Lessons #11 and 12
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ 1. It is best to use this note after you have listened to the lessons because there are +
+ comments given in the actual exposition not in the note. +
+ 2. The Bible abbreviations are as follows: CEV =Contemporary English version, +
+ CEB = Common English Bible, ESV= English Standard Version, +
+ GWT = God’s Word Translation, ISV = International Standard Version, +
+ NAB=New English Bible, NASB= New American Standard Bible, +
+ NEB= New English Bible, NET = New English Translation, +
+ NLT = New Living Translations NJB = New Jerusalem Bible, +
+ NJV = New Jewish Bible, TEV = Today’s English Version. +
+ 3. Notes have not been edited for grammatical errors. +
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Titus’ purpose or reason in Crete (Titus 1:5)
The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.
The epistles of the NT were written for a purpose or reason, sometimes to correct problems as in the epistles to the Corinthians or simply to teach doctrines with exhortation, as in the epistle to the Ephesians. Therefore, it is proper for Apostle Paul after identifying the recipient of his epistle to state its purpose or reason.
We use the word “purpose” or “reason” because the apostle began the Greek of verse 5 of Titus 1 with a phrase that may be translated either for this reason or for this purpose. The reason being that the apostle used a Greek word (charin) that may be used in one of two general ways. The Greek word may be used as a marker of reason, implying purpose, hence means “because of, by reason of”. It is with the meaning “because of” that our Greek word is used by the apostle in Galatians 3:19:
What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator.
Another usage of the Greek word used at the beginning of Titus 1:5 that we are considering, is as a marker of purpose and so means “for the purpose of, for the sake of, for”, as it is used in 1 Timothy 5:14:
So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander.
It is probably in the sense of the use of the Greek word as a marker of purpose that it is used in Titus 1:5. This sense is reflected in the translation of some of our English versions such as the TEV, the NCV, and the REB, to mention a few. However, since it is often difficult to differentiate purpose from reason, our Greek word may be translated with the meaning “reason” as it is done in the NIV and majority of our English versions. It is because of the two possible usages of the Greek word in question that we indicated the apostle provided either the reason or purpose of his epistle that is addressed to Titus with the implication that the information contained in it is for the church of Christ.
It is important we keep reminding ourselves that the Scripture is not a book written to satisfy our curiosity or to answer all the possible questions that may arise in our minds. When we fail to remember this, we will often want answers to all possible questions that may be generated in our minds. One of the dangers of this is that we find some teachers of the word of God immersed in speculations of the type that many believers would think that some of these speculations are part of God’s word or that they are based on the word of God. The truth is that we are cautioned not to exceed what is given to us in the Scripture in terms of the kind of answers we give, as that is implied by the assertion of the Holy Spirit through Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 4:6:
Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.
Not to go beyond what is written in the Scripture, implies that we should only confine our questions to those things that the answers are found in the Scripture. In effect, our questions should be governed by a given text so that it can be said we are bringing our thoughts into subjection to the word of God, as we read in 2 Corinthians 10:5:
We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.
The sentence we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ implies that we should submit even the questions that arise in our minds to what is found only in the Scripture. In so doing, we should be aware that everything that we need for our spiritual progress is given in the Scripture so that if the answer of the question that we have is not found in the Scripture then we should recognize that such an answer to such a question would not contribute to our spiritual growth; otherwise, the answer would be in our Scripture. This later point I have made is implied in 2 Peter 1:3:
His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness.
Why am I making an issue of capping the type of questions that we raise with respect to any specific passage? Am I trying to curtail the pursuit of knowledge? Absolutely not! The reason for our caution is the passage before us in Titus 1:5. The apostle gives the purpose or reason for leaving Titus in Crete beginning in the next sentence of Titus 1:5 I left you in Crete. There are at least two questions that we would be curious to know with respect to this sentence. The first is the exact location of the apostle when he wrote this epistle. The second would be to know when and under what circumstances the apostle left Titus in Crete. The answers to these two questions are not given in our passage or in any portion of the Scripture so they are not important with respect to Titus’ purpose or reason to be in Crete. One thing that we can be sure is that leaving of Titus in Crete was intentional on the part of the apostle. We say this because of the range of meanings of the Greek word translated “left” in our sentence. The word “left” is translated from a Greek word (apoleipō) that may mean “to desert, abandon”, as it is used to describe the angels that are in prison waiting for their final judgment in Jude 6:
And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day.
