TEXT [Commentary]
III. Sound Teaching concerning Internal Relations (2:1-15)
A. Conduct Appropriate to Household Roles (2:1-10)
1 As for you, Titus, promote the kind of living that reflects wholesome teaching. 2 Teach the older men to exercise self-control, to be worthy of respect, and to live wisely. They must have sound faith and be filled with love and patience.
3 Similarly, teach the older women to live in a way that honors God. They must not slander others or be heavy drinkers.[*] Instead, they should teach others what is good. 4 These older women must train the younger women to love their husbands and their children, 5 to live wisely and be pure, to work in their homes,[*] to do good, and to be submissive to their husbands. Then they will not bring shame on the word of God.
6 In the same way, encourage the young men to live wisely. 7 And you yourself must be an example to them by doing good works of every kind. Let everything you do reflect the integrity and seriousness of your teaching. 8 Teach the truth so that your teaching can’t be criticized. Then those who oppose us will be ashamed and have nothing bad to say about us.
9 Slaves must always obey their masters and do their best to please them. They must not talk back 10 or steal, but must show themselves to be entirely trustworthy and good. Then they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive in every way.
NOTES
2:1 promote. The verb is laleō [TG2980, ZG3281] (speak). This is a bland verb, but the general context and 1:15 in particular give this the fuller sense of “promote.”
the kind of living that reflects. Lit., “speak what is fitting” followed by a dative of respect (= “with respect to wholesome teaching”). The verb prepō [TG4241, ZG4560] pertains to that which is fitting, seemly, suitable, proper. A contrast is intended with 1:11, and the emphasis fits in with similar statements elsewhere (3:8-9; see e.g., 1 Tim 1:10; 2:3; 3:15; 4:6-10, 16; 2 Tim 2:14-15). NLT glosses this idea with “the kind of living that reflects” (wholesome teaching) due to the nature of the material that follows in 2:2-10.
2:2 Teach. This verb is supplied by the NLT.
older men. See commentary on 1:5 regarding ages; this class would have comprised males older than 40. The word used here (presbutēs [TG4246, ZG4566]) means “older” or “aged man.” Paul used it of himself in Phlm 1:9.
They must have sound faith. There is no new sentence in the Greek; the NLT adds “they must have” for stylistic relief.
love. The best commentary on love (agapē [TG26, ZG27]) includes the following: Matt 22:34-40; Luke 10:25-37; John 3:16; 13:34-35; 15:9-17; Rom 5:1-11; 13:8-10; 1 Cor 13:1-13; Gal 5:6, 22-23; Col 3:14; 2 Pet 1:5-7; 1 John 2:7-11; 3:11-24; 4:7-21.
2:3 they should teach others what is good. The Greek does not begin a new sentence. Continuing the foregoing list it uses here the single word, kalodidaskalos [TG2567A, ZG2815], which is found nowhere else in Greek literature. Likely, it was coined for the present usage (from kalos [TG2570, ZG2819], meaning “good,” and didaskō [TG1321, ZG1438], meaning “teach”; thus, “teaching what is good”).
2:4 love their husbands and their children. In Greek this is philandros [TG5362, ZG5791] (lover of husband) and philoteknos [TG5388, ZG5817] (lover of child). These two words represent widely extolled virtues of wives and mothers (1 Tim 5:14; Dibelius and Conzelmann 1972:140; BDAG 1055, 1059; Horsley 1998:2.100-101; 1997:3.40-43; 1997:4.37; Llewelyn 1997:6.18-23).
2:5 pure. Gr., hagnos [TG53, ZG54], meaning “pure, holy” (cf. 1 Tim 2:15; 5:2, 22). The word was a cultic term, originally “an attribute of the divinity and everything belonging to it” (BDAG 13). As applied to women, it was used especially in the sense of “chaste” or “pure.” It is used here as a synonym of the foregoing by way of emphasis.
to work in their homes. Clement of Alexandria (died before AD 215) and many later manuscripts support the classical Greek word oikouros [TG3626, ZG3878], meaning “staying at home, watching/keeping the home” (ℵ2 D2 H 1739 1881). But oikourgos [TG3626A, ZG3877], meaning “busy at home, carrying out household duties,” is better attested (ℵ* C D* F G I Y 33 81), rarer, and the Hellenistic form (Marshall 1999:249).
to do good. There is a question whether agathos [TG18, ZG19] (good) modifies oikourgos (thus, “fulfill their household duties well”; Dibelius and Conzelmann 1972:141) or is a separate attribute meaning “kind, benevolent, generous (so NLT). The overall picture that Paul was after is not much affected either way; but since the list appears to be made of single words up to this point, perhaps the latter sense is more likely. The idea may be parallel to 1 Tim 5:10.
submissive to their husbands. The adjective idios [TG2398, ZG2625] (their [own]) can be an equivalent of the genitive personal pronoun but may have the stronger sense of “their own” husbands as opposed to all men (thus limiting the scope of the command regarding subordination).
