Titus 1.

10-16
Greg B. Rast, M.Div.
4 November, 2009

This passage is one that confuses, particularly because it seems that Paul makes a racist slur
here against the Cretans. What is interesting about these verses on closer inspection is that the
passage has little to do with Cretans, and everything to do with the Jewish circumcision party,
a group internal to the Christian church who fought to impose constraints of the Mosaic law,
particularly circumcision, on new believers. That this was a common problem that Paul had
to confront can be easily seen in 1 Corinthians and Galatians as well as elsewhere.

V. 5 - Paul begins by reviewing the charge that he gave to Titus: to straighten out the
remaining problems in the churches in Crete and through v. 9, to describe the characteristics
of leaders that Paul wants to see set in place. Paul’s major qualifications for leadership in the
church include – humility, longsuffering, temperance, self-sacrificing, hospitable, self-
controlled, disciplined, holy.

Verses 10-16 come as a contrast to those qualifications and act as a substantiation of why he
sees these requirements as important.

V. 10 begins with the observation that there are many who have authority problems, are
empty talkers and deceivers. The critical comment here to be noticed are the words at the end
of v. 10 especially those of the circumcision party. By which we understand that the text
focuses our attention on the Jewish community in Crete and the problem of circumcision
teaching in the church. This brings us back to a central issue that Paul had to deal with in
Corinth, Galatia and elsewhere.

v. 11 Paul says that those in the party of the circumcision, because they don’t represent the
qualities needed for leadership in the church, must be silenced. That is an important
distinction. Paul didn’t say that they needed to be silenced simply because they had a
different view. Rather, Paul saw something deeply defunct in the theology of the
circumcision party, something that allowed human pride and sinful nature to function rather
than being crucified with Christ, and as such, he saw leaders from these groups as unfit for
leadership in the paradigm of grace.

Paul goes even further and describes the impact that they have on the church: upsetting whole
families with their teaching, and seeking through it, shameful gain for themselves.

Vv 12-13 Then come the difficult verses. Paul quotes a Cretan poet, possibly Epimenides of
Crete. It’s a pithy saying: “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” We have
Epimenides (or the appropriate author) to thank for such a vivid and controversial
description. What is it doing here in Paul’s letter though?

We would be tempted to take this as a slur on the Cretan people in general if it weren’t for the
fact that Paul returns in v. 14 to a specifically Jewish-Christian context. “rebuke them
sharply…” he says “ that they may be sound in the faith not devoting themselves to Jewish
myths and the commands of people who turn away from the truth.”

These comments are addressed then, not to the Cretan people in general, nor are they intended
by Paul to be a statement against Cretan culture. Rather the statement is directed against the
circumcision party, which as in other churches that Paul had dealt with, was causing havoc
and turning people away from the gospel of grace. The words “this testimony is true” need to
be taken then in the sense, not that the statement describes Cretan people or culture, but that
his source is reliable, the information is accurate, and it applies to the circumcision party.

V. 14-16 further reinforce this view, with Paul extrapolating on the impact of the circumcision
party in the church. “To the pure, all things are pure.” Paul lays out a short reminder of his
teaching on Christian freedom, which reminds one of the longer expositions found in 1 Co.
8:4-13 and 1 Co. 10:23-31. The principle is that for the one who is free in Christ there is
freedom… freedom to eat meat sacrificed to idols… freedom from other constraints of the
law. But for the one insecure, or immature in their faith, for whom those things represented
real issues, the fact remained that their conscience could really be violated by participating in
them, even though in Christ they had the freedom to do so.

So says Paul here. The circumcision party, who do not have the freedom in Christ, do not see
that the uncircumcised can also be pure in Christ. The key issue in the church was that these
would come to new believers and insist on their circumcision. Not only was their own
conscience offended, but they destroyed the consciences of those new believers. Paul saw
this apparently as a huge problem, and a deviation from the gospel of grace and the love that
needed to permeate a Christian community. He can proclaim then in v. 16 “They profess to
know God, but they deny him by their works.” Like the Galatians, they were practicing a
gospel of human effort and religious laws. The fruit of that practice was the destruction of
others in the community of faith, and for that reason, Paul declares them unfit for the work of
building up the church.