The Greek word may mean “to leave behind”, as Apostle Paul used it to describe the things he left in Troas in 2 Timothy 4:13:
When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, and my scrolls, especially the parchments.
It is in this sense of leaving behind that the apostle used it with respect to Titus, implying that he did not abandon him but intentionally left him behind in Crete.
We have very little information in the Scripture about Crete, an island that lies south of the Aegean Sea in the Mediterranean. We know that some people from Crete, Jews and Gentiles, were among those who no doubt respond to the gospel message of Apostle Peter because they were among those who heard his preaching on the day of Pentecost in Jerusalem, as implied in Acts 2:11:
(both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs—we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!”
The next mention of Crete was in connection with the first voyage of Apostle Paul to stand trial in Rome. This voyage took him near Crete, as stated in Acts 27:7:
We made slow headway for many days and had difficulty arriving off Cnidus. When the wind did not allow us to hold our course, we sailed to the lee of Crete, opposite Salmone.
It does not appear that the apostle had the opportunity to have been in Crete during this voyage enough to have been involved in preaching the gospel since it appears that their stay was confined to the harbor in Crete, as implied in Acts 27:12:
Since the harbor was unsuitable to winter in, the majority decided that we should sail on, hoping to reach Phoenix and winter there. This was a harbor in Crete, facing both southwest and northwest.
The apostle advocated for a lengthy stay in Crete but that was rejected, as indicated in his statement recorded in Acts 27:21:
After the men had gone a long time without food, Paul stood up before them and said: “Men, you should have taken my advice not to sail from Crete; then you would have spared yourselves this damage and loss.
Thus, it is unlikely that it was during this trip that the apostle left Titus in Crete. We can be certain that it was not during the first missionary trip of Apostles Paul and Barnabas that he came to Crete. This means that it must have been during the apostle’s travel after his release from his first imprisonment in Rome that he came to Crete with Titus. Again, it is not important for us to know when this trip to Crete occurred, as that information adds nothing to the purpose of the epistle to Titus since both the apostle and Titus knew exactly how and when both came to Crete with the apostle leaving Titus behind. We could speculate that the apostle must have hurriedly left Crete as to warrant this epistle. This speculation would be based on the experience of the apostle in Berea where he left suddenly but gave instruction later to members of his team through those who helped him escape from Berea, as we can gather from Acts 17:14–15:
14 The brothers immediately sent Paul to the coast, but Silas and Timothy stayed at Berea. 15 The men who escorted Paul brought him to Athens and then left with instructions for Silas and Timothy to join him as soon as possible.
We do not know if this kind of thing happened that caused the apostle to leave Titus behind in Crete only to write him later instructions about his purpose of leaving him in Crete. Again, this will be purely speculative and adds nothing to the stated purpose of the epistle.
Be that as it may, what is important is that the apostle wrote to state the task he intended for Titus to carry out while in Crete. There are two folds to the task Titus is to carry out in Crete. The first element of Titus’ task although not explicitly stated in Titus 1:5 but the remainder of the epistle indicates it is to finish the teaching of the apostle with respect to false teachers in Crete as well as to instruct believers in the manner of conducting themselves. It is this completion of the teaching the apostle began that is given in the clause that you might straighten out what was left unfinished of Titus 1:5. The expression “straighten out” is translated from a Greek word (epidiorthoō) that appears only here in the Greek NT; it means “to set right or correct, in addition to what has already been corrected, to put into order.” The thing that is to be set right or corrected is given in the clause what was left unfinished. The expression “left unfinished” is translated from a Greek verb (leipō) that basically means “to lack.” To lack may mean to be deficient in something that ought to be present but for whatever reason it is not there, as it is used in the instruction of the Lord to the rich ruler in Luke 18:22:
When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
To lack may mean to be in need or want of something, as it is used to express being without wisdom in James 1:5:
If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him.
In our passage of Titus 1:5, it is used in the sense of “what is lacking” or “what remains.” Thus, the first task of Titus was to set right what is lacking because of a defect that must be remedied. The apostle did not immediately tell what needs setting right because of being defective but the context indicates that he was concerned with false teachers that need to be corrected and the instruction to believers regarding their conduct. These two topics he developed in detail later but for the moment he focused on the second aspect of the task of Titus in Crete.