2:7 must be an example to them by doing good works. The participle form of parechō [TG3930, ZG4218] in the middle voice with the double accusative has the sense of showing yourself (seauton [TG4572, ZG4932]) to be an example (tupon [TG5179, ZG5596]) of good works. For the emphasis of the letters to Titus and Timothy on good works, see 2 Tim 2:21; 3:17. Although Titus is here mentioned in connection with young men, the role assigned to him at this point might suggest he was older (Marshall 1999:254). On being an example, see 1 Cor 11:1; Phil 3:17; 4:9; 1 Thess 1:6; 2 Thess 3:6-15; 1 Tim 4:12; 2 Tim 3:10-11; Heb 6:12; 13:7.
of every kind. These words translate peri panta [TG4012/3956, ZG4309/4246] (cf. “in respect to”), meaning “with respect to all things.” In the Greek these are the first words of 2:7 and may attach back to 2:6—to live wisely in all respects, showing yourself to be an example, etc.
Let everything you do reflect the integrity and seriousness of your teaching. With some awkwardness, the Greek sentence carries on from the preceding parechō, shifting from the double accusative structure to a simple accusative (syllepsis): “showing . . . in the teaching soundness, dignity.” The prepositional phrase “in the teaching,” could go with the foregoing (showing yourself to be an example . . . in the teaching) but more likely belongs with what follows (as in the NLT). The teaching could refer to the activity of Titus (NLT) or the content of the Good News. The word for “seriousness” in Greek is semnotēs [TG4587, ZG4949], meaning “dignity, seriousness” (see a similar thought in 2:2 and 2 Tim 1:7). It is either connected to the teaching (NLT) or stands on its own, referring to Titus’s general deportment. Connected to the teaching, it could refer to the nature of what is taught (contrasting with the ridiculousness of 1:10) or, more likely, it refers to the manner in which Titus teaches (cf. 2 Tim 2:14-26). The NLT’s rendering rather deftly allows for more than one of these options.
2:8 Teach the truth so that your teaching can’t be criticized. The Greek is still dependent on the verb parechō (see v. 7), and once again there is a shift in the object, now (following the NLT) from the way in which the teaching is to be carried out to the message itself: showing yourself to be an example . . . (showing) soundness and seriousness . . . (and showing/presenting) teaching/speech (that is) wholesome, beyond reproach.
Then those who oppose us will be ashamed. As in 2:5 (“Then they will not”), this is a purpose clause: in order that the opponent might be ashamed/be put to shame. The singular (the opponent) is probably generic, having in view the false teachers (cf. commentary on 2 Tim 2:23, 25); others suggest Satan in particular or pagans in general. For more on this idea, see 1 Pet 2:12; 3:13-22.
have nothing bad to say about us. The participial phrase, “having nothing worthless to say about us,” rather than expressing a parallel idea (attendant circumstance; so NLT), could state the reason for their shame (because they have nothing worthless to say).
2:9 Slaves must always obey their masters. “Always” renders en pasin [TG1722/3956A, ZG1877/4246] (in all things), which is rightly taken by the NLT with the infinitive, hupotassesthai [TG5293A, ZG5718], rather than the following phrase (i.e., “always do their best to please”). “Masters” translates despotēs [TG1203, ZG1305] (cf. 1 Tim 6:1-2; 1 Pet 2:18; used of the Lord in Luke 2:29; 2 Pet 2:1).
2:10 steal. The verb used, nosphizomai [TG3802, ZG3557], means “to put aside for oneself, keep back, of engagement in a type of skimming operation” (BDAG 679); it is used in the NT elsewhere only at Acts 5:2-3 in relation to Ananias.
Then they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive in every way. As in 2:5 and 2:8 (see note on 2:8), this is a purpose clause in the Greek: “so that they might adorn the teaching of our Savior God in all things.” If the preceding phrase is translated “showing all faith to be good” (as an object, object-complement construction) then hina [TG2443, ZG2671] (so that) can be taken as ecbatic (meaning that it shows a result, in contrast to showing purpose), yielding the meaning “with the result that.” Pasin [TG3956A, ZG4246] could be masculine (“all people”) but is probably neuter (“in all things”; so NLT). The verb for “make attractive” (kosmeō [TG2885, ZG3175]) means “to cause something to have an attractive appearance through decoration; adorn, decorate” (BDAG 560; cf. 1 Tim 2:9; 1 Pet 3:5). See note and commentary on 1:3 for the phrase “our Savior”—which would have a particular resonance for slaves, one that would ultimately cancel the oppressive structures of the imperial world of Rome and her human saviors.
COMMENTARY [Text]
The rebels’ teaching (1:10-12) was turning whole families away from the faith. Ultimately it was defaming the Good News and limiting its saving effects on Crete. Paul’s two specific responses in Titus to the effects on households were, first, establishing the requirements about the family life of the elders (1:6), and second, exhorting the believers with the teaching of 2:1-10. In fact, the language Paul uses in 2:1 pointedly recalls 1:11 (see below).
Though a few comments were made on the background and modern application of the teaching on family life at 1:6 (cf. 1:11), it is necessary to expand on this point here as a preamble to walking through these verses. (For the following see DPL 417-419; DLNTD 513-520; Marshall 1999:231-236; ABD 3.318-320.)
The earliest church was a “house church” (Rom 16:5; 1 Cor 16:19; Col 4:15; Phlm 1:2). Of course, the notion of God’s “house” or “dwelling” has precedents and parallels within Scripture (Num 12:7; 2 Sam 7:5, 11; 1 Cor 3:16; 6:19; Eph 2:22; Heb 3:2, 6; 1 Pet 2:4-10). Yet within this broader theological conception, the earliest churches were quite literally household affairs. It was ordinarily the case within Greco-Roman culture that dependents would follow the head of the household in his religious commitments, and we see that conversions to Christian faith were often conversions of households (Acts 10:2; 11:14; 16:15, 33-34; 18:8; 1 Cor 1:11, 16). The believing communities were hosted in domestic dwellings, and congregants related to each other as was generally customary within their households.
