Titus part six and Wrap up

Paul ends the letter with personal info. As soon as he sends Artemas and Tychicus to Titus, Titus is to go to Paul at Nicopolis, where he will be spending the winter. I guess Titus better hurry up with his appointing elders and teaching in every town in Crete. He is also to help Zenas the lawyer and Appollos leave Crete well supplied. Presumably, they will be given what they need by the Christians in Crete because the next sentence says "our people (christians) must learn to devote themselves to doing good that they may provide for daily necessities and not live unproductive lives." The author ends with greetings from those with him and greetings to "those who love us in the faith." To me this looks like a dig at those who do not agree with Paul's version of the faith. Either you are with him, or against him.

Now for the wrap up. The letter to Titus contains no people, places, or events from the Old Testament. The only references to Judaism are snide remarks about Jewish myths, the circumcision group, genealogies, and arguments about the law. There are no scripture references, but there is a reference to a Cretan's poem about the eternal nature of Zeus. It would almost seem that this was written by someone who had never been a Jew.

There are no references to Jesus's birth, life, teachings, miracles, trial, death, burial, and resurrection. There are no words or commands of Jesus mentioned. Jesus is called the savior but not the son of god. God is said to have brought salvation by the "washing of rebirth and renewal by the holy spirit" poured out through Jesus Christ. It doesn't say how this was accomplished.

There is no mention of demons, Satan, or hell. There is no mention of angels or miracles, and no direct mention of heaven, just eternal life. The author does not claim his words are inspired or are the "word of god."

The main body of the letter told Titus who could be appointed elders and what to teach the various genders and age groups about how to behave, so they wouldn't bring disgrace to the community of believers. These included instructions to slaves but not to masters. There were also instructions on how to handle those who opposed Paul's version of religion. This was basically to rebuke them, then have nothing to do with them if they wouldn't listen.

Up next: Ecclesiastes.

Titus part five

We are at chapter two, verse 11, which reminds Titus that salvation is for all men, and the grace of god teaches them to just say "no" to ungodliness and worldly passions. They are to live "self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age" (first century BCE) while they wait for the "glorious reappearing" of Jesus. Well they wasted their time waiting. He didn't come. When he got there, he was supposed to "redeem them from all wickedness and purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good." Again, it never happened. Those people died without seeing what they were promised.

Verse 13 reminds Titus that he is to be teaching these things to the Cretans, encouraging and rebuking them, with all authority. Where did he get his authority from, Paul? Then Titus is told not to let anyone despise him. How will he stop them?

Chapter 3 begins next but there were no chapter divisions in the original. Plus, the content follows on the heels of Paul telling Titus that he had authority and to not let people despise him. Instead, he is to "remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities (Titus? Paul? The appointed elders?) to be obedient, to be ready to do what is good, to slander no one (including Titus and Paul, but not including the Judaizers), to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men" (Except those of the circumcision group).

Starting in verse 3, Paul gives an example of humility by reminding Titus that, after all, he and Titus both used to be foolish too, "disobedient, deceived, enslaved by all kinds of passions," living in malice, envy, and hatred. But the kindness and love of Jesus appeared (to Paul in a personal revelation) and saved them, not because of anything they had done, but purely out of mercy.  If Jesus was so merciful, why didn't he appear to everyone in the same way? Instead they must believe that what Paul tells them is the truth, without evidence from their own senses.

The author says  Jesus saved him and Titus by "the washing of rebirth and renewal of the holy spirit whom he poured out generously" on them, through Jesus. The washing of rebirth is usually assumed to mean baptism. Who knows what form their outpouring of the holy spirit took. Now they are justified by grace (yay for grace, that undefinable quantity/quality) and have the hope of an eternal life. Paul wants Titus to stress these things, so that those who trusted in god can devote themselves to doing good, which is profitable for everyone. That's the thing isn't it? Doing good can be profitable for everyone, whether or not there are any gods.

