 1:7; 1 Cor 1:8; Col 1:22; 1 Tim 3:10). It is a synonym of anepilēmptos [TG423, ZG455] (1 Tim 3:2; 5:7; 6:14) and akatagnōstos [TG176, ZG183] (2:8), which pertain “to what cannot be criticized” (L&N 33.415).

don’t have a reputation for being wild. Lit., “not in accusation of recklessness” (asōtia [TG810, ZG861]). The word asōtia denotes “behavior which shows lack of concern or thought for the consequences of an action” (L&N 88.96); it is “reckless abandon, debauchery, dissipation, profligacy” (BDAG 148).

1:7 He must. For stylistic reasons the NLT begins a new sentence and then repeats this strategy through verses 8-9; the Greek is simply a list that depends grammatically on 1:7a and continues through 1:8 before settling on the final quality in 1:9.

COMMENTARY [Text]

The expression of thanks that is usual at this point (see 2 Tim 1:3) is omitted. The reason probably relates to the genre of the letter rather than to the urgency of the situation (contrast Gal 1:6). Johnson has argued that both 1 Timothy and Titus fit the ancient genre of mandata principis (commandments of a ruler) letters (1996:106-107, 212; 2001:137-142). “Some such letters were carried as memorandums by a newly appointed delegate to a district or province, summarizing the mandates to be carried out in the course of his administration. Although addressed to an individual, the delegate in question, the letters had at least a quasi-public character, for the entolai [TG1785, ZG1953, “commandments”] were to be heard by others as well as the delegate” (2001:140).

Paul had directed Titus to stay on the island of Crete. Whether he had issued that directive while he himself was on Crete or at a distance is not definite (the latter would leave open the possibility that Paul had not personally founded these churches). The verb apoleipō [TG620, ZG657] (leave behind) allows for either idea, though 3:15 favors the assumption that Paul had been personally involved and so probably had just departed from there. It has been argued that this verb is sometimes used technically for the installation of officials, possibly signaling the transference of authority to Paul’s delegate (cf. Marshall 1999:150).

The island of Crete is located in the Mediterranean, south of the Aegean Sea. The island was an important location for travel and trade and so was a mixing pot of religious, philosophical, and other influences. The population included Jews. (For more on the specific cultural background, see note and commentary below on 1:12.) Some people from Crete were present at Pentecost (Acts 2:11), but it cannot be determined whether the Christian faith was carried to Crete at that time. Paul’s recorded contacts with Crete do not fit this situation assumed in this letter at all (Acts 27:7, 12, 13, 21). I will assume that Paul was released from the imprisonment of Acts 28 and was now engaged in further work (see note and commentary on 2 Tim 1:8; 4:9-22). Schnabel, in his massive survey, Early Christian Mission, theorizes Paul’s work in the Aegean region, including Crete, followed a visit to Spain upon his release (2004:2.1284). Whatever inroads the Christian faith may have made before Paul’s visit, the present epistle seems to be dealing with a church in infancy. It is unclear, however, how long the work had been going on there.

Assuming that this was a new work, as during his first missionary circuit out of Antioch, Paul got things going without appointing leaders (Acts 14:23), although in this case he was delegating the responsibility to a longtime coworker. Unlike 1 Timothy, nothing is said of deacons. We assume that Artemas or Tychicus would carry on in some capacity as Paul’s delegates when Titus finished his assignment and departed (3:12). Paul himself headed for Nicopolis (if he had just left Crete, then he was moving directly northward), and his desire was that Titus join him there when one of the other workers arrived on Crete. As was the case in 2 Timothy (cf. 2 Tim 4:21), winter was looming. What Paul’s subsequent intentions were for himself and for Titus are not indicated, but the stated plan to winter at Nicopolis (3:12) suggests that he would sail westward from there when spring came (cf. 2 Tim 4:21), probably heading for Italy and possibly Spain (Rom 15:24, 28).

