TEXT [Commentary]

  B.   Reason: The False Teachers (1:10-13a)

10 For there are many rebellious people who engage in useless talk and deceive others. This is especially true of those who insist on circumcision for salvation. 11 They must be silenced, because they are turning whole families away from the truth by their false teaching. And they do it only for money. 12 Even one of their own men, a prophet from Crete, has said about them, “The people of Crete are all liars, cruel animals, and lazy gluttons.”[*] 13 This is true.

NOTES

1:11 They must be silenced. That is, they must be gagged. The verb epistomizō [TG1993, ZG2187] literally means “put something on the mouth,” and is used figuratively here meaning “silence.” “Bridle, hinder, prevent” (with a view to their effects) are possible alternatives (BDAG 382).

by their false teaching. And they do it only for money. That is, they were teaching what is not fitting (i.e., should not be taught) “on account of shameful gain” (aischrou kerdous charin [TG150/2771, ZG156/3046], “shameful/gain”). The expression “what is not fitting” has a dismissive feel to it, demoting the false teaching to a generic class of rejected teachings (essentially the same phrase is used in 1 Tim 5:13). If the allusion to the false teaching is in contrast to 1:9, then the allusion to money recalls 1:7 (see commentary there on aischrokerdēs).

1:12 “The people of Crete are all liars, cruel animals, and lazy gluttons.” Historians have had an interest in pinning down the source of the line Paul cited. As noted in the NLT mg, the line is usually attributed to Epimenides of Knossos in Crete (fifth or sixth century BC); the attribution goes back to Clement of Alexandria (mid-second century) and Jerome (c. 347-419/20). This attribution has been questioned, and other possible sources have been explored (Marshall 1999:200-201). One of these alternatives is the third-century BC Hymn to Zeus by Callimachus: “Cretans are always liars. For a tomb, O Lord, the Cretans build for you. But you did not die, for you live forever.” Interestingly, the ninth-century AD Syrian commentator Isho’dad uses a source that combines this line with those cited by Paul here and in Acts 17:28: “The Cretans carve a tomb for thee, O holy and high! Liars! Evil beasts and slow bellies; for thou art not dead forever; thou art alive and risen; for in thee we live and are moved, and have our being” (quoted in Dibelius and Conzelmann 1972:137). The question of the saying’s derivation remains a puzzle, and there is nothing in such a citation to suggest general knowledge of a literary source in any event. After surveying the leading options, Marshall concludes that Paul likely believed he was citing Epimenides (1999:201, citing Oberlinner).

The question of the source is not entirely academic because it was important to Paul in addressing the pastoral situation on Crete. It was the fact that one of their own men, a prophet from Crete said, “The people of Crete are all liars, cruel animals, and lazy gluttons.” The assertion is, however, categorical; it is meant to apply to all Cretans. Quinn cleverly paraphrases the Greek hexameter (poetic) line: “Liars ever, men of Crete, Nasty brutes that live to eat” (1990:97). It might be that “liars” corresponds to 1:10, “animals” to 1:10-11a (rebels, disrupters), and “gluttons” to 1:11b (Towner 1994:231).

COMMENTARY [Text]

Titus 1:10-16 gives the reason for the directions on the appointment of elders (1:10). It is good to survey the whole of verses 10-16, though this section of the commentary will focus on verses 10-13a. I will first comment on Paul’s argument in verses 10-16 and then on some of what is behind it.

It can be observed that verses 10-16 concern Titus’s teaching and reprimanding role, whereas after verses 5-9 we might have expected it to have been the role of the elders. But it is finally clear that the elders are being appointed for the same work and for the reasons stated in verses 10-16. Titus’s role is foregrounded as the bearer of apostolic authority and due to the newness of the church; within their office as elders (versus apostolic delegates) the elders will carry on with the same.

It is also good to observe that in verses 10-16 and elsewhere (3:3) Paul’s effort is to contrast humanity before and outside of Christ with the state of Christians in Christ. In general, Paul thought and wrote more in terms of corporate ideas (versus individual states) and historical epochs (versus personal history). He will consistently paint a picture of stark contrast between what it means to be in sin (in Adam, the first humanity, the first creation which came under sin and death) and what it means to be in Christ (the second and new humanity, the new creation that emerged with Jesus’ death and resurrection). The Good News summons those of us who believe to accept our new identities—in Christ—and to become who we are. That is true in Titus as well.