Although the natural households and the household of God (1 Tim 3:15) are distinguished (e.g., 1 Tim 5:16), they merged at points. The leaders of the church would have come from among the heads of households (cf. 1 Tim 5:17-25), and some might have been the hosts of the church (Rom 16:3-5, 23). Their success in the domestic sphere was a direct reflection on their potential for the management of God’s household (1:6; 1 Tim 3:4-5, 12). More generally, the conduct of household members in relation to each other was a major concern of Christian teaching and of its witness in society, especially in the light of their society’s expectations in this area.
What constituted a “household” and what was its importance? The natural “household” extended to cover not only the blood relatives living together (parents and children, grandparents, other needy relatives) but also other dependents, especially the household slaves; at times the boundaries expanded yet further. This was regarded as the basic unit of Greco-Roman society, and on its stability rested the stability of the state. Roles and responsibilities were well-defined and deeply ingrained. A number of philosophers (e.g., Aristotle, Philo) therefore devoted a good deal of attention to proper conduct within this sphere.
Aristotle, for example, related the household to the state:
Household management falls into departments corresponding to the parts of which the household in its turn is composed; and the household in its perfect form consists of slaves and freemen. The investigation of everything should begin with its smallest parts, and the primary and smallest parts of the household are master and slave, husband and wife, father and children; we ought therefore to examine the proper constitution and character of each of these three relationships. (Politics 1.2.1)
And later in the same context, he writes:
Authority and subordination are conditions not only inevitable but also expedient. And there are many varieties both of rulers and subjects . . . because in every composite thing, where a plurality of parts, whether continuous or discrete, is combined to make a single common whole, there is always found a ruling and a subject actor. . . . Again, as between the sexes, the male is by nature superior and the female inferior, the male ruler and the female subject. (Politics 1.2.6-12)
It was not uncommon for Greco-Roman orators to accuse new, foreign cults (as Christianity would have been perceived) of being a destabilizing influence in society precisely due to the threat they posed (or they imagined they posed) in this domain. Thus Balch summarizes: “Greco-Roman political science often drew an analogy between the house and the city: The rejection of the husband’s authority by the wife, or of the master’s authority by the slave, or of the father’s authority by sons led to anarchy in both home and city, to the rejection of the king’s authority, and to the degeneration of the constitution from monarchy to democracy” (1981:76). It was necessary, then, for a Jewish writer such as Josephus to defend Judaism against these charges.
Accordingly the New Testament household codes (Eph 5:22–6:9; Col 3:18–4:1; 1 Pet 2:13–3:7; 5:1-5; cf. Titus 2:1–3:8; 1 Tim 2:8-15; 5:1-2; 6:1-2) were not entirely a Christian innovation, though there is no exact parallel for the New Testament passages. Generally speaking, it was the case that within the Greco-Roman world “household roles and the household context provided the typical forum for discussing social ethics” (DLNTD 516). Yet these teachings have been adapted by the apostles to fit Christian faith and to address particular needs. They are similar to but distinctive from the surrounding world.
Within the New Testament household codes themselves there are distinctions. Unlike the lists in Ephesians and Colossians, for example, the household teaching in the letters to Titus and Timothy was not addressed to husbands, wives, children, and slaves but to the broader categories of the elderly, younger people, and slaves; separately he also addressed their relationships to their government. Within these, special groups were singled out in 1 Timothy, especially women (1 Tim 2:9-15), widows (1 Tim 5:3-16), and elders (1 Tim 5:17-20). The use of these broader categories in the letters to Titus and Timothy is probably due to a special emphasis on the church as God’s household.
The church as a household also has expectations of conduct as it tries to keep the balance between conformity to norms of the surrounding society and those of God’s own household (being in but not of the world). The violation of these norms not only creates damaging upheaval but threatens disrepute, disgrace, and shame for the entire household—and on the head of that household, Christ. In a uniquely cultural way this was true for the churches of the Greco-Roman world, and it remains true today.
In this context, then, the household codes were a natural framework for the conveyance of Christian ethical norms, a framework that corresponds to the household nature of these earliest communities. At the same time, the codes guided these communities toward a life that silenced unbelievers who might accuse Christianity of being a social and civic threat and served as a vehicle for a compelling, winsome witness to the truth. The challenge remains for us to find the same, wise balance within our own society and culture.
Returning to the flow of thought in Titus we may summarize as follows: The way in which the “commands of people” (1:14) had wreaked havoc on the households (1:11) had not been detailed; rather, the spiritual dynamic in play had been drawn out (1:15-16). This gives a special urgency to the “right teaching” which follows. In 2:1-10, Paul will treat different groups within the church family in turn, each time indicating the concern for public witness (2:5b, 8b, 10b; cf. 1 Tim 5:1–6:2). This sequence is then given a rationale in the past and future appearances of Christ (2:11-14) before a direct charge is given to Titus (2:15).