Titus had been left on Crete so he could “complete [the] work.” The Greek verb for “complete” (epidiorthoō [TG1930, ZG2114]; only here in the LXX and the Greek NT) indicates a setting right of deficiencies. This could be either correcting something gone wrong (in an already-existing church) or completing a (new) work. Assuming the latter, there was nevertheless more work involved with this than the mere completion of a standard to-do list. There was a need to address a certain recalcitrance (1:10-16). Marshall (1999:151) suggests further that this verb “may reflect some local colour” since it only occurs one other time in a second-century BC inscription found on Crete. It is possible that the term had legal connotations (related here to the official work of Paul’s delegate) that would have been meaningful to the Cretans. What are to be completed are “the remaining (things).” The NLT translates it as “our work” on the assumption that Paul had himself been on the island. Of course, there was likely more to the work than what Paul covers in this letter. In general the letter gives the appearance that there was a particular stage at which Paul wished the church to reach during Titus’s tenure before his replacement arrived (3:12).

As a first order of business, a strong, sound leadership was needed on Crete. So Paul told Titus to “appoint elders in each town” (1:5). Beyond the general practice of appointing leaders, there was a real and present danger facing the Cretan churches in the form of the “many” described in 1:10-16. Moreover, this part of Titus’s task dovetailed with the larger concern of the letter to shape a community that bears witness to the grace of God by embodying that grace in its conduct. Aside from their role in teaching and correcting, no job description was given for the elders. But it is clear where they are to lead the communities.

In 1 Timothy 3:1-7 the act of appointing is only implied; Timothy’s role may have been one of overseeing a process (cf. 1 Tim 5:22). Titus, however, is told explicitly to appoint the leaders (whether acting alone or in cooperation with the churches is not indicated) as a necessary step in completing this phase of the work there. Deacons are not mentioned, possibly because these were new churches. Likely the whole work was on a smaller scale than in Ephesus. Also, as will be noted in what follows, there are indications that the list of qualities in the epistle to Titus represents an accommodation to both the newness of these converts and the evident roughness of their native character.

In Judaism the “elders” (presbuteroi [TG4245, ZG4565A]) were older men who were regarded as leaders in the community. The line dividing young from old varies in the literature from 40 to 60. Marshall (1999:239) suggests that the New Testament writers assumed a general distinction of young and old dividing at the age of 40. The Sanhedrin included a contingent of elders (Matt 16:21; Mark 15:1), but “there does not appear to have been a Jewish model for a council of elders in Christian groups” (Marshall 1999:173). It is possible that in the beginning days after Pentecost the apostles and those closely related to them were the “elders” among the believers; they constituted a living link to the earthly ministry of Christ. The term was probably also used for older Christian men in the congregations or heads of households, who were regarded as leaders but did not necessarily occupy an office as such. In the letters to Timothy and Titus, the term was used for an office (here in 1:5; in 1 Tim 4:14 the word used means “council of elders”) but was still being used for the elderly men in general (1 Tim 5:1). The modern idea of lifetime ordination and a full-time profession should not be read back into the early, household-church setting. I am assuming that, as in 1 Timothy, the elders would be males (cf. 1 Tim 3:4-5). The following commentary on what Paul says is expressed with that same assumption, though male eldership is not directly mandated here or elsewhere in the New Testament.

Even if the earliest communities—those preceding the churches of 1 Timothy and Titus—were “charismatic” in nature, involving spontaneity and general involvement of teachers and prophets (e.g., 1 Cor 14:26-40), there would always have been leaders of the community, whether or not they were viewed as occupying an “office.” This earliest local leadership outside of Jerusalem following Pentecost (Acts 2) would have been fluid in role function and in titles used. It appears to have drawn off of both Jewish synagogue and Greco-Roman models, and it was ideally dependent on apostolic involvement if not appointment (Acts 14:23; the following do not mention any appointing but suggest apostolic control in general: Acts 8:14; 10:1–11:18; 11:22-24). In at least some cases there was a delay between the founding of a church and the appointment of leaders (1:5; Acts 14:23). The appointment almost certainly related to the recognition of spiritual gifting (e.g., 1 Cor 12:28-30; Eph 4:11) but was probably always dependent on moral and functional criteria as well. The point of this paragraph is worth stressing. Some have argued that the letters to Timothy and Titus represent a church of the late first century or early second century that is settling down in the world, a church that has surrendered its sense of imminent hope and its radical and “charismatic” life, a church that is losing its original egalitarian tendencies and reasserting traditional (culturally bound) patriarchal structures, a church that is institutionalizing and restricting spiritual gifting to the leadership, a church that is seeking mere respectability in its society. A phrase that is sometimes used to capture this is “early catholicism.” Certainly some such things represent perennial threats to the church, and many churches will have succumbed to these tendencies. Nevertheless, it is truer to say that these letters to Timothy and Titus represent an impatient desire to move ahead with the classic Pauline mission. The mission had gotten bogged down by certain troublemakers in Ephesus and was getting off to a slow start on Crete due to its own issues. Paul was palpably driving ahead as hard as he ever did, and the appointment of leaders was an essential aspect of that effort. It stands to reason that leadership schemes (forms of church government) and much else would have been adapted from region to region and that thinking and practice would have developed over time. But there is no reason to consign these letters to the sort of “early catholicism” described above.