A second element of Titus’ task in Crete is the appointment of officials for the local churches in Crete which is a specific example of what is lacking. It is this aspect of Titus’ task that is given in the next expression of Titus 1:5 and appoint elders in every town. We say that this expression is a specific example of what is lacking because of the conjunction and that is translated from a Greek word (kai) that here could be understood as either providing another purpose for leaving Titus in Crete or to introduce a specific matter or one of the several matters that need completing. Because the primary purpose of leaving Titus in Crete was for him to finish what was lacking, the apostle probably used the Greek conjunction in the sense of introducing one specific matter or one of the several matters that needed to be finished.
The word “appoint” is translated from a Greek word (kathistēmi) that may mean “to be made, become”, as Apostle Paul used it in Romans 5:19:
For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
The word may mean “to put in charge”, as it is used in the selection of the seven men who administered the affairs of the early church, as recorded in Acts 6:3:
Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them
The sentence We will turn this responsibility over to them is more literally whom we will put in charge of this need. The word may also mean “to authorize, to appoint”, as it is used with the appointment of high priests in Hebrews 5:1:
Every high priest is selected from among men and is appointed to represent them in matters related to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins.
It is in this sense of assigning someone to a position of authority that the word is used in Titus 1:5 so that an element of Titus’ task is put some individuals in a position of authority. In that way, it can be said that he was to appoint or put in charge some individuals over the local churches in Crete.
Those who are to be placed in a position of authority are described with the word elders. The word “elders” is translated from a Greek word (presbyteros) that means “old, older” as it pertains being relatively advanced in age, as Apostle Paul used the word in his instruction to Timothy of how to deal with older members of the congregation in Ephesus in 1 Timothy 5:1:
Do not rebuke an older man harshly, but exhort him as if he were your father. Treat younger men as brothers,
It may mean an official and so “elder, presbyter”. Among the Jews, the word was used to describe members of a group in the Sanhedrin, as implied in Acts 6:12:
So they stirred up the people and the elders and the teachers of the law. They seized Stephen and brought him before the Sanhedrin.
Among Christians, the word is used in terms of ruling officials and so it is used for those that ruled the early church in Jerusalem, as in Acts 11:30:
This they did, sending their gift to the elders by Barnabas and Saul.
Paul and Barnabas during their first missionary journey appointed such individuals among the Gentile churches, as we read in Acts 14:23:
Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust.
Among the Gentile churches, there were clearly two groups of elders, those who direct the administrative affairs of the local church and those who preach and teach the word of God, as we may gather from 1 Timothy 5:17:
The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching.
By the way, the apostolic fathers seemed to have ranked the “presbyters” below the bishop but above the deacons as, for example, in the letter of Ignatius to Polycarp in first verse of the sixth chapter of that letter that reads:
Give ye heed to the bishop, that God also may give heed to you. I am devoted to those who are subject to the bishop, the presbyters, the deacons. May it be granted me to have my portion with them in the presence of God. Toil together one with another, struggle together, run together, suffer together, lie down together, rise up together, as God’s stewards and assessors and ministers.[1]
Nonetheless, there is the implication in the Scripture of only two groups of ruling elders as we gather from the epistle of Apostle Paul to Timothy and from those the apostle addressed his epistle in Philippi, as we read in Philippians 1:1:
Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus at Philippi, together with the overseers and deacons:
Therefore, it is probably in the sense of one of the two groups of elders that the apostle used the Greek word that means “elders, presbyter” in our passage of Titus 1:5. This will be clearer as we continue in our analysis of the section of Titus that is concerned with the qualifications of elders.
The aspect of Titus’ task of appointing elders may be the warrant for a pastor of a local church having the responsibility of appointing administrative elders in his local assembly. Truly, there is no specific instruction in the Scripture past the time of the apostles as to the one that is responsible for appointing church elders. Nonetheless, the history of the church reveals that there have been two major approaches to appointing of officers in the church – appointment by a higher authority or selection by a local church. The appointment of officers of the church by a higher authority is that adopted by the Roman Catholic Church with its claim of its authority directly linked to the apostles since it claims an unbroken line of descent from Christ and the apostles. Under the Roman Catholic Church, all authority is placed in one bishop, the pope, when he speaks ex cathedra that literally means “from the chair” and so refers to speaking in the exercise of the office in matters of faith and practice. The pope is himself appointed by a college of cardinals but he in turn appoints cardinals and bishops. The bishops appoint local priests of the parishes. The second approach of appointing officers by a local church is one that is adopted by the Protestant groups with variations in that the officers may be chosen by the entire congregation or by some specific group in the local church. Thus, some Protestant churches, for example, appoint a pulpit committee to recommend a candidate for pastor to be voted on by the entire congregation while others such as the Methodist Church, pastors are assigned to a local church by a group of the ruling officials of the church or the bishop. As we have stated, there is no definitive text about how to appoint church officers so we should be flexible in this area.