In direct response to the damage report of 1:10-16, Paul writes, “As for you, Titus” (2:1). As Paul does several times in the letters to Titus and Timothy, he used the second-person singular personal pronoun very emphatically to set the addressee’s behavior in contrast to that of the opponents (e.g., 1 Tim 6:11; 2 Tim 2:1; 3:10). Even so, this is the sort of responsibility that would be handed over to the elders, who were therefore likely secondary addressees of the imperative. Ultimately this responsibility belongs to the entire church.
The overarching charge of verses 1-10 is simply this: “Promote the kind of living that reflects wholesome teaching.” (For the expression “wholesome teaching,” which is characteristic of the letters to Titus and Timothy, see 2 Tim 1:13.) The Greek phrasing behind this line and 1:11 is not identical but close enough to establish a definite link (see note on 2:1). A contrast is intended with the false teaching and its effects, and this contrast fits in with similar statements elsewhere (3:8-9; see e.g., 1 Tim 1:10; 2:3; 3:15; 4:6-10, 16; 2 Tim 2:14-15). There is accordingly a direct link between the effect on families in 1:11 and what Paul is about to say in 2:2-10. We can see then how important the conduct of the households was to the progress of the Good News on Crete.
It should also be noted that the contents of Titus’s teaching include the theological motivation/purpose (2:5, 8, 10) and rationale/basis (2:11-14) for the kind of living that is specified. It will rarely be enough merely to tell people how they should behave or what they must do. Even if audiences desire more application than theological teaching, the application must have a theological basis or it withers and dies. Once again, theology (which is not merely propositional, but it is propositional) is the soil in which right living grows or the vine from which it sprouts. Application without theology is a cut flower, beautiful only for a short while. The modern church craves relevance and authentic living. That is very good. But if this represents a neglect of the underlying wholesome teaching in all its depth and richness, things will not fare well for long.
Titus was called upon, first, to “teach the older men” (2:2). The overlap between the required character of the older men (here) and elder-overseers (1:6-9; cf. 1 Tim 3:1-7) reflects the absence of a double standard and the fact that the elder-overseers were drawn from the older men. What the older men are to be taught begins with three words (broadly synonyms) circling around a single concern. These words are characteristic of the letters to Titus and Timothy and represent a special and focused concern relative to the original setting of the letters; for the idea, see note and commentary on 2 Timothy 1:7. First, they are to live with “self-control.” This word (nēphalios [TG3524, ZG3767]) pertains to literal moderation in the use of alcoholic beverages (“temperance”; for us this would extend to other drugs), but it is used here and in 1 Timothy 3:2, 11 figuratively for behavior that is restrained, level-headed, sensible, controlled; in other words, not having the characteristic lack of restraint and good judgment effected by drunkenness. Second, they are to be “worthy of respect.” Semnos [TG4586, ZG4948] pertains to that which evokes special respect, “worthy of respect/honor, noble, dignified, serious” (BDAG 919; cf. 1 Tim 3:8, 11). Third, they are to “live wisely.” Sōphrōn [TG4998, ZG5409] denotes a person characterized by a sound mind, “being in control of oneself, prudent, thoughtful, self-controlled.” Such a person avoids extremes and shows careful consideration for responsible action. According to Aristotle, “the prudent person is intent on the what, the how, and the when of doing what should be done” (quoted in BDAG 987, which also notes that it is a characteristic of persons distinguished for public service).
Given the inevitable, growing limitations of body and spirit that come with old age, they were nevertheless to embody a faith that bespeaks the inner process of renewal that the Good News effects (2 Cor 3:16-18; 4:16-18; Phil 1:6; 3:10-21). For someone in whom faith has been at work for years, this is particularly true. While the faith may not have been active for long on Crete (see 1:5), the regard for elders in that world made their example particularly important; moreover, Paul was writing for the future of these churches as much as for their present situation. Our own world, with its love for youth and anything new (and its inability to accept mortality and postmortem judgment), tends to disrespect and disregard the elderly (see further on 1:6). The church should sustain a different vision, and this should continue to serve as a compelling witness to the hope of the Good News and the form of life (including social relations) to which it gives rise, especially in the final season of life.
The list of three synonyms gives way to a characteristic that is again equally important in the requirements for elder-overseers (1:9): The older men “must have sound faith and be filled with love and patience.” The word for “sound” (a participle from the verb hugiainō [TG5198, ZG5617]) was used in 2:1 (for this idea, see 2 Tim 1:13). Faith here could be either faith as the act of believing or the faith in terms of its contents. The former is more likely in this list of qualities, but calling it “sound” unavoidably suggests its contents at the same time.
Faith, considered broadly, is never merely assent to an abstract set of doctrines. Ultimately, it is rather “a ‘wedding ring’ (Luther), pointing to mutual commitment and union between Christ and the believer. It is the response of the whole person of the believer to God, which leads in turn to the real and personal presence of Christ in the believer. Faith makes both Christ and his benefits—such as forgiveness, justification, and hope—available to the believer” (McGrath 1994:129; cf. Berkhof 1941:503-506). Again, whatever the pressures and enticements, the older men must be firm and unwavering in their understanding of, assent to, and personal trust in the wholesome teaching of the Good News, nor can they be duped with any counterfeit. To have sound faith is finally to conduct one’s life in a way that is consistent with the Good News (cf. 1 Tim 4:12; 6:11; 2 Tim 2:22; 3:10). No meditation on faith can ignore Hebrews 10:35–12:4 or James 2, passages with which Paul would have fully concurred (cf. Gal 5:6, 13-26; Eph 2:8-10), especially in the context of these letters to Titus and Timothy.
