1. The receiver of the epistle is distinctly named in i. 4. It is
Titus, the well-known assistant of the Apostle Paul. His name is
nowhere mentioned in the Acts ; but we learn from Gal. ii. 3 that
he was a Gentile by birth, and that he remained uncircumcised.
We do not hear of him again till the occasion of Paul's stay at
Ephesus, and then, that he was sent by the apostle as a deputy to
Corinth about a collection (2 Cor. vii. 14, xii. 18). On his return
thence, he met with the apostle in Macedonia (2 Cor. ii. 13, vii. 6, seq.)
From thence he was sent again to Corinth, as the bearer of the
second epistle (2 Cor. viii. 6, 16, seq.) Upon this follow the data
furnished by the Pastoral Epistles (2 Tim. iv. 10, his journey to
Dalmatia, and Tit. i. 5, iii. 12). According to the statements con-
tained in the epistle addressed to him, he had been left by the apostle
in Crete to organize a church, and to act as teacher (evangelist).
He was not a bishop or an archbishop in Crete, but he laboured
there as an evangelist, the peculiar circumstances requiring that he
should direct his energies chiefly against prevailing corruptions ;
and he received a special commission to ordain presbyters, so as to
form an outward union of the Christians there into a Christian so-
ciety. Chap. iii. 12 of this epistle intimates, perhaps, that another
would soon relieve him, and says that he was to rejoin the apostle
at Nicopolis. Tradition makes him bishop of Crete ; on which,
and on the literature connected with this, compare Winer's RWB.
on Titus, and Bohl, p. 105-120.
According to the plain inscription of the epistle, i. 4, we must
consider it as settled that it was designed for Titus, and not for
the church, or for the church along with him. Alike its form
and contents demand this supposition. With regard to the for-
mer, in addition to the address itself, we need only to refer to i.
544 INTRODUCTION.
5, 13 ; ii. 1, 6, 7, 15 ; iii. 1, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15. Everywhere it is
Titus, and Titus alone, who is addressed ; nowhere do we find
any direct reference to the church ; when there is any such refer-
ence it is always indirect, through Titus. And, with regard to
the contents, it is justly observed that i. 12, seq., does not agree
with the epistles having been intended for the church. The moral
precepts, also, would in this case have been stated differently. The
apostle would not have satisfied himself with a simple enumeration
of the things enjoined ; on which compare the exposition of ii. 12.
This mode of treating his subject, in contradistinction to that of
other epistles in which the apostle addresses himself directly to the
church (the comparison may be made especially in connexion with ii.
12, see exposition), is suitable only to Titus ; and this circum-
tance, which has been urged as an objection against the epistle, is
precisely an argument for its genuineness. That what the apostle
says in ch. i. 2, 3, by way of more definitely naming, not of attest-
ing his office, contains nothing against our view of the epistle's hav-
ing been intended for Titus alone, and that ii. 15, iii. 15, likewise
contain nothing against this, we must leave it to the exposition to
shew.
2. The condition of the Christians in Crete, which was the occa-
sion at once of Titus' having been left behind, and of his receiving
this apostolical letter, finds a sufficient explanation in the epistle, if
we do not allow ourselves to be misled by a preconceived opinion.
Criticism itself does not leave us at liberty to suppose that Chris-
tianity was first planted there by the apostle. To this supposition,
indeed, the contents of the epistle, which was written shortly after
the apostle's departure from Crete (comp. on i. 5), and which pre-
supposes that Christianity had been longer in existence there, do
not correspond. And what is there to hinder us from supposing,
that the apostle was not the, first to make known Christiaity there,
but found it already existing ? (Comp. on i. 5.) And he found
there not merely the seed of Christianity, but along with and inter-
mingled with it much that was corrupt, which took its rise especially
from the Jewish Christians (i. 10). This element is not treated as
a doctrinal heresy, but, on the one hand as a science occupied with
unsubstantial things, and having in it no principle of godliness, on
the other, as a leaning to the commandments of men, which are
likewise destitute of moral power, and which spring from the moral
deficiencies of their authors. It was not after the apostle's de-
parture, which was but shortly before this epistle was written,
that these corruptions first showed themselves ; for the apostle,
knows them from personal observation. He himself had openly
combated them, and what still remained to be done in regard to
them formed part of those things that were wanting which Titus
INTRODUCTION. 545
was fully to set in order. We may gather, besides, from the epistle,
that as yet the Christians had not been united into a church. The
apostle himself had not been able to ordain presbyters, so that Ti-
tus' commission was to establish church order and government. It
is remarkable that in this epistle no mention is made of deacons. It
is plain from this that the deaconal office was non-essential in com-
parison with that of a presbyter, as indeed if owed its existence to a
necessity which the progress of time evolved (Acts vi. 1).