A reason to be flexible in this area of appointment of church officers is because there are facts in the NT that warrant such attitude in that we do not have any particular approach to the appointment of church officers. Prior to the day of Pentecost, we have the church involved in a selection process in order to fill the position left vacant by the death of Judas Iscariot. This selection process is described in Acts 1:21–26:
21 Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22 beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.” 23 So they proposed two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24 Then they prayed, “Lord, you know everyone’s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25 to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs.” 26 Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.
Here, Apostle Peter put forth the qualifications that should govern the selection of the replacement of Judas Iscariot as consisting of being a disciple of Jesus Christ from the time of His water baptism through to witnessing His resurrection. The qualifications could have narrowed the choice of candidates so that eventually the group of believers nominated two individuals. One of them, Matthias, was chosen. His selection indeed did not involve the entire congregation of believers, contrary to what some speculate. There are those who portray the selection process as involving voting by members of the early church. This cannot be the case. This is because of the sentence they cast lots. Casting of lots was a means of determining the will of God in the OT and used in the early church prior to the day of Pentecost. We do not know with certainty how this was carried out but one thing we can be certain, is that it does not involve any voting process or casting of ballots. We make this assertion based on the practice of casting of lot described in the OT. Aaron used the casting of lot to select the scapegoat of the day of Atonement, as we gather from the record of Leviticus 16:8–10:
8 He is to cast lots for the two goats—one lot for the LORD and the other for the scapegoat. 9 Aaron shall bring the goat whose lot falls to the LORD and sacrifice it for a sin offering. 10 But the goat chosen by lot as the scapegoat shall be presented alive before the LORD to be used for making atonement by sending it into the desert as a scapegoat.
Since Aaron alone was involved in the casting of the lot, it is impossible to think of casting of lot in the sense of voting. The fact that casting of lot was also used in determining the guilty person where no one was certain of the culprit makes it impossible for casting of lot to be perceived as voting. When God did not answer King Saul with respect to his inquiry of going to battle, he came to the realization that such was because of sin committed among his soldiers so to determine who was guilty, casting of lot was used to identify Jonathan as the one who broke the king’s oath about not eating food until victory was achieved, according to 1 Samuel 14:41–42:
41 Then Saul prayed to the LORD, the God of Israel, “Give me the right answer.” And Jonathan and Saul were taken by lot, and the men were cleared. 42 Saul said, “Cast the lot between me and Jonathan my son.” And Jonathan was taken.
Similarly, when God threatened to break, using the storm, the ship in which Jonah was fleeing from carrying out God’s instruction, it is through casting of lots that it was determined that Jonah was responsible for the disaster, as we read in Jonah 1:7:
Then the sailors said to each other, “Come, let us cast lots to find out who is responsible for this calamity.” They cast lots and the lot fell on Jonah.
The point of these examples of casting lot is to affirm that the early church did not vote to replace Judas Iscariot with Matthias. Therefore, it is incorrect to assert that the church carried out this process by the participation of everyone in the early church. The truth is that only a few individuals were involved in the selection of Matthias. We say this because there is no indication that the nomination process involved every member of the church since what we are given is the result of the nomination process. Then after, it must have been an individual that carried out the casting of the lot. Of course, we do not know with certainty the method of casting of the lot that was used. A lot was a specially marked object that may be a pebble, a piece of pottery, or a stick. It is possible that if it is made of a pebble its use may be similar to that of tossing of a coin where one side may bear the inscription “no” and the other side bear the word “yes” so that when the lot is cast depending on what is at stake the answer obtained determines the outcome. It is also possible, as some have speculated, that in the case of the early church, the names of both men that were nominated were written on stones that were then placed in a vessel. The vessel was shaken and the first stone that first fell out indicated the man chosen. Regardless of how the casting of the lot was carried out, we can be certain that there was no election in which each member of the early church voted to determine the replacement of Judas Iscariot. Hence, even the selection of Matthias, the twelfth apostle, is not indeed a process that involved voting or that involved the entire congregation in determining the outcome. This being the case, it is difficult to use the appointment of Matthias to replace Judas Iscariot as a proof that a local church should appoint its leaders through a voting process.