The older men are called upon to “be filled with love.” The Christian virtue “love” (agapē [TG26, ZG27]) finds its source and example in God’s love for us in Christ. The resulting love for God is the complete focusing of all passions—and thus all capacities, whether intellectual, physical, or any other—on him and for him; all enjoyment is found in and with him, which in fact yields perfect joy. With God’s love poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit and out of love for God himself, we recognize every person as created in the image of God, loved by God in Christ, and accordingly as someone for whom we will gladly, eagerly, unreservedly, and selflessly lay down our lives in complete service. The vestige of this created response is still found in the love of most parents for their children; but even here and in all other relationships, love—as measured against love as we will come to know it in Christ—is weak or extinguished, mingled with desire, pride, envy, power, suspicion, and the absence of mercy and forgiveness. Yet love is the original reflex of God’s human creature in its universal response to God and his creation, lost in sin and restored (for the present, in process of being restored) only in Christ. Love is frequently paired with faith (cf. Gal 5:6), and the triad of faith, hope, and love (1 Cor 13:13) seems to be a core grouping within the New Testament. Love is the leading mark of authentic discipleship. Its inclusion here may be in part in response to the divisive elitism of the opponents. In 1 Timothy 1:5 it is precisely what is missing within the false teachers and their teaching (see further on 2 Tim 2:14).
The older men are to have “patience.” Hupomonē [TG5281, ZG5705] is the “capacity to hold out or bear up in the face of difficulty; patience, endurance, fortitude, steadfastness, perseverance” (BDAG 1039; cf. Heb 10:36; 12:1; Rev. 2:19; 14:12). It is “constancy and perseverance which maintains faith and love in the face of opposition and every temptation to discouragement until the believer reaches the end of the long journey” (Marshall 1999:241). This is an apt comment and captures the fact that patience is more than mere forbearance in spirit; it is aligned with hope, purposefulness, pilgrimage, and mission. It is patience in a life of a very special quality. Within the letters to Titus and Timothy, Paul remarked on his own perseverance for the sake of the elect in spite of unrelenting resistance and suffering (2 Tim 2:10; 3:10). Similarly, endurance was to characterize his delegates (1 Tim 6:11), and it is a condition for reigning together with Christ (2 Tim 2:12). These parallels suggest that beyond the general importance of the constancy of the older men for the entire community, the concern here may be specifically with the present opposition (Kelly 1963:240; Fee 1988:186). This may be why the list of “faith” and “love” is completed with “patience” rather than the more usual “hope” (see the triad above).
Next, Paul turns to the elderly women. Much of what is said about the widows in 1 Timothy 5 applies to elderly women in general. Here in Titus their behavior or demeanor (katastēma [TG2688, ZG2949], only here in the NT) refers to “an inward dimension that yields outward calm and poise” (Marshall 1999:243, citing Josephus Antiquities 15.236). This is to be characterized as hieroprepēs [TG2412, ZG2640], which can be glossed either as “reverent” (emphasizing their deportment in relation to God) or “venerable” (emphasizing worthiness of respect and reverence by virtue of their godly manner). The general picture is of a manifestly devout life of holiness, dignity, and good sense, which is for that reason the object of respect and honor (cf. also 1 Tim 2:9-10). Clearly there is nothing in such a description that involves snootiness, pride, or self-righteous airs, which are sometimes associated with English words such as devoutness, piety, and dignity. Within the letters to Titus and Timothy one thinks readily of Lois and Eunice (2 Tim 1:5; 3:14-15).
In keeping with the general requirement that their lives be reverent and venerable, Christian elderly women should not be characterized by the stereotypical weaknesses and habits ascribed to their nonbelieving societal peers on Crete, particularly those who would bring the church and the Good News into disrepute. They “must not slander others” (2:3). The Greek uses simply the adjective, diabolos [TG1228, ZG1333] (“slanderous”; see 2 Tim 3:3; see also 1 Tim 5:13). This concern is consistent with other texts on older women in the Greco-Roman world (see Marshall 1999:245). And they must not “be heavy drinkers” (lit., “not having been enslaved to much wine”; see the parallel idea in 1:7). Drunkenness—which was commonly thought to be a failing of older women in Paul’s world—would obviously give rise to the lack of restraint in speech that the previous phrase addresses.
Women are called upon to “teach others what is good” (2:3; cf. 1 Tim 2:11-15). To be sure, in this context their audience is specified in 2:4 as the younger women (this is probably the scope of the “others,” which is supplied by the NLT; there is no corresponding word in the Greek text). Even so, the fact that Paul views them as able and qualified to teach places in doubt the assumption that he would have agreed that women are inherently more gullible and easily deceived (and therefore less reliable teachers) than men, as has been inferred by some from 1 Timothy 2:14. Though the teaching mentioned here is focused on the younger women, it would be appropriate to note that women exercised an important pedagogical role within the household generally (cf. 2 Tim 1:5; 3:14-15).