From verse 9, Titus is told how to deal with those Judaizers that Paul despises. Foolish controversies and genealogies (Matthew and Luke have genealogies), and arguments and quarrels about the law, are to be avoided. Titus is to warn a divisive person only twice. After that, he is to have nothing to do with that person. Three strikes they're out. Shunning is next. Notice it doesn't say all the rest of the Cretans are also required to shun that person. However, the humble, considerate, and non-slandering Paul, says that those men are warped and sinful, self-condemned. Uh oh. No eternal life for them.

Titus part four

Verses 15-16 of chapter one seem to imply that those who oppose Paul's message are impure and corrupted. "They claim to know god, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good." That's Paul's Christian love speaking.

In chapter two, Paul tells Titus to teach according to sound doctrine, which of course, is Paul's doctrine. First Titus is told to teach the older men to be "temperate, worthy of respect (whose?), self-controlled, and sound in faith and endurance." I wonder how older guys liked being told how to live and behave by someone younger?

Verse 3 says, "Likewise teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers, or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good." I wonder how the older women felt about some young male foreigner trying to tell them how to behave and live. I wonder how their husbands felt about it.

Verse four goes on to tell the older women to "train the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of god." This scripture is often drilled into the minds of devout christian women, even today. It's what makes many become stay at home mothers and housewives, even if they are not naturally inclined toward that occupation. Because it is in the bible, it is considered the words of god, but it is actually just the words of Paul or some other writer. The author is clearly concerned about the reputation of the church and seems to feel that young women should behave in a manner that coincides with his ideas of what is appropriate. It is probably consistent with the ideals of that time and culture. No gods needed.

Verse six tells Titus to encourage the young men be self-controlled. Just encourage? Young men are notoriously hard to command and often resistant to those who set themselves up as authorities. Paul tells Titus to lead them by example, not a bad tactic. He is to do what is good, show integrity, seriousness, and soundness of speech. This is again to protect the reputation of Paul 's followers in the eyes of his opposition.

Verse nine tells Titus to "teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in everything they will make the teaching about our god and savior attractive." Oh, the harm these verses have done! It is inexcusable. Why did Paul not tell christian masters to set an example and free their slaves? Why did he not suggest that free christians help christian slaves buy their freedom if they had nonchristian masters? I'll tell you why. He was not receiving any revelation from an almighty benevolent god. He was speaking from his own experience in culture and time. Plus his goal in these passages is clearly the preservation and boosting of the reputation of his followers, so the opposition would not be able to accuse them of anything unseemly.

The slave was told to obey his master in everything! What if the slave was ordered to have nothing more to do with the Paulites? What if the slave was ordered to slander or sabotage them? The slave was told his obedience would make christianity attractive. Your darn tootin' it would, to slave owners. It sure would give the slave owner leverage to be able to read that passage to his slaves. It might be worth the trouble to become a christian, at least in name, if you could take advantage of Paul's teachings on slavery.

Titus part three

The last post only covered verse six of chapter one. Now we move on to verse seven. This verse uses the word overseer in the NIV, but it is still talking about the elder. Now, instead of the character of the elder's wife and children, Paul addresses the elder's character. He must not be overbearing, quick-tempered, a drunk, a violent person, or a crook. "He must be hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firmly on to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it." Let's pause.

The elder is not to deviate from the message he was taught. If this letter is not a fake, the message is none other than Paul's message. There were no Christian scriptures at the time. The message came by word of mouth. There doesn't appear to be any epistle to the Cretans. It is considered trustworthy by Paul if it originated from him. His doctrine is the only sound doctrine. Since Paul addresses those who would oppose it, it is certain that there were already persons opposing it.

Paul died before the destruction of the temple in 70 CE, probably in the 60's. So, in the thirty years between Jesus's death and Paul's, minus fourteen years in the wilderness. Paul probably travelled and preached his message approximately 15 years. In that time, he came to expect his teachings about Jesus to be the standard. The "gospels" of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, most likely came later. It is possible Mark was produced during Paul's lifetime, but there is no indication Paul heard of it or read it. If he did, he may have even regarded it as a false gospel.