But there is no room for pride in this. Recognizing how God’s mercy comes to us calls forth from believers humility and a heart that expresses the same grace, mercy, forgiveness, and love to unbelievers (and believers acting like unbelievers) that was shown to us. We forgive as we have been forgiven. We fill the world with the love that he has filled our own hearts with (see 3:1-8).

The need of reformation within the church is constant and is assumed in what Paul says in 1:13 and generally elsewhere. The point of verses 10-16 is partly to be aware of the wolf without (that is, in the world outside of the church; humanity before and outside of Christ) and partly to be aware of the wolf within the church. And again, the line within the church cuts both through the community (there are false believers mixed in) and through each heart (we continue, as genuine believers, to struggle with sin).

With that in mind, verses 10-16 can be briefly paraphrased this way:

1:10-13a. There are many behaving badly within the churches of Crete. They are acting just like Cretans; in other words, they haven’t moved at all from the shape sin has taken in their culture. (Paul’s argument does not state whether they are or are not true believers. His point concerns what they are actually doing, their actions.)

1:13b-14. Reprimand them—especially the rebels but ultimately the churches as a whole—so that they will be sound. In short, there is hope for reformation if they are rooted in Christ. It is a matter of constantly preaching the Good News, which none of us ever outgrows.

1:15-16. Let it be understood that at bottom the false teaching comes from corrupt hearts, hearts spawning false teaching and nothing of worth. The wholesome teaching produces a different heart, a different outlook on God’s creation, and a different way of living in it, which is the fulfillment of all that God did from Adam to Christ.

All of this underscores the need for a strong leadership in the churches of Crete; more, it bespeaks the need for strong churches. Furthermore, behind all this is a deeper drama: A mere survey of the story of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation would suggest that to this point in history sin’s effects on humanity and evil’s presence within the world appeared most openly and viciously in the first appearance of Jesus. This by no means suggests that Jesus’ contemporaries were more sinful or evil than any others or that Satan and his minions were more real then than at other times. Quite to the contrary, it assumes that the same darkness that is within the world at all times boiled to the surface at that moment in response to the presence of God. If we may think of humanity collectively, then our real condition—our genuine mood and mind in relation to God—showed itself in that encounter and quintessentially in the Cross. It is not a pretty picture, one that contradicts our self-perceptions as being an aggregate of basically nice people (with a few bad apples, admittedly). Our culture blanches at the very word “sin,” preferring “mistake,” “illness,” and the like. The U.S. president Ronald Reagan said, “I know in my heart that man is good.” The Scriptures assert the fundamental opposite, not in negating God’s own pronouncement on his handiwork in Genesis 1 but in affirming the universal and pervasive reality of sin since Genesis 3. The Cross gives the lie to every illusion of humanity on that score. And the struggle between “light” and “darkness” that showed itself there (John 1:5; 3:19-21) carries forward into the church’s experience in relation to the Good News (1 Thess 5:5; cf. 2 Cor 6:14). It is not overly dramatic to invoke that larger backdrop in approaching 1:10-13, for Paul himself was in the habit of doing so (e.g., Rom 1–3; 5; Gal 2–5; Eph 2; 6; 1 Tim 4:1-5; 2 Tim 3:1-9; 4:3-4). He has already done so and will do so again in this letter (1:1-3; 2:11–3:8).

Against this backdrop the two applications noted above can be reiterated and expanded. On the one hand, we understand Paul’s strong rhetoric, in this case directed at the Cretans, when we ourselves have known its sting. It is fair to observe and learn from the fact that the Cretan church might have been a rougher neighborhood than the average, and we must learn from the particulars of their situation, but we cannot forget that we are cut from the same cloth. We cannot stand to the side chuckling over the barbed portrayal of verse 12 but must look for ourselves in that description, just as Paul tells the Cretan Christians to do in 3:3: “We, too, were foolish and disobedient. We were misled and became slaves to many lusts and pleasures. Our lives were full of evil and envy, and we hated each other.”

On the other hand, acknowledging that this reality persists within the confessing community forces us to own up to the responsibility—crystallized in its leaders, but a responsibility that belongs to the entire church—to promote the Good News for the glory of God and salvation of people, a work that necessitates firm measures in representing the truth and correcting and reproving error. As Paul will say later, the grace of God that has been revealed in this world teaches us, it instructs us in how to live in the present age (2:11-12). It does not simply change us, as if we are passive recipients of its effects, as if we become holy while we sleep. Rather, it rescues us from this evil world (Gal 1:4) in part by confronting us in our daily conduct and calling for reformation. This confrontation happens through the teaching of the church. On Crete, Titus and the elders he appoints will be the point-men in those roles.

