f98

THE TEXT IN THE INTERPRETIVE TRADITION

Titus plays a prominent role in Paul’s own recounting of the origins of his relationship with the Jerusalem church and his ministry to the gentiles. Paul notes that his second journey to Jerusalem was in the company of Barnabas and Titus. What is remarkable about Titus, as Paul describes it, is that he was a gentile and uncircumcised. During the visit to Jerusalem, he was not compelled to be circumcised, and through this detail Paul seems to want to communicate that the Jerusalem church leadership were at this point convinced of the authority of his calling and understanding of the gospel (Gal. 2:1–3). Elsewhere, Titus plays a significant role in serving as an intermediary and negotiator of Paul’s unraveling relationship with the Corinthian church. At several points in that correspondence, Paul references Titus and his reconciling role (2 Cor. 2:13; 7:6, 13; 8:6, 16, 23). Finally, Paul seems to imply that Titus may have more credibility with the church than Paul himself (2 Cor. 12:18). Given his significance to Paul, both as an archetype of the faithful Greek and as an effective emissary, it is remarkable that Luke does not mention Titus in the Acts of the Apostles. While the PE writer clearly reanimates the place of Titus in the Pauline legacy through the PE corpus, Luke and other Pauline interpreters are more likely to reference the role of Timothy as trusted emissary of Paul.

THE TEXT IN CONTEMPORARY DISCUSSION

Feminist interpreters work to excavate the rhetorical tactic in the PE writer’s use of household codes. In the Women’s Bible Commentary, Joanna Dewey engages Titus with historical-critical analysis to unveil the anxiety that underlies the PE writer’s maintenance of the household code in the corpus. Dewey notes, for instance, that a driving force behind the PE writer’s rigid social order is the sense that God, who is imagined as the paternal overlord of this hierarchal social structure, could be discredited by the misbehavior of his subjects (Titus 2:5). One particular strategy of the PE writer in Titus 2 that Dewey uncovers is the conscripting of older women to “encourage” younger women in their submission to this patriarchal social order and their subordinate role within it (Titus 2:3–5; see Dewey, 361). This strategy has a long history in the implementation of patriarchy. Often, within women’s struggle for equality in ecclesial structures over the course of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, some of the most vociferous and effective opponents of women’s ordination have been powerful women in the existing structures of church hierarchy. No doubt, power manifests itself complexly in social organizations of the church and society. The struggle for women’s full inclusion in church leadership (which in spite of advances in different quarters continues to this day) offers insight into the complexity of power at work in the midst of a hierarchically ordered and transforming social structure.

THE TEXT IN ITS ANCIENT CONTEXT

The PE writer’s concern for “the quiet life” continues into chapter 3 with a call for members of the church to be “subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarrelling” (Titus 3:1–2). The call to be subject to governing authorities echoes Paul’s from Rom. 13:1–7. While the historical authenticity of that text has been debated, it provides a more robust theological justification for the connection between those with human sovereignty and God. The rhetoric of Titus 3:1–2 stands as shorthand of the earlier argument of Rom. 13:1–7. Given that the PE writer was likely addressing a group of leaders already familiar with Paul’s teachings, it may be that the broader theological justification can be assumed between the writer and his audience. This context of the representation of Paul in the PE provides a helpful insight into why the PE overall seem to present such an abbreviated, and less nuanced, form of instruction than that found in Paul’s likely authentic letters. Given that all the correspondence now resides within a canonical context under the label of “Paul,” however, the work of interpretation involves the challenging step of attending to the differences between texts like Rom. 13:1–7 and Titus 3:1–2, and allowing the particularities of their rhetoric to be heard even in the midst of the similarities of their themes.

THE TEXT IN THE INTERPRETIVE TRADITION

In the midst of the call for obedience among church members both to governing and familial leaders, the PE writer challenges his audience to positively “devote themselves to good works,” to “avoid stupid controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law,” and “to have nothing more to do with anyone who causes divisions” (Titus 3:9–10). Note that the writer does not deny the existence of such controversies and divisive ideas, but he nonetheless calls his readers to avoid such things. In this sense, the writing stands within the church’s tradition of promoting ecumenical engagement even in the midst of acknowledging doctrinal differences. The concept is captured well in the phrase (often attributed to Augustine) “in necessary things, unity; in unnecessary things, liberty; in all things, charity.”