How the leadership role in fact developed as the years passed and how standardized the titles, functions, and appointment procedures became is very unclear for the period of the New Testament. Even 1 Timothy and Titus do not necessarily indicate a universal practice, particularly as they are responding to special needs. Moreover, their concern is less with perpetuating a form of government than ensuring the faithful transmission of the true gospel. It is almost certain that for a city such as Ephesus (1 Timothy) there would have been several house churches, but their relationship to each other is never discussed or even indirectly clarified in the letters to Timothy. The situation on Crete is less clear beyond the allusion to multiple cities. It is quite likely that there were multiple elders/overseers in many of the local churches and that, at least later on, the titles of “elder” and “overseer” were alternatives for the same office (the former more descriptive of status, the latter of function). While the apostle Paul exercised influence if not control over his entire field of mission (often through his delegates, as in Titus), there is no evidence that he intended to build or leave a regional or mission-wide infrastructure of governance.

As to function, the role of the overseers probably varied according to need and ability (1 Tim 5:17). The impression from 1 Timothy and Titus that the overseers carried most of the teaching role may be largely due to the need to counteract the false teachers in those communities. Otherwise the picture of 1 Corinthians 14:26-40 might have prevailed. On the whole, it would seem that the overseers were to carry on with the teaching and disciplinary role that Paul and his delegates performed (cf. 1 Tim 3:4-5; 2 Tim 2:2; see also Titus 1:9), though without the wider responsibilities and scope of authority of an itinerant apostle. This could have taken many different forms but would have wielded a real and distinctive authority (1:11, 13; 2:15; 3:10-11; 1 Cor 4:21; 5:3-5; 2 Cor 1:23–2:4; 13:2-3, 10; 1 Tim 1:20; 4:6, 11-16; 5:19-22; 6:20-21; 2 Tim 1:13-14; 2:14-19, 25-26). Lastly, if the letters to Timothy and Titus are dated to the last phase of Paul’s life following Acts 28, then Paul may well have been consciously “passing the baton” at this point. But there is more indication of that in 1 and 2 Timothy than in Titus. (For a fuller discussion of the above, with ample bibliography, see Marshall 1999:52-57, 170-181, 486-488, 512-521.)

Titus was charged with the task of rounding out an initial church-founding effort. His work represents Paul’s general operating procedure but is also a specific response to the needs unique to the new churches on Crete. It is neither necessary nor prudent to replicate exactly in other contexts what Paul outlined for Titus on Crete. He was not himself mandating a universal structure for all churches, nor did he give indication that what he wrote sprang from some such structure. The wisdom of appointing leaders (beyond the increasingly distant influence of the apostles themselves) was an assumption of practice—probably a universal one in the churches represented by the New Testament and church fathers, though church history has realized models that attempt to dispense with appointed leaders (e.g., Quakers, Plymouth Brethren)—and not a stated requirement of the Good News itself. Quite plainly a robust leadership does not contradict Jesus’ teaching (e.g., Matt 23:8-12), nor does it have to oppose a full and spontaneous exercise of spiritual gifting under the lordship of Christ. Neither is there a need to restrict leadership structures to those explicitly represented in the New Testament. What is crucial is the vision of concrete, local communities as representations of the universal church of Christ, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets with Christ Jesus as the cornerstone (Eph 2:20), living and laboring as the end-time people of God our Savior.