The need for strong leaders in the new churches of Crete was occasioned not merely by standard operating procedures but also by the specific needs of the hour, which are stated in 1:10—“For there are many rebellious people.” The word for “rebellious” is anupotaktos [TG506, ZG538] (see 1:6 relating to the children of elders). The concern here and throughout verses 10-13 is with individuals inside the church (versus society at large) and their response to the apostles’ authority and the wholesome teaching. When he says that there are many of them, it is not clear whether he means that there is a large number of them in the Cretan churches or that they are perennially in supply. Certainly it would mean that there are more than a couple of them at work, but beyond that it is probably more rhetorical (meaning they are a significant presence) than numerically descriptive (cf. 2 Cor 2:17).

Their rebellion sucks others into its destruction, as they “engage in useless talk and deceive others” (1:10). They are mataiologoi [TG3151, ZG3468], meaning “idle talkers, windbags.” The noun mataiologia [TG3150, ZG3467] is used for the false teaching in 1 Timothy 1:6, and the very similar-sounding teaching of 3:9 is described as mataios [TG3152, ZG3469], meaning “empty, vain.” This may be dismissive rhetoric on Paul’s part, but it seems as likely that the false teaching was actually vacuous (see 2 Tim 2:23). In spite of the emptiness of their talk, they “deceive others.” They are phrenapatai [TG5423, ZG5855], meaning “those who mislead.” This is the only occurrence of this word in the Septuagint and the Greek New Testament (the cognate verb occurs in Gal 6:3), but the language of deception is used in 3:3; 1 Timothy 2:14; 4:1; 6:10; 2 Timothy 2:16-18; and 3:6-9, 13.

These cross-references raise the question of whether and how the problems on Crete (addressed in Titus) were related to those in Ephesus (1–2 Timothy). On the face of it, the similarities in depicting the false teaching in 1:10-16 and 3:9-11 to those in 1 and 2 Timothy suggest that there was indeed a degree of commonality between them, even if Paul ascribed some of the problem on Crete to native elements (1:12). Of course, there may have been no actual contact between the false teachers of these two localities. Indeed it is possible that the very similar practical and theological response from Paul might reflect his own thinking at this stage of his career. Just as Ephesians and Colossians bear a similar stamp, though the situations they address differ, so also the letters to Titus and Timothy bear a similar theological stamp, although (on this view) addressed to distinct situations. In any event, it is good to avoid an overly homogenized reading of the letters to Titus and Timothy; doing so causes us to lose their distinct contributions to the biblical canon. But Marshall (1999:192-193) is probably on target when he suggests that there were “separate (perhaps closely analogous) developments” in Ephesus, on the one hand, and on Crete, on the other. Whether or not the false teachers were in cahoots, there appear to have been some common themes. It is accordingly fair to cross-reference (cautiously) these letters in fleshing out what Titus was up against.

What Paul had just said of Crete’s rebels was “especially true of those who insist on circumcision for salvation” (1:10). The last part of this statement is more literally, “those of the circumcision.” This could refer to a theological stance on the question of circumcision (so NLT; cf. Acts 15:1), but it may also mean merely “Jewish Christians” (without implying insistence on circumcision; cf. Col 4:11). There is no direct evidence in Titus that these teachers were insisting on circumcision for salvation, but Paul reveals a particular emphasis on salvation not being by works in 3:5. The descriptions of 1:12, 14-16; and 3:9 point to some form of Jewish teaching that had been mixed with other elements, possibly including a Greek dualism that thought of the physical side of life as tinged with sin (cf. 1 Tim 4:3; see the discussion of 2 Tim 2:18).

Whatever their identity, Paul ordered Titus to shut their mouths (see note on 1:11). Given the destructiveness that Paul was about to mention, decisive measures were called for. The language is strong but does not indicate anything as to procedures. We must assume two things broadly: First, these individuals had proven themselves to be recalcitrant and especially virulent in their rebellion (1:12-13), their teaching had been proven to be irredeemably meritless (which is not to say that they themselves were irredeemable; cf. 1:13), and their effect had been to destroy faith and defame the Good News on Crete, thus hampering its progress. These were not merely converted sailors who had failed to clean up their language. They were actively making trouble for the Good News and the churches. Second, whatever procedures were followed in the process of silencing them, it would be in accordance with the spirit of 3:9-11 and 2 Timothy 2:14-26. Ultimately church discipline might be called for (cf. 1 Tim 1:20; 5:20), but that would not be the first step, and that, too, is implemented with a view to salvation (theirs, the church’s, and the surrounding world’s).