Who would oppose Paul's gospel of salvation and spiritual equality for the gentiles? Obviously Jews. I imagine Yahweh believing gentiles would have  been his easiest targets. Those who profited by the pagan traditions would also have been offended. Verse 10 goes on to say "There are many rebellious people, mere talkers and deceivers, especially among the circumcision group." AKA Jews. Yep. Verse 11: "They must be silenced (???), because they are ruining whole households by teaching what they ought not to teach-- for the sake of dishonest gain." The dishonest gain is not elaborated on. Perhaps local Jews charged fees for the circumcision of converting gentiles? Who knows.

Verse 12-13 says, "Even one of their own prophets has said, 'Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.' This testimony is true. Therefore, rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith and pay no attention to Jewish myths (???) or to the commands of those who reject the truth." (Did Paul completely reject the whole Jewish mythos now contained in the Old Testament?) Read about the Cretan Epimenides and his statement about Cretans here. The statement is often considered a paradox because Epimenides was a Cretan himself, which would make him a liar. However, the statement originally occurred in the context of a poem:

"They fashioned a tomb for thee, O holy and high one
The Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies!
But thou art not dead: thou livest and abidest forever,
For in thee we live and move and have our being.

I wonder if Paul knew he was quoting a poem about the immortality of Zeus? The fourth line of this poem also occurs in Acts 17:28. There, Paul tells the Athenians it was from one of their  own poets, He appears to be either referring to Yahweh, or equating Yahweh with Zeus. That would be interesting.

 At any rate, the phrase as it appears in Titus is downright insulting of the Cretans, the very people whom Paul wants to be good little Paulites, um, Christians. 

Titus part two

After telling Titus to appoint elders in every town in Crete, he proceeds to explain the qualifications of an elder. These qualifications are still referred to today, when appointing elders, especially in fundamentalist churches. However, the methods for appointing the elders often differ greatly. In churches of christ, elders are often chosen and voted for by the members of the congregation, under the oversight of the current elders. Depending on the strictness of the congregation, the voters may consist of only males, deacons, or current elders. The congregations I have attended generally open the process to every baptized member of the congregation.

Chapter 1, verse 6, tells us "an elder must be blameless, the husband of only one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Let's talk about the wife first. Even though this passage does not say the wife must be a believer, churches of christ require it. I don't know much about what other protestant churches require of their elders, but I imagine there are a lot of similarities. The elder is often chosen with great consideration put on the reputation of his wife. Also, the elder's wife often finds herself in a position of unspoken authority by virtue of her husband's standing in the community. She has her husband's ear, so she is often told things that might not reach him otherwise. She is looked up to by the other women of the congregation. She is also expected to be "blameless", a good example of wifehood and motherhood, and a kind of leader among the women of the congregation. She often finds herself required, or expected, to teach and organise other women. She is called upon to lead public prayers when women meet together. These are things not found in the scriptures, but they occur nevertheless.

The "husband of one wife" requirement means that congregations reject the appointment of a single man. Also, Churches of christ, and other protestant churches, do not usually accept divorcees or widowers as elders, even when remarried. There are a few exceptions. Some say one is one and no more. Others say one at a time is acceptable, depending on the individual circumstances.

As a reminder, I speak from over forty years experience in fundamentalist protestant christianity, specifically mainstream church of Christ. My husband was nominated to be an elder, two years ago. I told him to turn it down. His response was, "Are you telling me or asking me?" I said I was telling him. I refused to be an elder's wife. Without my cooperation, he could not be an elder. Plus, he was not qualified by their standards anyway, because I am an atheist.

The believing children requirement has been a tricky one, even harder for christians to distinctly define. How much belief? Just unqualified assent, or public confession of belief and baptism? Is this just for minor children residing in the home, or does it include adult children? Does it mean all the children of the candidate? Is one believing child enough, or must there be more than one because of the word children?

Then there is the requirement that an elder's children cannot be open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Again, is this about minor children, or all children? How wild? How disobedient? Disobedient to whom? This seems to be a regulation that naturally finds itself broken regularly. When children find themselves in the spotlight of scrutinization, they rarely measure up to anything close to perfection. It's too much to expect, and rebellion often occurs. In my experience, most church of christ elders' children are a mixed bag. An elder may have three children, one devout, one halfhearted, and one living a lifestyle totally unacceptable by church of christ standards. This doesn't seem to matter in today's church. When I was a teenager, churches of christ were generally more strict. I think conditions have relaxed somewhat out of necessity. Else, who would be qualified to lead?