The elders were to be appointed in each town. There may have been more than one house church in a given “town” and possibly more than one elder-overseer in a given house church. What is clear is that there were churches in at least two cities on Crete (how widely the mission had spread is impossible to determine) and that the leadership was specific to each city at least (if not to each house church). There is no mention of an elder-overseer of Crete in general. For a survey of cities on Crete that may have been included in this work, see Schnabel 2004:2.1284-1286.

The whole appointment process is to be carried out as Paul had instructed Titus. The following verses detail at least some of this instruction for the purposes of authorizing the delegate and making the criteria public. Ancient letters sometimes assumed that the bearer of the letter bore some of the message, possibly the most important part of it (cf. M. B. Thompson 1998:65-68; according to Llewelyn 1998:7.26-27, however, this was less common during the Roman period). In the present situation Titus was the recipient of the letter, but he had earlier received orally the fuller set of instructions that are here summarized.

What follows generally parallels 1 Timothy 3:2-7, which probably reflects both that Paul had a usual approach at this point in his ministry and that the churches in Ephesus and Crete were facing some similar issues in the false teaching at work. But there are also differences; these bear out the unique situation of Crete and the adaptability of Paul’s approach. The list of attributes gives little insight into the functions of an elder and does not centrally concern his role; the focus is on his character, probably in response to the effects of the opponents (cf. 1:10-16). The attributes are not unique to leaders but are certainly to be possessed by those who will lead.

That the elder should be above reproach, living a blameless life (see note on 1:6) is the most general criterion; the rest is elaboration. This character quality is necessary if he is to garner respect for the oversight of internal affairs, provide a model and encouragement for other believers, and represent the church in public. Such a criterion on its own and applied legalistically could make the elder the prisoner of every scoundrel or easily offended person who wishes to hurl an accusation. Checks and balances always existed in practice (cf. 1 Tim 5:19). It is also clear that “blamelessness” assumes rather than expresses what counts as being blameworthy. The point of reference would draw on Christian norms but would also be cultural, depending on the given societal expectations regarding honorable behavior (1 Tim 3:7). Ultimately it is missiological concerns that are involved (cf. 2:5, 8, 10; 3:1-8), particularly as they have been threatened by the false teachers.

Next, Paul says that the elder is to be “faithful to his wife”—literally, he is to be a “man of one woman” (1:6; cf. 1 Tim 3:2, 12). What does this phrase mean? There is a structural parallel in 1 Timothy 5:9—the widow is to be a “woman of one man.” That context makes it unlikely that Paul was forbidding remarriage after the death of the spouse. Otherwise, in counseling the younger widows to remarry, he was setting them up to be excluded from the “widow’s list” when they were older (1 Tim 5:14). Polygyny (having more than one wife at the same time) did exist in the surrounding world (CD 4.20–5.6; Josephus Antiquities 17.14), but “by the first century monogamy appears to have been the widespread norm, polygyny the very rare exception” (Davies and Allison 1997:18). It would not likely have been an issue within the Christian church and so is not likely the concern here either. The use of the parallel structure in 1 Timothy indicates that Paul was almost certainly not concerned there with polyandry. A prohibition of remarriage after divorce is possible (cf. Matt 5:32; Mark 10:11). Though Matthew 19:9 and 1 Corinthians 7:15 may be exceptions to a ban on remarriage, the standards for leaders may have been strict. Yet the least problematic understanding is a demonstrated purity and faithfulness in his marriage relationship, something that could certainly not be taken for granted in the Greco-Roman world, or ours. (For this, see Marshall 1999:155-157, who also argues convincingly against seeing a connection with the error of 1 Tim 4:3.)

Marital infidelity has become almost a fashion in Western society. Popular culture (television, movies, advertising, magazines) affords a good many registers of that fact. Mainstream television speaks openly and seriously of the potential benefits of adultery. Polls indicate that sexual practices among those who profess Christian identity generally parallel the surrounding society. In this context, lest we define sexual relations legalistically, it is necessary to recall Matthew 5:28 and to admit that this applies in the context of men and women, to television, to the Internet, to magazines, to clothing catalogs, to billboards, to the beach, and to the sidewalk. The elder is to be “faithful to his wife.”