The reason that Titus had to silence them is that they were “turning whole families away from the truth.” Literally, “they overturn whole households.” It is possible that this is an allusion to house churches, but it is more likely that households within the churches are meant. The verb anatrepō [TG396, ZG426] means literally “to overturn” (John 2:15); figuratively, it means “to upset or ruin.” It is used similarly of the effects of the false teaching at Ephesus (2 Tim 2:18). In the present passage the effect is on entire households, which may refer to the extent of the penetration of the opponents (not merely individuals but whole households) and/or the particular effects of their teaching on relationships within households (they were fostering friction and rebellion). The former would probably entail the latter. Either way, the qualification of elders in 1:6-7 would appear to be a direct response to this situation. There are other indications in the letters to Timothy and Titus that the effect of false teaching on households was particularly concerning (see 1 Tim 2:15; 4:3; 2 Tim 3:6-7). The general teaching directed to individuals and groups within households would to some extent constitute a correction to this effect (see 2:1-10).

The means by which they were doing this and their motivation for doing it are just two sides of the same counterfeit coin that the rebels were trying to pass off on the churches: They overturned whole families by their false teachings, and they did it only for money (see note on 1:11). In the wider culture there were many itinerant teachers—purveyors of rhetoric and philosophy—who taught for pay. Abuse—any departure from the legitimate role of teaching truth out of love—was common and often deserved the accusation that their teaching was for “gain and glory.” Moreover, Cretan society was singled out as especially characterized by greed and shameful gain (Polybius Histories 6.46). In some fashion the false teachers mentioned in Paul’s letter to Titus were bringing this into the church (cf. Acts 8:9-25; Rom 16:17-18; 2 Cor 2:17; 1 Tim 3:3, 8; 6:5-10, 17; 2 Tim 3:2; 2 Pet 2:3).

We may add that Paul was not opposed to the financial support of a teacher, but there is an invisible line that separates love of God from love of money. Whether one is a pastor, missionary, author, speaker, or artist, the line between fiscal responsibility and prudence, on the one hand, and profiting from the Good News, on the other, is hardly apparent even to our own hearts. We may take for granted that the earliest church was stricter on this point than modern practices. In an early Christian writing called the Didache (which means “teaching”; dated to the second century) very specific restrictions were placed on the financial support of itinerant prophets and teachers. For instance, any itinerant teacher who wished to be shown hospitality for three days (versus one or two) was a false prophet; again, if he asked for money, he was a false prophet (Didache 11). Paul indicated no specific test here in Titus, but evidently in the case of these individuals there was enough in their behavior and teaching to indicate which side of the line they were on.

Paul then said that “even one of their own men, a prophet from Crete” condemned the people from which these rebels came. The Greek wording could be interpreted as a reference to one of the Christian prophets, but most believe that a pagan prophet from Crete is intended. The designation of a pagan as a prophet is in keeping with the wider use of the word in the New Testament world (though this is the only such use in the NT; but see John 11:51; Acts 17:28), and it is consistent with Paul’s ironic tone in this passage.

Paul cited a very bold statement this prophet said about the Cretans: “The people of Crete are all liars, cruel animals, and lazy gluttons” (see note on 1:12 for discussion on the source of this line). This is strong rhetoric; indeed for some today it might border on racism. It is not enough to observe that it was originally uttered by a native of Crete; by citing it, Paul, a non-native, becomes responsible for it. But to call what Paul writes in verses 10-13a unkind or uncharitable is a misjudgment. Meaning is always determined by context, so Paul’s language needs to be measured both by the specific norms of his language system and by the timeless norms of the Good News. Paul’s response to the rebels on Crete—his rhetoric, that is—is in part a reflection of cultural mores that are not the fashion of modern debate. Such language would confuse rather than clarify the Good News in our own world. In that case we should seek creative ways to say the same thing. (On the other hand, some of our rhetoric could probably stand for a little more boldness and verve and less of what we like to call tact.) But it is also to be observed that the larger context of this citation in 1:12 is the whole of this letter within the whole of Paul’s corpus and work, extending out to the manifest effects of all that he said and did (granting that a person’s words can be misused by others). In that context it becomes apparent that there is not any evidence of racism or unkindness in what Paul had written. It may even be that in this case Paul was counteracting a budding arrogance on the part of the new believers in relation to unbelievers (3:1-3). It is a cliché but true nonetheless: The same knife can be wielded by the surgeon or the mugger. The statement in 1:12 is a sharp knife in the hand of a surgeon who genuinely loves his patient. Those who do not have the same love and skill should keep their hands off this knife.