Another fact that we know from the Scripture with respect to appointing of leaders in the church is that there was some form of participation of the members of the early church in the appointment of the seven men that served the church although some take these seven men as the first deacons of the church. The selection of the seven men is referenced in Acts 6:1–6:
1In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Grecian Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. 2 So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. 3 Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them 4 and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.” 5 This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism. 6 They presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them.
There are three observations we are to make about this specific activity of selecting the seven men to serve the early church. First, the apostles stipulated the qualifications of the men to be chosen in terms of their spiritual life in the sense that other believers in the local church would have known these individuals to be those full of the Spirit and wisdom, a task that requires that members would have a firsthand knowledge of those chosen with respect to these characteristics. Second, there is no indication the seven were considered elders in the church but they were primarily administrators of the affairs of the church although later among the Gentile churches such administrators were considered elders. The church in Jerusalem had elders that we have no information as to how they were chosen. For example, elders were first mentioned with respect to the church when the church in Antioch contributed for relief of suffering believers in Judea, as stated in a passage we cited previously, that is, Acts 11:30:
This they did, sending their gift to the elders by Barnabas and Saul.
Third, we are not given any details as to how the early church chose the seven men. We are simply told they were chosen. We can speculate that there were serious discussions among believers in the church, but it is difficult to imagine that there was any kind of voting that took place. The concept of voting would be foreign to the church since such a practice was found outside the church that relied on the leading of the Holy Spirit to operate. The idea of voting is strange to the OT Scripture although we have that concept mentioned by Apostle Paul, but such a use seems to be metaphorical. I am referring to the apostle’s account of his persecution of the church in Acts 26:10:
And that is just what I did in Jerusalem. On the authority of the chief priests I put many of the saints in prison, and when they were put to death, I cast my vote against them.
The sentence I cast my vote against them is probably a figurative way of stating that the apostle was in favor of the verdict to put some believers to death but even if one takes the voting here as literal, that would be an activity carried out by the Sanhedrin and not something that the church would have been involved. Voting, as we indicated, was foreign to the OT Scripture since no one was appointed to a leadership position through such a means. The first king of Israel Saul was appointed first by Prophet Samuel and his appointment was ratified either through a process of casting of lot or the use of Urim and Thummim since the process by which Saul became king was described in terms of choosing of tribes and families and eventually Saul, as implied in 1 Samuel 10:20–21:
20 When Samuel brought all the tribes of Israel near, the tribe of Benjamin was chosen. 21 Then he brought forward the tribe of Benjamin, clan by clan, and Matri’s clan was chosen. Finally Saul son of Kish was chosen. But when they looked for him, he was not to be found.
Since casting of lot was more popular method of determining God’s will in Israel, it is likely that casting of lot was involved in the choice of Saul as king. The point is that he was chosen not by a voting process but by a process that involves casting of lot or other means. Subsequent kings were appointed beginning with David. Likewise, the high priest was appointed not voted on, so the whole idea of voting was foreign to the OT, especially in appointment of leaders – spiritual or political. Hence, we do not believe the early church chose the seven men using voting process, but we remain uncertain of the process involved or how the church participated in it.
Still another fact that we know from the Scripture with respect to appointment of leaders in the church is Apostles Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for the Gentile local churches they established in their first missionary trip, according to Acts 14:23:
Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust.
In any event, based on the facts we have in the Scripture, we can state that it is not in keeping with the Scripture to choose a spiritual leader by a voting process. Nonetheless, it seems that the best way of placing men in offices in the church is by appointment either by the pastor of the local church or other ruling elders of the church such as the deacons. In effect, elders or deacons may choose a pastor but the pastor will in turn choose other deacons when the situation calls for that. This will be in keeping with the task given to Titus who at the time of this epistle served as the apostle’s delegate in Crete.