Just as it is assumed that the elder will be married, it is assumed—not mandated—that he will have children. The church as a household (Eph 2:19-22; 1 Tim 3:15) was distinct from (cf. 1 Tim 5:16) but overlapped with the natural home. The householder and elder accordingly would have been male as a rule (Eph 5:22–6:9; Col 3:18–4:1; 1 Pet 2:18–3:7; 5:1-5), and his capacity to “manage” (cf. the verb used in 1 Tim 3:4, proïstamai [TG4291A, ZG4613]) in the one sphere reflected on his ability to manage in the other. The elder’s children “must be believers” (lit., “having faithful/trustworthy/believing [pistos] children”). The adjective pistos [TG4103, ZG4412] could refer to their response to their parents or their response to the Good News. The latter is adopted by the NLT. The former might be favored by the following phrase, which relates to the general response of the children to authority. But since the following phrase is assumed to probably reflect unbelieving conduct, we end up nearly at the same point.

In part this requirement reflects Greco-Roman and Jewish norms within a strongly patriarchal world. Yet considered broadly, it is unlikely that Paul believed that the faith of the children could be commanded by their parents, nor would an externally enforced faith be consistent with the Good News. The general concern emerges from the following requirement. The children of an elder must not “have a reputation for being wild or rebellious” (1:6, see note). The adjective anupotaktos [TG506, ZG538], translated as “rebellious,” pertains to a refusal to submit to authority. The adjective recurs in 1:10 as a leading characteristic of the opponents. This is probably not mere coincidence. The criteria for elders in 1 Timothy 3 also emphasize the elder’s relationship to his wife and the character of his children, but it can be observed that the list here in Titus has moved the requirements about children to the fore and emphasized those requirements by using “blamelessness” bookends for them. From this, from the repetition of the adjective anupotaktos, and from 1:11 (cf. 1 Tim 4:3; 5:11-15; 2 Tim 3:6-9), it is evident that Paul’s concern was with the specific influence of these opponents or the general cultural problem of immoral behavior that the letter as a whole was attempting to curb (1:12). There was the expectation that the elder of the church had demonstrated a capacity to deal with this issue within his own household.

While this is not the place to construct a whole “theology of the family,” a few comments are in order. Much of what Paul said here and elsewhere has transferred rather naturally across time and cultures, but there can be tensions. Many now live in a highly egalitarian world (meaning that there is a high premium placed on equality in all social relationships and roles), whereas the first-century world of Crete would have been highly patriarchal (meaning that the father/husband/master exercised significant and real control and authority within his household). It is therefore with discretion that what Paul said about families is to be brought into the present world. What constitutes acceptable “managing” will differ from culture to culture.

There is no question of the special and honored place of marriage and families in the biblical teaching, nor is there a question as to the authority of anything that the Bible teaches. But the nature of the relationships within Greco-Roman households as they are assumed in Paul’s world are not necessarily what is being taken up and made normative by passages such as these. Paul’s concern was with the church’s mission and the public reputation of the Good News (2:5, 8, 10), and he composed his directions on that heading within a given cultural setting. In what he says about households, Paul was by no means merely reinforcing cultural norms, but he did not disregard them either (1 Cor 9); that tension of being “in the world but not of it” is inherent to the Good News itself.

Thus on the one hand, given the cultural norms of Paul’s world, there would have been certain expectations relative to the father and husband’s exercise of authority in the household, expectations that, if brought over untranslated into our own world, would actually work to discredit the Good News. Paul’s central concern would be defeated by a literalistic application of what he said. In effect we would be reconstructing a particular model of family—and a particularly Greco-Roman version of patriarchy, complete with slaves—rather than a Christian one. With respect to the passage before us, we would be taking one snapshot, snapped in a moment of crisis, and imagining that this gives us the whole reality.