3. The contents of the epistle result simply and naturally from
these circumstances which occasioned it. The design of the apostle
is to instruct Titus in reference both to the setting up of church
government through presbyters, and to his labours as an evangelist
in opposition to the prevailing errors. After an introduction, i. 1-4,
in which the apostle designates his office with specific reference to
the errors that were to be combated, he proceeds to the subject of
tfee ordination of presbyters, and lays down the qualifications which
Titus is specially to look for in this work. They are moral qualifi-
cations, and a firm adherence to the faithful word and sound doc-
trine, as the apostle characterizes the apostolic doctrine, in opposition
to a vain and morally fruitless tendency, 5-10. The necessity of
these qualifications is then shewn by a reference to the prevailing
corruptions. Then follows what Titus is to teach, in opposition to
the errors of the seducers. He is above all to lay stress on moral
conduct, and in a series of predicates, ii. 1-10, those moral qualities
which he is to commend are set forth with respect to the distinctions
of sex, age, and rank. The reason and confirmation of this moral
conduct is then given, vers. 11-15. But the Cretans need also to be
reminded how they should conduct themselves towards magistrates,
and those who are not Christians generally. This is concisely stated,
iii. 1, 2, and it is then confirmed by the consideration of how little
reason the Christian has to exalt himself above those who are not
Christians, 3-7. On this follows an exhortation addressed to Titus
himself, as to what he is to teach, and what he is to let alone, and
how he is personally to act towards those who cause division by their
perversity, 8-11. The epistle concludes with the mention of some
personal matters, with salutations, and the usual benediction. De
Wette, with the impartiality for which he is so much to be com-
mended, speaks highly of the clearness and method of this epistle.
Still he thinks that the instructions there given to Titus, as well with
respect to the appointment of presbyters, as to the subject matter
of his teaching, are too general and universally known to be ad-
dressed to one who was a helper of the apostle. Compare on this
the exposition of the appropriate passages.
4. With regard, finally, to the time when, and the place where,
the epistle was written, as also to the historical circumstances
VOL. V. 35
646 INTRODUCTION.
connected with it in general, the epistle itself informs us that it
was written soon after the departure of the apostle from Crete.
Further, that the apostle intends to pass the ensuing winter in Ni-
copolis, and Titus is to join him there ; from which, of course, it
does not follow that the apostle writes from Nicopolis, as the sub-
scription would lead us to believe. From the circumstance that
Apollos is at Crete ancf is invited to come to the apostle, it may at
least be inferred that the epistle was not written till after the apos-
tle's acquaintance with Apollos, consequently not till after Acts xviii
24, seq. (De Wette). These are the data furnished by the epistle
itself on this point. But when was the apostle in Crete ? Which
Nicopolis is meant ? When was the epistle written ?
The epistle itself says nothing in reply to these questions. We
must therefore seek their solution by comparing and combining the
data which history furnishes. The Acts of the Apostles, as is well
known, mentions only one visit made by the apostle to Crete, xxvii.
7, seq., on the occasion of his passage from Caasarea to Rome ; and
indeed some of the learned have believed that this was the time,
when the apostle's stay in Crete, mentioned in the epistle, took
place. I deem it superfluous anew to refute, in this investigation,
views which have long since been refuted, and which in more recent
times have found no new advocate, and refer, therefore, in regard to
this hypothesis, to Bohl's conclusive remarks against it, p 123, seq.,
Matthies, p. 190. If the Acts of the Apostles give no further posi-
tive information on this subject, they, on the other hand, by their
acknowledged incompleteness, furnish free scope for hypotheses. I
merely notice the view taken by L. Capellus that the apostle, in
his second missionary tour through Syria and Cilicia (Acts xv. 41),
made an excursion thence to Crete ; against which Bohl, p. 125,
eeq., Matthies, p. 191, seq. Further, the hypothesis of J. D. Mi-
chaelis and others, according to which the apostle, during his stay
of a year and a half at Corinth, preached the gospel at Crete (Acts
xviii. 1, seq.), is also satisfactorily refuted by Bohl, p. 12G, Matthies,
p. 191. The circumstance mentioned above that on account of
Apollos, iii. 13, the epistle cannot have been written previous to
what we read at Acts xviii. 24, seq., is decisive against these views.