The lesson of this passage is not that the Cretans were worse sinners than all others are but that sin had taken this form on Crete. Without engaging in the kind of sociological thinking about sin that the modern church quite properly does, Paul’s argument seems to assume the fact that sin and evil were not for him merely abstractions and universals. They always take particular forms within the world, uniquely expressing themselves in each time and culture. Our own struggles with sin, too, are not merely struggles with a timeless, transcendent reality but with the concreteness that sin has taken in our culture and society, both locally and globally. This observation moves well beyond Paul’s immediate concerns, but it is a needed reminder as we engage with our own world, lest we stand aloof from what Paul wrote to those “bad Cretans” while in our own context ignoring the specific social, political, and economic forms that sin has taken and that are too often woven into “respectable Christianity.” Were Paul with us today we might be surprised to see what sort of teaching he would like to see “silenced” and whom he might wish to see “reprimanded sternly.”

Returning to the quote in 1:12, we see that Paul then boldly declares: “This is true.” By Paul’s time the island of Crete had long since been stereotyped for its misbehaviors, such as this saying enshrines. The Greeks had a verb for it: krētizein, meaning to “cretanize,” to lie. It was well-known that wild predatory animals were absent on the island (Pliny Natural History 8.83; Plutarch Moralia 86C), and this niche in its fauna was thought to be filled by its human inhabitants, the real cruel animals. The point of the present line in general may be simply to highlight just how famously bad things were there as a way of warranting the harsh measures called for in verses 11 and 13, if not as a way of summoning the Cretan believers to self-vigilance. Though these Pauline churches were new plantings on the island, the trouble was a hybrid of endemic (here) and exotic (e.g., 1:14) elements, both of which predated these particular churches.

A more specific meaning of the statement may be suggested by the history of the saying in Callimachus’s Hymn to Zeus that was noted above. In this case, Cretan lying referred to their perceived impiety for claiming that Zeus, as a human, had died and was buried on Crete. The line from Callimachus is a well-known bit of religious rhetoric against the Cretan’s claim: Zeus was not a human promoted to deity after his death but had always been an eternal god. Further, the present line attributes the Cretans’ ungodly behavior to this impious belief. If this is the background as Paul understood it, then he was suggesting that this same pattern of endemic impiety was playing itself out among these Christian false teachers: Their false teachings (beliefs) also give rise to godless living (behavior). It may also be true that the triad of virtues in 2:12 contrasts the vices mentioned here (liars—devotion to God; cruel animals—righteousness; lazy gluttons—wisdom) (Kidd 1999; see 2:12). If so, Paul would then have been preparing for the point he makes there, that the ultimate realization of these cultural ideals (2:12) is possible only through the Good News. They certainly had not been realized otherwise. Either way, the second vice mentioned may be directed very particularly at the mercenary character of these false teachers (1:11). The connection between greed and animal-like, predatory behavior (“cruel animals”) is easily illustrated in modern societies.

In sum, the Good News had made a beachhead on the Mediterranean island of Crete, but the opposing guns were raining down hard in an attempt to drive the church back into the sea. Perversions of the Good News and hardcore cultural vices were joining forces and having their way with whole families. But what’s new? Whether the means is smooth seduction or open hostility, the world’s desire to snuff out the Good News has not changed one bit from where it was when Christ made his first appearance (cf. John 1:1-18; Rev 12:1–15:4). Sin doesn’t sleep. It is not only individuals but whole churches that must endure more than did Homer’s Odysseus or John Bunyan’s Christian on the way to eternal life (Acts 14:22).

Having invoked warfare imagery, I am required to add this: The response of the church will not be to “fight back” politically or otherwise (though we must “fight for” the weak and oppressed!) but rather to stand firm precisely in the meekness and gentleness of Christ, steadfastly carrying forward his patient witness (Matt 11:25–12:21; cf. 3:1-8), unshakably confident that sufferings—when they come (2 Tim 3:12)—will be precisely the means through which God’s power for salvation will be exercised (2 Cor 12:1-10; see 2 Tim 2:9-10). As in the life of Christ, evil power will not be overcome with human power but with God’s power as exercised in the Cross (Rev 12:11). Losing our nerve on this point is losing faith itself.

The struggle to establish the church on Crete was proving a difficult one, but Paul was stubborn; in Titus he had left a stout man in place to deal with the situations. Titus needed to get a few equally stout elders to establish the work.