Introduction to Titus.

Titus is is right next to Philemon in the bible. It looks relatively short and easy. Let's try it next. You can read about Paul's letter to Titus here. The letter to Titus is a so-called pastoral letter, because it addresses the structure and function of leadership in the early churches. Many modern scholars believe the pastoral letters of Paul to be pseudopigraphical, or fakes.

Titus is mentioned in Galatians and 2 Corinthians, but not in Acts. In Galatians 2:1-3, Titus is one of Paul's companions in a Journey to Jerusalem after a fourteen year absence. Paul describes him as an uncircumcised Greek.

In 2 Corintians 2:13, Paul says he couldn't find Titus in Troas. In spite of the lord "opening a door" for him to preach the gospel, Paul had no peace of mind. (Tut, tut) He left there to go to Macedonia, where he found a happy Titus who had been treated well by the Corinthians.(7:13-15) Titus appears to be instrumental in collecting some kind of benevolence from the Macedonians for the Corinthians. In 8:16-23, Paul says that he is sending Titus to the Corinthians, along with another "brother" who appears to be a kind of treasurer or safeguard for the money that was collected. Paul calls Titus his partner and fellow worker. Strangely, 2 Corinthians 12:18 speaks of Titus as though he and the other brother have already been to Corinth, in contrast to chapter eight where Paul is in the process of sending him.

The letter begins with a lengthy, almost boastful introduction from Paul. It is to Titus, whom Paul calls "my true son in our common faith." Titus appears to be in Crete, having been left there by Paul. This journey is not mentioned in the book of Acts. Titus's job was to "straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town. I find it interesting, and kind of unbelievable, that there were churches in every town in Crete, an island with an area of over 3,000 sq. miles. Not to mention, Would the people of every town in Crete  have actually let Titus decide for them who their elders would be? Did Titus have help?

More to come.

Galatians chapter 2, part 1

After reading chapter 2:

*The chapter starts with the words "Fourteen years later." Depending on Paul's intended starting date, his first revelation of Jesus or last visit to Jerusalem, it is 14-17 years from the time he was "converted" and started preaching to Gentiles. Remember, in chapter 1 he claims not to have had any personal contact with the churches in Judea, except for Peter and James, contrary to what we read in the Acts accounts.  Now, he has had another revelation telling him to go to Jerusalem to privately tell the leaders (of the church?) what he was preaching to the Gentiles, hoping to be validated. Apparently, he had some doubts. He took Barnabus and Titus along.

*Titus was an uncircumcised Greek. This apparently had been an issue raised by what Paul calls "false brothers" who wanted to "make them slaves", presumably to the law of moses. The false brothers had to have been Jews. These Jews had the appearance of authority, but Paul puts them in their place by telling them that he is entrusted with preaching the gospel to the Gentiles just as Peter is to the Jews. Titus is not mentioned in Acts, only in the books of Galatians, 2 Corinthians, and of course, Titus. Many Christians assume that Titus was present in other passages, just not mentioned.

*This episode is presumed to be the same as the one mentioned in Acts 15. There Paul and Barnabas, while in Antioch, dispute with Men from Judea who try to insist that circumcision is essential to salvation. Paul and Barnabas are appointed (no revelation) to go to Jerusalem to consult with the apostles and elders about this. There, some believers who were pharisees said the Gentiles had to obey the law of moses. Then Peter gets up and makes a lovely speech about God accepting the Gentiles without the burden of the law. In Acts, Peter also had a revelation about preaching to the Gentiles. This speech and Peter's actions in Acts contrast to what we will read about Peter in the second part of Galatians chapter 2. Acts is much kinder to Peter and the apostles in Jerusalem than Paul is in his letter to the Galatians.

*The result, in either case, is that Paul's work with the Gentiles is accepted by Peter, James, and John in Galatians. In Galatians, Paul is only admonished to remember the poor. In Acts, a delegation of authorities from Jerusalem is sent back to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, including a letter which states that the only requirements they insisted on were abstaining from food sacrificed to idols, blood from the meat of strangled animals, and sexual immorality. That is not mentioned in Galatians.