They have, besides, found no other advocate in more recent times.
On the other hand, the view which now comes to be mentioned,
namely, that the apostle visited Crete with Titus on the occasion
of his return from Corinth to Syria (Acts xviii. 18, 19), and wrote
the epistle from Ephesus, has more recently found influential advo-
cates in Hug, Hemsen, and others. But against it likewise may be
urged the circumstance just noticed, that it was not till after this
that Apollos became a Christian, and still later that he entered into
connexion with the apostle.
INTRODUCTION. 547
In no case then -could the epistle have been written during the
stay in Ephesus, of which we have an account in Acts xviii. 19-
22 (corap. Bohl. p. 137), but must have been written at a later
period, after the apostle had been in Jerusalem and Antioch, had
passed through Galatia and Phrygia, and returned to Ephesus
(Acts xix. 1, seq.) But we cannot place, .even in this period, the
commencement of the relation that afterwards subsisted between
Paul and Apollos, according to the account in the Acts of the
Apostles (Bohl, p. 138), and then, too (a point which Bohl does not
notice), so long an interval between the apostle's departure from
Crete and the writing of the epistle, cannot be reconciled with the
statement of the epistle itself. For it is to be regarded as a settled
point, that the epistle cannot have been written long after the apos-
tle's departure from Crete. How little does this view consist also
with the intention to spend the winter at Nicopolis ; for the idea of
his spending the winter at that Nicopolis, which is situated between
Antioch and Tarsus, is not to be entertained ; and how many hypo-
theses must be had recourse to in order to make it harmonize with
the accounts about Titus in the second epistle to the Corinthians !
Comp. Bohl, a. a. Q. And how little, in fine, this view agrees with
all the personal references in the Epistle to Titus, as well negative
as posjtive, has been shewn by Matthies, p. 191, 192. This view
will hardly find a new advocate, as indeed it does not occur among
those most recently put forth. A step farther on in the life of the
apostle has been taken by Schmidt (Einl. ins Neue Test., i. p. 265)
and others, inasmuch as he makes out the apostle's stay in Ephesus,
of which we have an account in Acts xix. 10, xx. 31, to have been
the period, in the course of which the apostle visited Crete and
wrote the epistle. Bohl, p. 141 ; Matthies, p. 192, seq. But the
same difficulty encounters this hypothesis that Apollos was already
in Corinth, Acts xix. 1 ; and also, that although the accounts in the
Acts of the Apostles do not exclude the supposition of such an in-
termediate journey, it is still impossible to shew how the spending
the winter at Nicopolis corresponds to these circumstances. This
hypothesis also requires us to admit that Titus did not go to Nico-
polis, but met the apostle again at Ephesus, whence he was deputed
to Corinth ; and it may also be objected to it, that nothing is known
to us of Tychicus previous to what we read of him in Acts xx. 4.