The composite characterization of 2:3 has a purpose expressed in the next verse: They must be all these things in order that they might “train the younger women” (the Greek is a purpose clause). The verb translated as “train” (sōphronizō [TG4994, ZG5405]) means “to instruct in prudence or behavior that is becoming and shows good judgment; encourage, advise, urge” (BDAG 986; only here in the LXX and the Greek NT). It is a cognate of sōphrōn [TG4998, ZG5409], which was used of the elderly men in 2:2. Fee (1988:187) suggests here the translation “wise them up.” (On the significance and importance of this terminology in the letters to Titus and Timothy, see 2 Tim 1:7.) Very likely the choice of this word here (rather than didaskō [TG1321, ZG1438], “teach,” or some other synonym) was due to the desire to emphasize behavior that is chaste and generally characterized by good sense, sound judgment, and self-control. Certainly this language captures the wider ethical concerns of these letters.
The curriculum for the younger women is pretty basic: “love their husbands and children” (2:4, see note). The plain assumption is that these younger women were married and bearing children, in keeping with wider cultural expectations; but, just as in 1:6, there is no implied imperative to that end. In any event, they were called upon to love their husbands and children. This exhortation follows the usual Greco-Roman cultural ideals for women.
Brought into our own world the words continue to speak relevantly. Letting the background cultural values shift with time and society (e.g, Greco-Roman patriarchalism and Western egalitarianism), the centrality of Christ’s love in these foundational relationships is timeless. Our own world has simultaneously romanticized and devalued family relations. It has fostered dreams of material prosperity and personal fulfillment, created economic structures and role identities that subvert and oppose healthy relations, and, in popular entertainment, enticed us to laugh at and accept unhealthy visions of what family should be. It can be hard for both men and women to recapture sound values and, what is more, to implement them when held. Paul’s curriculum may be basic, but it must never be cut from the course catalog.
Further, they are “to live wisely.” As applied to women this virtue had the particular meaning of “chaste, sexually pure, modest, decent”; here it applies to purity within marriage (cf. 1 Tim 5:9; Heb 13:4). For emphasis Paul added that they are to be hagnos [TG53, ZG54] (“pure,” “holy”; cf. 1 Tim 2:15; 5:2, 22). The word was a cultic term, originally “an attribute of the divinity and everything belonging to it” (BDAG 13). As applied to women it was used especially in the sense of chastity and purity.
Within the Greco-Roman world of the first century, there was a so-called “new woman” characterized by the attire and conduct of sexually and socially free women. This was an avant-garde, liberated, and promiscuous female identity that had taken hold and was spreading. For many this came as a threat. Philosophical rhetoric, legislation, and even public statues exemplifying the ideal Roman woman opposed this trend (see Winter 2003:141-169). Here and elsewhere (e.g., 1 Cor 11:2-16; 1 Tim 2:9-15; 5:11-15) Paul’s language suggests a sensitivity to these same concerns in the interest of the church’s witness. Indeed, Winter argues that Paul’s language suggests that the lifestyle of the “new woman” had actually taken hold in these Cretan churches so that what Paul wrote was not merely preventative but actually intended as restorative. He was correcting behaviors that had already set in.
It is in that same vein that Paul added that the younger women are to be taught “to work in their homes, to do good” (2:5). In the Hellenistic world, the appropriate role of a respectable woman was “tending to things at home and leading a sedate life” (Alciphron 3.22 [58]). This was a Semitic ideal as well: “in the OT, contrast the ‘virtuous’ woman who is busy at home (Prov 31) and the ‘loose’ woman who does not remain at home (Prov 7:11)” (BDAG 700; cf. 1 Tim 2:15; 5:14). Moreover, Winter has pointed out that there was a marriage convention peculiar to Crete: “Husbands ‘did not take their girls whom they married to their own homes immediately, but as soon as the girls were qualified to manage the affairs of the house’ ” (2003:160, citing the Greek author Strabo). The general importance of women in managing the household within the Roman world had a particular spin on Crete.
Finally, and in summation, the younger women are to be taught by the older women “to be submissive to their husbands” (2:5). The verb hupotassomai [TG5293A, ZG5718] (subject oneself, be subjected/subordinated, obey) is used several times of wives to husbands (Col 3:18; 1 Pet 3:1, 5; implied in Eph 5:22; cf. 1 Cor 14:34; 1 Tim 2:11), children to parents (Luke 2:51), slaves to masters (see below, 2:9; 1 Pet 2:18), and subjects to governmental authorities (3:1; Rom 13:1; 1 Pet 2:13). In estimating the meaning of this, it must be kept in mind that a distinctly patriarchal arrangement was the norm in the Greco-Roman world (see, for example, the passage from Alciphron above), the flagrant violation of which would have necessarily placed Christianity in a bad light (cf. the remainder of Titus 2:5). As Winter has contended (see above) it may also be that there was a wider rebellion against this norm in the avant-garde movement of the “new woman,” a rebellion that likely some Christian women of Crete had joined. Indeed, he argued that at this point being “in submission to their [own] husbands” had reference specifically to marital fidelity. At the very least what Paul wrote was showing regard for Roman cultural norms in general, if he was not seeking actually to rein in specific maverick behavior. But in many modern societies things are very different: A “traditional,” patriarchal home will nowadays be viewed by the majority as oppressive and unjust. The modern Western ideal is equality rather than subordination.