On the other hand, it is fair to say that the present-day world is witnessing the radical breakdown and redefinition of the family relative to any sound biblical conception of it. Contributing to this are deeper currents at work, philosophical efforts to break with the past and tradition and thereby, it is thought, to realize fully humankind’s potentials. Lundin has argued very convincingly that it has been the express desire of humankind in the West, ever since the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, to “slip free of the parental grip that holds us back in our journey to the truth. Only then, when free at last of parents and the past, will we begin to see the truth and understand others as we ought” (1999:25).

The implications of this casting off of authority are serious and numerous. This outlook expresses itself everywhere, not least in story lines, especially in movies intended for children (e.g., notice the absence of parents—one or both—in many children’s movies). The very idea of the parent is being renounced (beyond that, of course, gender itself is being redefined and remade). This will not be the only cause, but it certainly contributes to the breakdown of the family that we all see and feel. In such a world there may be no choice for the church but to adopt a countercultural posture that will bring contempt from outsiders.

Returning to Paul’s itemization of qualifications for elders, we read that “a church leader . . . must live a blameless life” (1:7). The Greek for “church leader” in this verse is episkopos [TG1985, ZG2176] (“overseer”; so NLT mg). In this passage the two titles appear to designate the same role: “elder” stressing status, “overseer” referring to function. The form switches from the plural in 1:5 (elders) to a generic singular here (overseer). As an appointed position, the occupant of this office is an authorized representative of the master, a manager/steward of the master’s property, and accountable for his performance (note the use of the word in Luke 12:42; 16:1; 1 Cor 4:1-2; Gal 4:2; 1 Pet 4:10).

The repetition of the requirement for blamelessness launches the second phase of the list, which follows the negatives of 1:7 with the positives of 1:8-9. In what follows, the bar is not set remarkably high. Taken at face value, so long as these men were not embezzlers provoking drunken brawls, they could serve as elders in the church. This is once again an indication of the general rawness of the candidates who are available for the roster (cf. 1 Tim 1:9-10; 3:3, 8).

There follows a list of what elders must not be:

  1. arrogant. The Greek word authadēs [TG829, ZG881] pertains “to being arrogant as the result of self-will and stubbornness” (L&N 88.206). When the boards of many modern-day churches and other Christian institutions are comprised largely of highly successful people, the sin of arrogance can be all too easily ignored.
  2. quick-tempered. The Greek word orgilos [TG3711, ZG3975] pertains to someone inclined to anger. According to Aristotle, “quick-tempered persons lose no time being angry, and do so with those they ought not, over things they ought not, and far more than they ought” (Nicomachean Ethics 4.5, quoted in BDAG 721).
  3. a heavy drinker. The Greek word paroinos [TG3943A, ZG4232] can be used metaphorically for behavior that is like that of someone drunk, but here it more likely pertains literally to someone inclined to drink too much wine (2:3; 1 Tim 3:3, 8). The intent is not the prohibition of wine (cf. John 2:1-11; 1 Tim 4:1-5; 5:23) but of the avoidance of intoxication and generally of the reputation of a “drinker.”
  4. violent. Plēktēs [TG4131A, ZG4438] is a bully, “a person who is pugnacious and demanding” (L&N 88.137; cf. 1 Tim 3:3). This probably refers to behavior associated with drunkenness, as it is used with paroinos both here and in 1 Timothy 3:3.
  5. dishonest with money. An aischrokerdēs [TG146, ZG153] person is someone “shamelessly greedy for money, avaricious, fond of dishonest gain” (BDAG 29; cf. 1 Tim 3:8); it could apply to someone who simply desires money above all, whose desire for gain is greater than his desire for propriety, who engages in ethically dubious trades, who seeks to profit from what should be done for free, or all of these (Marshall 1999:162). This characteristic was inappropriate because it was improper for ministers of the word (cf. 2 Cor 2:17; 1 Thess 2:5), because of the false teachers specifically (cf. 1:11; 1 Tim 6:5), and/or because it was disreputable and improper in general (1 Tim 6:6-10, 17-19). The Cretans were well known to be characterized by this trait (Polybius Histories 6.46).