We shall thus have to advance still farther foi wards in the life
of the apostle. The sole remaining conjecture that is possible
if it is to be supposed that the apostle visited Crete during the
period of his history comprehended by the Acts of the Apostles
is, that this visit took place before or during the second stay at
Achaia, consequently in the period referred to in Acts xx. 1-3. So
Baronius, Lightfoot, Lardner, Hammond, and others, with the most
548 INTRODUCTION.
recent commentator on the Pastoral Epistles Mutinies. We shall
therefore enter more particularly into this view as it is represented
by Matthies. According to it, the apostle visited Crete during his
three months' stay in Greece, left Titus there, and wrote the epistle
before his departure for Jerusalem, either from Nicopolis or some
place in the neighbourhood. The apostle had gone to Nicopolis in
Epirus on account of the plots of the Jews against him, with the
view of returning thence through Macedonia to Jerusalem. It must
be conceded to this hypothesis, that it partly corresponds to the
persons named in the epistle, in connexion witli what is otherwise
known regarding them, Matthies, p. 201, seq. For both Titus and
Tychicus were with the apostle at the game time in Greece, and
1 Cor. xvi. 12 shews this also to have been probable of Apollos, al-
though nothing depends on this in his case, for it is not necessary to
suppose that he went to Crete with the apostle. It is also true that
Titus is not named in Acts xx. 4, 5, with the others. This, how-
ever, is all that favours this view. In everything else it depends for
its truth (as Dr. Baur has already observed against Matthies) on
the indefiniteness of the accounts in the Acts of the Apostles, which
give us no further information regarding the apostle's stay in Greece
than is contained in the words xx. 2, 3, he went into Greece, and
there abode three months. And when the Jews laid wait for him. as
he was about to sail into Syria, he purposed to return through Mace-
donia. It must certainly be acknowledged that Luke does not re-
late with exactness, if the apostle during these three months of
which the historian says that he spent them in Greece, visited Crete
and preached the gospel there. Matthies himself must also admit
that the period of three months is short for the stay in Greece and
in Crete together. It is indeed true that the apostle writes in
2 Cor. x. 16, that he purposes to preach the gospel in the regions
beyond Achaia ; but we have only to call to mind Acts xix. 21, and
those passages in the Epistle to the Romans already cited, in which
he expresses his intention to come to Rome, in order to be convinced
that Crete was not the place referred to. Further, the Nicopolis in
Epirus, where the apostle intends to winter, will not correspond to
this view, unless violence be done to the words of the Acts of the
Apostles, already quoted. According to these words, the plan of
his return to Jerusalem was already formed, and it was to be by sea,
when the plots of the Jews compel him to take the land route
through Macedonia, which he does forthwith, and in which those
named in vers. 4 and 5 give him a convoy as far as Asia, they again
continuing their journey from Philippi to Troas by land, the apos-
tle, on the other hand, making the same journey by sea, and again
meeting his companions at Troas. How should the apostle on this
journey have passed over to the western coast of Epirus, to Nico-
INTRODUCTION. 549
polls ? And that with the intention of passing the winter there ?
While his travelling companions go before him to Troas, can he have
passed the winter at Nicopolis and yet have met them at Troas ?
But according to Matthies, the apostle only passed some weeks of
the winter at Nicopolis, and proceeded forwards on his journey
earlier than he anticipated, when he wrote the epistle from Nicopolis
or some place in the neighbourhood. He went then to Nicopolis
with the intention of passing the winter there. And from thence
he writes to Titus instructing him how he is to fulfil the commis-
sion given to him ; so that he reckons on Titus' staying for some
length of time in Crete. Then he purposes to send Artemas or
Tychicus, and not till after their arrival is Titus to come to him at
Nicopolis. The apostle then must have intended to remain at Nico-
polis at least so long as was necessary for all this to be done, while his
travelling companions are already on their way to Troas, where he is
to meet them. How is this conceivable ? And further, the apostle
intends to send Tychicus to Crete ; the same who, according to
Matthies, is represented as having, along with several others, accom-
panied the apostle from Greece, and gone before him to Troas at his
own suggestion, while the apostle, owing to the plots that were
formed against him, goes to Nicopolis, and writes this epistle from
Nicopolis or some place near it, after Tychicus had already set out
on his journey to Troas before him, at the apostle's own suggestion.
This is a manifest contradiction. In general, however, the state-
ment in the Acts does not warrant the supposition that the apos-
tle's companions set out before him, and Matthies must rather have
recourse to the conjecture, that the whole company intended to pass
the winter at Nicopolis. (Compare Meyer on the passage.) But
the hypothesis under consideration is also chronologically untenable.
The expression, I have determined to winter, Tit. iii. 12, if not un-
duly refined upon, must be regarded as having been written before
the winter set in ; comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 6. If now, as Matthies main-
tains, the apostle passed only a few weeks at Nicopolis, is it possible
that, notwithstanding the haste with which he makes this journey
to Jerusalem, he should not reach Philippi till Easter ? (Acts xx.