Apparently, there were many local churches in Crete. This we deduce from the phrase in every town of Titus 1:5. You see, the word “town” is translated from a Greek word (polis) that may refer to inhabitants of a city, as it is used to describe those who revolted against Apostle Paul when he went to Jerusalem, as we read in Acts 21:30:
The whole city was aroused, and the people came running from all directions. Seizing Paul, they dragged him from the temple, and immediately the gates were shut.
The phrase whole city refers to the inhabitants of the city that stirred up trouble for the apostle. Nonetheless, the Greek word translated “town” in the NIV of Titus 1:5 refers to a population center of varying size and so means “city, town.” It is sometimes translated “town” as it is used in our passage of Titus 1:5 but at other times the Greek word is translated “city” by the translators of the NIV, as for example, in Acts 20:23:
I only know that in every city the Holy Spirit warns me that prison and hardships are facing me.
Generally, a city is larger than a town in terms of population. Nonetheless, there is no fast rule for determining when our Greek word is to be translated “town” or “city.” The fact is that the apostle recognized that they were many urban centers in Crete. According to the information available, we are informed that Crete was famous for its many cities. This being the case, there must have been several local churches in Crete. We do not know if any city had more than one local church but the implication is that there is at least one local church in each city in Crete. Today, we, of course, have so many local churches in a given city for several reasons such as doctrinal differences as evident in various denominations. This was not the case in the early church since there were no denominations as we have them today. If there was the existence of denomination the apostle would not have given Titus the task of appointing elders in every town or city in Crete. We say this because, it seems that the Apostle was not responsible for the establishment of some of the local churches in Crete. We base it on the fact that on the day of Pentecost, as we cited previously, there were some Jews and possibly Gentiles from Crete that heard the gospel and were saved. Therefore, such individuals must have brought the gospel to Crete before the time of the apostle and Titus coming to preach in Crete and so would have established some local churches but without an organized leadership of the type the apostle advocates in our passage.
The mention of appointment of elders in every city is used by some to argue for the position of plural leadership in the church. Such a position cannot be determined by the assignment given to Titus. The only thing that is implied is that a local church would normally have multiple elders but how these elders relate to each other cannot be determined by reference to Titus appointment of elders. One thing that is clear from the Scripture is that there are two groups that form the leadership of the church with probably those who are teaching elders having more authority than those who serve as administrative elders. In any event, Titus was given the task of appointing elders for every church in every city of Crete.
Titus was not at liberty to appoint elders based on his feelings or his likes or dislikes. No! He was to do so following the guidelines the apostle detailed out. We know that the apostle intended for Titus to follow some prescribed guidelines because of the word as that begins the last clause of Titus 1:5 as I directed you. The word “as” is translated from a Greek word (hōs) that has several usages such as a marker of comparison but in our passage, it is used as a marker of the manner in which something proceeds. This means that there are certain guidelines Titus should follow. But before we get to the guidelines, the apostle reminds Titus that his task is in accordance with his instruction to him as in the last clause of Titus 1:5 as I directed you. The apostle was emphatic in this sentence in the Greek because he used a personal pronoun that means “I” that was not necessary but only used when emphasis is intended. This emphasis by the apostle may be to convey that Titus would operate under his full apostolic authority. Titus is to carry out his task in keeping with the details the apostle gave him. You see the word “directed” is translated from a Greek word (diatassō) that may mean “to make arrangements, to plan”, as it is used with respect to Apostle Paul who had planned how he was to be reunited with his apostolic team, as narrated by Luke in Acts 20:13:
We went on ahead to the ship and sailed for Assos, where we were going to take Paul aboard. He had made this arrangement because he was going there on foot.
The Greek word may mean to give detailed instructions as to what must be done, hence means “to command, to order”, as the apostle used the word regarding the Lord’s instruction about those who preach the gospel in 1 Corinthians 9:14:
In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.
The word “commanded” refers to the detail instruction of the Lord to the seventy-two disciples when He sent them on a mission trip, as reported in Luke 10:7:
Stay in that house, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages. Do not move around from house to house.
It is in the sense of giving detailed instruction that the Greek word is used in Titus 1:5. In any event, the apostle had conveyed the purpose of this epistle was to clarify Titus’ task in Crete, which is to complete unfinished business that includes the appointment of elders in the local churches in Crete.
02/17/17
[1] Lightfoot, J. B., & Harmer, J. R. (1891). The Apostolic Fathers (p. 161). London: Macmillan and Co.