Then there follows a list of what elders must be or do:

  1. enjoy having guests in his home. He must be philoxenos [TG5382, ZG5811], meaning “hospitable” (1 Tim 3:2; 1 Pet 4:9). Informal hospitality was necessary for all travelers in the Roman Empire, where inns were a far cry from modern hotels. Christians would naturally have sought and possibly needed to stay with fellow believers when on the road, and itinerant missionaries and teachers would have required hospitality for the mission to go forward (e.g., 1 Tim 5:10; 2 John 1:10-11; 3 John 1:1-15). Moreover, local churches would have met in homes (Rom 16:4-5; 1 Cor 16:19; Col 4:15). Although there is no special order in the list of 1:8, this virtue, which certainly involves a degree of generosity with one’s possessions, might have seemed a natural contrast with aischrokerdēs at the end of 1:7.
  2. love what is good. He must be philagathos [TG5358, ZG5787], quite literally, “one who loves good.” In their society this was a characteristic of an especially respected and responsible citizen and was commonly used in honorary inscriptions. A good leader possessed this trait. The idea may include civic benefactions with a view to the public reputation of the church and the Good News, that is, with a view to the church’s mission. (See comments on 2 Tim 3:3, where the absence of this virtue characterizes the opponents.)
  3. live wisely. Another way to say this is that the person needs to be self-disciplined, a rendering of sōphrōn [TG4998, ZG5409] (see note on 2 Tim 1:7).
  4. be just. The Greek is dikaios [TG1342, ZG1465] (righteous, just), that is, one whose life is in accordance with high standards of rectitude. This adjective belongs to the word group that is used with high frequency for righteousness and justification in the New Testament, where it is centered on the person and work of Jesus Christ. Also, “in Greco-Roman tradition a dikaios person is one who upholds the customs and norms of behavior, including especially public service, that make for a well-ordered, civilized society” (BDAG 246). In ethical lists it is often grouped with sōphrōn (see above) and hosios (see below). This quality thus gathers up not only Christian norms, which are themselves rooted in the Old Testament (cf. Matt 5:20), but serves as a common point of reference for mission in the surrounding world. For the use of related vocabulary in Titus, see 2:12; 3:5, 7.
  5. live a devout . . . life. Hosios [TG3741, ZG4008] pertains “to being without fault relative to deity, devout, pious, pleasing to God, holy.” “In the Greco-Roman world this term for the most part described that which helps maintain the delicate balance between the interests of society and the expectations of the transcendent realm. For example, the hosios person prays and sacrifices to the gods, . . . is conscious of basic taboos (hence wary of pollution because of bloodshed), and observes traditions of hospitality” (BDAG 728).
  6. live a . . . disciplined life. Enkratēs [TG1468, ZG1604] pertains “to having one’s emotions, impulses, or desires under control” (BDAG 274). For the idea and its importance, see comments on 2 Timothy 1:7.
  7. must have a strong belief in the trustworthy message. The verb is not the usual verb for belief or faith (pisteuō [TG4100, ZG4409]) but rather antechomai [TG472, ZG504], used here in the middle voice, and meaning “to have a strong attachment to someone or something, cling to, hold fast to, be devoted to” (BDAG 87). The idea might be that this person has a deep devotion to it as a student; but it is more likely that the idea is that he is strongly committed to or holds firmly “the faithful word” such as to be competent in the handling of it (and likely so that he will not be easily moved from it). As the letter is addressed to communities in their infancy, the concern was probably with potential theologians more than actual. At the least, what this person has demonstrated is a higher-than-average degree of interest, understanding, and constancy with respect to the teachings of the Good News.

With regard to this seventh point, that to which the potential elder holds fast is “the trustworthy message he was taught.” The phrase “trustworthy message” (ho pistos logos [TG4103/3056, ZG4412/3364]) is a general designation for the oral teaching that is trustworthy in that it is faithful to the apostolic teaching. For us that is the New Testament canon. The standard is “the teaching” (hē didachē [TG1322, ZG1439]), which is a designation for an authorized body of teaching as agreed upon and taught by the apostles (e.g., Acts 2:42; Rom 6:17; Heb 13:9). The role of teacher in this sense was filled by specially gifted and qualified people (Rom 12:7; 1 Cor 12:28-29; Eph 4:11; 2 Tim 2:2).