It is true that husbands, fathers, and masters are never directed to submit as husbands, fathers, or masters (though see Eph 5:21); yet it is also true that, as in the other New Testament passages, obedience to this directive is the concern of the woman rather than the man. The man is given his own responsibilities (Eph 5:25-33; Col 3:19; 1 Pet 3:7; cf. Marshall 1999:247). Indeed, the upshot of Ephesians 5:22-33 is that wives are submissively to permit their husbands to lovingly give themselves up for them; the principle of Matthew 20:25-28 applies not least to the most fundamental of human bonds. Further, Spicq (in TLNT 3.424-426) argues that the use of hupotassomai in the sense of spontaneously positioning “oneself as a servant toward one’s neighbor in the hierarchy of love” is “absolutely new [in the Greco-Roman context of the NT] and has no secular parallels.” Since the New Testament does not merely reinforce cultural norms, its redemptive vision of life in Christ must be captured anew in each generation.
On the other hand, passages other than this one (especially Eph 5:22-24; cf. 1 Cor 11:3; 1 Pet 3:1-6) may give a theological basis for some sort of hierarchical arrangement within the husband–wife relationship for the duration of the present age. That point is disputed; but if it holds then there would be limits to how much of what Paul wrote can be dispensed with as merely cultural. What is clear is that many modern cultures are far removed from the Greco-Roman patriarchal structures, for which we should all be thankful, and there is no reason whatever for Christians to want to turn that particular clock back. We might as well wish away our democracies in favor of the emperor and procurators of the Roman government. But it is hardly necessary either to dispense with and explain away the New Testament language of submission (as if that is the only way of responding to it in our context) or to attempt a straightforward reconstruction of Paul’s Christian Greco-Roman households. We can rather see the teaching of the Good News in these household codes given a rich freedom for new and hopeful expressions in a largely egalitarian world—expressions that may allow us to come closer to the Christian ideal than was possible within Paul’s Roman world.
The rationale behind the teaching concerning the women is that “they will not bring shame on the word of God” (2:5). The Greek is a purpose clause in the passive voice: “in order that the word of God will not be blasphemed.” “The word of God” is an allusion to the Good News (note the parallel in 2:10; cf. 1 Cor 14:36; 2 Cor 2:17; 4:2; Col 1:25; 1 Thess 2:13), which contains the Old Testament Scriptures as fulfilled in Christ. (For the idea of blaspheming, see 2 Tim 3:2.) The concern is with the response of outsiders who will use the misbehavior of Christians against them (cf. 2:8; 1 Tim 3:7; 5:14; 6:1; cf. Rom 2:24; 1 Pet 3:13-22; 4:12-19).
The overarching concern of 2:1-10 is the church’s part in advancing the grace of God that has appeared for the salvation of all people (2:11). The imagination of the entire church and of all her members is to be captured by the mission of God. In fact, although it is stated negatively in this verse, this is the center of this entire letter: the living out of God’s grace toward humankind. Whatever is true with regard to social status of individual persons, no nobler role is possible for those bearing the image of God.
The next group within the house church is comprised of the young men, roughly, those under 40 (see note on 2:2; cf. 1 Tim 5:1; 1 Pet 5:5). Once again, the totality of what is to be taught them can be summarized as “to live wisely” (2:6). The word used is sōphroneō [TG4993, ZG5404], another of the sōphrōn [TG4998, ZG5409] word group (cf. 2:2, 5; see note on 2 Tim 1:7). The rest of the teaching concerning the young men centers on Titus’s own example: “And you yourself must be an example to them by doing good works of every kind” (2:7). The need to counter the false teachers made this especially urgent in the churches of Crete. Only those whose lives are shaped by the gospel are worthy to be teachers of it. In addition, Titus is exhorted to “let everything you do reflect the integrity and seriousness of your teaching” (see note on 2:7). Thus in the sphere of his teaching what must be shown or reflected is aphthoria [TG862.2, ZG917] (incorruption, soundness), either with respect to the nature of the teaching itself (it is sound, without corruption, or appropriate to the Good News in form), or with respect to the teacher’s activity (“the quality of integrity as an expression of moral soundness . . . ‘integrity, sincerity’ ” L&N 88.43).
The general idea is carried forward by what follows: “Teach the truth so that your teaching can’t be criticized” (2:8). Though the Greek grammar is a little awkward (see notes on 2:7-8), the piling up of ideas in these verses points in the same general direction that is familiar from all three letters to Titus and Timothy. Neither in what Titus says, nor in how it is said, nor in the totality of his life was there to be anything that would besmirch, cheapen, or prompt contempt for or warrant criticism of the Good News. This call for seriousness does not mean that the servant of the Lord cannot be funny or that there can be no such thing as a Christian comedian! We have all learned that comedy, skillfully employed, can be an extremely effective and poignant way of communicating the truth. Done well, humor could be precisely the means through which to accomplish what Paul intended here. His point goes deeper than modes of communicating. It goes to a heart that appreciates what it is handling and the office it occupies as a servant of God’s Word.
For Paul and Titus there were specific concerns to maintain precisely the decorum and the integrity of the wholesome teaching that the false teachers and their foolishness were costing the churches. Those concerns transfer to our own context. We may add, too, that what Paul commends represents a heart that matures well beyond the desire to be “hip” and that recognizes fully the seriousness and urgency of its task. Many a young speaker can wow an audience and bring explosive growth in numbers. Too few possess the sort of depth and authentic gravitas that Paul was looking for. And it is for each generation of the church to cultivate precisely such an outlook and form of conduct for the benefit of the next, just as Titus must do for the young men of Crete.