6.) And leaving this out of view, can it be deemed probable that
the apostle should prepare to journey from Corinth to Syria by sea
at the setting in" of winter ? Does he not say in 1 Cor. xvi. 6, that
he intends to spend the winter in Corinth ? And what hinders our
supposing that he did this, as it does not appear that the plots of the
Jews had given any cause for fear until he was about to set sail (jueA-
hovri dvdyeaOai'J ? If this was the case, then we can understand how
he should arrive at Philippi at Easter. But we need not lay stress on
probabilities ; we have already seen that this hypothesis is involved
in impossibilities and contradictions. Bottger has put forth quite a
550 INTRODUCTION.
new view regarding the time of Paul's stay at Crete, and the date of
this epistle a. a. Q. Abth. 4, p. 1-12. According to it the apostle
was not once merely, but twice at Crete. First, in the period re-
ferred to in Acts xviii. 11, during the first stay in Achaia, then in
that of Acts xix. 22, 23, during his from two to three years' stay at
Ephesus ; and he was even on the point of visiting Crete once more
on his return from Greece to Jerusalem, when pirates hired In the
Jews shewed themselves and compelled him to take another direc-
tion. Titus was dismissed in a boat or second ship (?) to Crete,
with parting words to this effect, " Set in order what is still want-
ing in the churches at Crete : as soon as I effect my escape I will
write to you." The apostle then went by Messenia and Elis to
Epirus. From that place he writes to Titus, and remains there
until Titus has set in order the churches in Crete, and comes to him
to Nicopolis, although " his journey is towards Macedonia," and he
is in great haste still to arrive at Jerusalem in proper time for the
feast of Pentecost. This view unites in itself the difficulties of sev-
eral others, and falls to pieces on Tit. i. 5, according to which the
apostle was with Titus at Crete ; nor does it agree any better than
those before mentioned with the simple account in Acts xx. 3, 4.
For jutvUor-rt dvdyeadai does not surely mean : at the moment when
the apostle was about to reach the high sea ? And syevero yvu\Li\ rov
vTToa-rptfaiv did Uanedovias does not surely imply; the apostle had
Bailed to Epirus in order to pass the winter there, and afterwards
to return through Macedonia ; but, that he chose to perform the
journey by land rather than by sea.
But against all these views, which would bring the apostle's visit
to Crete and the date of the epistle within the period described by
the Acts of the Apostles, might be urged, not merely the circum-
stance that it were strange to find in Acts xxvii. 7, seq., no mention
made of Christians in Crete, if indeed the apostle had laboured
there before and Titus had set churches in order. I lay no particu-
lar stress on that ; but it appears to me that the close kindred rela-
tion which the Pastoral Epistles bear to one another in form and
matter would remain unaccountable in spite of all that Hemsen
says to the contrary, if the Epistle to Titus were separated from the
others by any considerable period of time ; as De Wette also ad-
mits. Comp. the General Introduction. And what special objection
can be drawn from the epistle itself, against the supposition of its
having been written during the period between the first and second
imprisonment (the possibility of a second imprisonment being once
granted)? In the personal references no contradiction can be discov-
ered ; the apostle had already been long acquainted with Apollos ; and,
with the manner in which Tychicus is mentioned, Ephes. vi. 21 ;
Col. iv. 7, correspond. The apostle's return to the east is rendered
INTRODUCTION. 551
certain by Phil. i. 25 ; ii. 24 ; Philem. 22. The visit to Crete then
finds a natural occasion in Acts xxvii. 7, seq. Matthies, a decided
opponent of this view,, thinks, that a journey comprehending such a
circuit from east to west must have been fruitful in events ; the
period between the first and second imprisonment was that in which
the distresses of the Christians were severer than ever ; and yet no
word of all this is found in the epistle. But the reason of this ap-
pears at once, if the apostle after he was liberated was with Titus
in Crete. All that he had to communicate on these subjects would
thus have been told to Titus before. If, however, as I am constrained
to think, on the ground of the passages in the Epistle to the Philip-
pians and in the Epistle to Philemon, the apostle went to Crete im-
mediately after being liberated, and not first to Spain, he would then
have nothing to tell about a journey extending from east to west.
If the epistle, moreover, is from beginning to end purely an offi-
cial communication designed to give the necessary instructions and
hints to Titus in a concise form ; what place is there in it for
such accounts as those to which Matthies refers ? Comp. here also
what is said in the General Introduction. When, however, Mat-
thies goes on to say, that the planting of the Cretan churches, the
place from which the epistle was written, as well as the apostle's
stay (in Nicopolis ?), must remain in deep obscurity, we would refer
in reply to the General Introduction, where it has been shewn how
fully on our hypothesis all the data of the Pastoral Epistles har-