The point is not merely that this person likes to study and learn. To be sure the church needs thinkers, although even here they will be Christian thinkers and so their thinking—on any topic at all—will finally be in and for the church. But Paul was writing to Titus about elders. The interest is fully in the practical contribution the person could make on behalf of the church as a whole. Therefore, the point of seeking out someone properly devoted to the trustworthy message is that, on the one hand, “he will be able to encourage others with wholesome teaching” (1:9). On the other hand, he will be able to “show those who oppose it where they are wrong.” This allusion provides the segue from a list that is to some extent general and transferrable (though tailored to this situation) to the specific situation on Crete that made the quality of these appointments so pressing and important.

The verb translated “oppose” is antilegō [TG483, ZG515], which is used here for speaking against or contradicting someone. It belongs to a set of terms that Paul used to denote the opposition of some in the letters to Titus and Timothy (see 2 Tim 2:25). The phrase “show . . . where they are wrong” translates the verb elenchō [TG1651, ZG1794] (1:9; cf. 2 Tim 3:16; 4:2). This language probably includes official church discipline as a possible course of action (this verb is used in Matt 18:15; 1 Tim 5:20). Matthew 18, read within the Gospel of Matthew as a whole, is essential in that connection. Even leaving aside church discipline, the activity of reproving has never been pleasant and has become unfashionable in an ecumenical and postmodern age. Nevertheless, attention to what such activity means, when it is called for, and how it should be integrated into a complete approach to life and ministry is a perennial need if we are to remain faithful to apostolic faith and practice.

In plain English, the elder-overseer must be a theologian, deep and true. This is true for whatever the precise form the job profile takes in a given church or cultural setting. That person must be steeped in the Scriptures, must be schooled in the church’s teaching, and must possess the ability to teach the Good News in truth and correct error. This needs to be said bluntly since so many within the church of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries have converted to a highly relational, moment-centered, experience-centered version of the faith. Without intending to marginalize wholesome teaching or to undermine its very possibility, these have nevertheless been the effects, and the result will be an extremely high degree of vulnerability to false teachings.

Finally, we may make two observations about Paul’s policy and a concluding one about our own situation. First, if the comparisons of the above list along with that of 1 Timothy 3 may be used as a gauge, then we may infer that Paul was a realist in the matter of appointing elders. Clearly the same apostle wrote both letters and his goals for the churches were the same, but the churches on Ephesus and Crete were at different stages, and his requirements for the elders seem to reflect this reality. As Towner puts it, “in comparison with 1 Timothy 3, the requirements and extra attention given to ministry [in Titus 1] reflect a church situation in Crete that is primitive, harsh, and verging on crisis . . . ethical formation needed to begin at the ground floor” (Towner 2006, 693-694; see Towner for the evidence for this claim). This does not contradict the point of the preceding paragraph—there can be no lowering of the standards in principle—but rather it reminds us that no principle governs conduct in isolation from other principles, in this case, the need to begin where things are. Many modern churches are in a more advantageous situation than were those on Crete, and the principle of Luke 12:48 certainly applies.

Second, a strong eldership was Paul’s policy in founding the churches on Crete and in combating the false teaching in the Ephesian churches of 1 Timothy—strong in terms of wholesome teaching and the godly living to which it gives rise. It is true that in what he wrote to his coworkers we do not have a job description, nor a set form for church government, nor even something that was intended as a timeless policy handbook. Through 2,000 years the errors go through their revolutions, and the faces of the rebels change. There may well be times and places where a strong leadership is less important. But it is hard to see that many of us live in such a time and place.

Last, it must be taken to heart that the elder-overseers were being recruited out of the ranks of these churches. With the exception of the ability to teach, what Paul listed were not special qualities for those “of the cloth” but qualities for all believers. It is true that for the churches on Crete the responsibility for raising the leaders up fell to its founders, Paul and his coworkers, by necessity. Most churches making use of this commentary, however, will be several generations into their history with the Good News. Thus, the burden falls to us and our children to nurture a community that represents Paul’s values, to hold those values, live them out, and teach them.