The final group in this catalog is slaves (see note on 1:1). First, slaves are told that they “must always obey their masters.” The word for “obey” is hupotassomai [TG5293A, ZG5718], which was used of women in relation to their husbands at 2:5 (see note). Since nothing in this passage indicates whether the masters are believers or unbelievers (contrast 1 Tim 6:2), it is probably best to assume that the teaching is meant to apply to either situation. The fact that masters are not addressed in turn (contrast Col 4:1) may be because at this point there were no slave owners among the believers on Crete, but this is unlikely (note the parallel situation in the Ephesian church of 1 Tim 6:1-2). It may be that there was a disproportionate number of slaves among the converts, that their unique situation called for particular comment, and that there might have been a special sensitivity to the potentially disruptive effects of Christianity on societal structures, especially relating to wives and slaves. More specifically, it may have been a component of the problem in both the Ephesian churches (of 1 Timothy) and the Cretan churches. Whether this involved an overly aggressive and unwise assertion of legitimate rights granted by the Good News (cf. 1 Cor 9; Gal 3:28) or developments that Paul viewed as simply inappropriate (1 Tim 2:11-15), the effect on the church’s witness would be the same.
The command to submit is expanded in what follows: The slaves must “do their best to please” their masters (2:9). BDAG (403) notes concerning this adjective, euarestos [TG2101, ZG2298] (to be pleasing), that in the Greco-Roman world it was “commonly said of things and especially of persons noted for their civic-minded generosity and who endeavor to do things that are pleasing.” The entry in BDAG goes on to suggest that Paul’s “choice of diction” in this verse was “probably designed to elevate [the slaves’] status.” Further, they “must not talk back” (antilegō [TG483, ZG515]; see 1:9). Roman slaves were commonly portrayed as speaking with improper freedom to their masters. They were also commanded not to steal (2:10, see note). This might be to pilfer, purloin, misappropriate, embezzle, or engage in any other sort of “skimming” that breaks a trust. Justly or not in the individual case, slaves were widely suspected of this sort of thing.
Rather, slaves must “show themselves to be entirely trustworthy and good.” The Greek is either, “showing all good faith” (essentially the option chosen by the NLT; cf. Gen 39:2-6; Dan 6:4) or “showing all faith to be good.” The second rendering is advocated by Wallace (1996:188-189). The idea would then be that these slaves attest for the benefit of their masters and other onlookers that all genuine faith is productive. And once again, as in verses 5 and 8, a missiological rationale is appended: Then these Christian slaves “will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive in every way” (2:10; see note).
In applying teaching on slavery within societies that have abolished the institution, it is widely the practice to apply Paul’s words to the relationships of employers and employees. This works to a point, though both parties (especially employers!) must keep in mind that being a slave and being an employee within a free market and democratic society are two very different things! Slavery in Scripture is itself a problem, of course, and requires comment as well. It is true and important to emphasize that the institution of slavery not only receives no biblical sanction in the light of the Good News but that it is finally inconsistent with that revelation (see on 1 Cor 7; Philemon). This is certainly true of the racist form of slavery in American history (see Noll 2006), but it is also true of the slavery we encounter within the Greco-Roman world (see comments on 1:1). It is, however, a fact that the New Testament writers (in spite of Gal 3:28; 1 Cor 7:20-24; Philemon) did not directly challenge or reject the institution of slavery. It was a societal and cultural given that the New Testament writers either did not think to reject or somehow saw as inappropriate to reject. It is apparent that for all the ameliorating effects of the faith, for all its tendencies toward social and religious equality (in all spheres) in Christ, first-century slaves remained slaves even within Christian households.
In assessing this, on the one hand, it may be fitting to consider that the Roman economy was as dependent on slavery as most modern economies are on the stock market. We who support and profit from these modern economies will have some ethical explaining to do as well, especially in light of the relationship between global economics and global politics. Most beneficiaries never even think on the problems day-to-day, and most who do live with such awareness would be powerless to effect change (nor could they imagine how to begin). Those in a position to do so, however, must consider the influence they should have in the light of the Good News. On the other hand, those who are powerless to alter oppressive structures in which they find themselves as victims should weigh the immediate concerns of justice with the ultimate concerns of justice as found in the necessary advancement of the Good News. First Corinthians 9 still applies. Finally, concerning the potential witness of slaves for the Good News, Marshall (1999:258), depending on C. Spicq and V. Hasler, adds the wise observation at this point “that even the lowliest in society can contribute to the splendour of the Christian life. . . . [People] can live a Christian life within the existing orders of society; they are not displaying servility but rather recognising the will of the Creator within society and seizing the opportunities for living to his glory.” Without sanctioning oppression of any form, it may be said that 2 Corinthians 12:1-10 applies and gives much hope.
Titus 2:1-10 has been thoroughly practical in nature, but the underlying theological concerns have been obvious throughout. The whole series of exhortations was given impetus by the false teaching and corrupting influences of the rebels (1:10-16), it has rooted itself in the wholesome teaching (2:1), and it has found its rationale in a thrice-repeated mission motive (2:5, 8, 10). The Good News both makes possible and summons forth a life of beauty that will leave the truth unassailable, its opponents speechless, and the teaching about God our Savior irresistible. The place for this to be realized is first of all—certainly not least—within the overlapping relationships of the homes of Christians and the household of the church. And behind this is Paul’s vision for the church as a church of the Good News, a family caught up in the same mission that occupies his own apostleship. This vision will emerge all the more clearly in what follows.