The address follows:-” To Titus, genuine child according to a common faith: grace and peace from God [the] Father and Christ Jesus our Savior” (ver. 4).
Thus we see the apostle gives Titus the same designation as Timothy in his First Epistle, but there it is simply “in faith “; here it is “according to common faith.” They both believed the same truth of Christ, Paul the Jew and Titus the Gentile. It is not only that there is one body, the church, but a faith common to all Christians, common to the highest in spiritual place, power, and authority, with the least saint, were he a Scythian or a slave, that calls on the same Lord rich in grace toward all that call on His name.
But it will be observed, that Timothy is called “beloved child” in chap. 1 of the Second Epistle. Accordingly the apostle unbosoms himself to him as he does not to Titus. Nevertheless Titus thoroughly possessed his confidence, as he was entrusted with the important and delicate task of an apostolic envoy in Crete. It is the mistake of the old divines to confound this position with the gift of an evangelist, perhaps because Timothy was an evangelist. This Titus is never called. The truth is that the charge over doctrine, or the commission to appoint elders, is quite independent of an evangelist's gift. Titus had here a work within the church, not without; though no doubt an evangelist might also be appointed to such a charge by an apostle. But an ecclesiastic charge and the exercise of an evangelistic gift have a wholly distinct character, and in themselves no single link of connection. They might or might not be united in the same person.
According to the oldest MSS. and Versions, “mercy” is omitted in the verse, but Chrysostom is quite wrong, followed by Damascus, in asserting that “mercy” is only spoken of in 1 Tim. 1:2, for it is equally found in 2 Tim. 1:2. Here also Lachmann stands with the Received Text in giving it as found in the mass of the junior MSS. and Versions supported by the Alexandrian, and a few other uncial copies.
It is difficult however to resist the overwhelming external evidence; and the inference would be, that the apostle's heart was drawn out to desire mercy especially for Timothy, whilst he contented himself with the wish for “grace and peace” in Titus' case, as he commonly did in writing to the saints generally. In the Epistle of Jude “mercy” is put in the foreground, with “peace and love” following, for those addressed on the broadest possible ground. This insertion is quite as exceptional for the saints in general, as the omission of it is to Titus. There saints are regarded as the objects of special tenderness, as they were exposed to the most imminent danger, from the growing rush of evil towards the last gulf of apostacy. But if “mercy” is not here expressly before us, “grace” really implies it; for it is the fountain-head from which mercy flows, and peace is the issue ever to be desired, no less than the ever-flowing fountain, “from God the Father, and Christ Jesus our Savior.”
“For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest order further the things wanting, and appoint elders city by city, as I directed thee. If any one is blameless (or unaccused), husband of one wife, having children faithful, not under charge of profligacy, or unruly” (ver 5, 6).
There is no doubt that the apostle left Titus in Crete only for a time in the fulfillment of the charge given him. There is not a hint of his permanent residence there, but plain proof that he was to leave Crete for other quarters and different work. It is remarkable that the form of the word “left” has been changed from rather earlier days; and that this change falls in with permanence. So it stands in the commonly received text; but the best authorities followed by the critics agree that the original form quite coincides with the temporary character of the mission of Titus. The apostle's stay in the island was brief. Titus was left there for a while. Neither is said to have planted the gospel in Crete. It seems highly probable from Acts 2:11, that the glad tidings had been conveyed there almost from the great day of Pentecost. It was a question therefore of Titus' following up that setting of things in order which the apostle began. Even at Rome we learn from the first chapter of the Epistle that Paul longed to see them, that he might communicate some spiritual gift to them, in order to their strengthening. Still more would this be called for in the far less frequented island where Titus was left. There would be things wanting which the short stay of the apostle could not suffice to complete. Further, there was the need of elders to be appointed, which was regularly, and sometimes long, subsequent to the gathering of the saints. It is implied that several cities, perhaps many, had assemblies in them, and that elders were to be appointed in each. Bp. Ellicott is quite right in questioning the statement of Jer. Taylor, “one in one city, many in many” (Episc. ยง 15). It is a strange, as well as certainly a precarious, statement from an Episcopalian, though natural enough to one of dissenting ideas. There is nothing here to limit eldership to one person in each
city. There may have been several. This would of course be modified by circumstances; but we know from elsewhere in the New Testament that plurality of elders in any given assembly was the rule, and so no doubt it was at Crete. Church order, though flexible, had a common principle and character. “For this cause,” says the apostle to the Corinthians, “have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you to remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach everywhere, in every church” (1 Cor. 4:17, compare 1 Cor. 11:16; 14:33-37).
It should be observed, as a consideration of the greatest moment, that the apostle does not specify a particular gift as requisite for these local charges. Scripture takes marked care to guard from that dangerous confusion, which was soon to characterize Christendom, and to form the separation of clergy from laity which is in fact a return to Judaism, and a denial in both principle and practice of the distinctive fullness of privilege to the church. It is not that a gift and a charge might not be combined in the same individual; but they are in themselves, and for most who have the one or the other, altogether different. The gift was one given by Christ to the church and from the greatest to the least, apart from all intervention of man. This can no more cease to be than Christ can abnegate His grace and living functions as the Head of the body.
Another weighty fact is that, so far from being interrupted by His ascension to heaven, Eph. 4:8-10 is precisely authoritative, that only from Him on high were they given, and given till we all come into the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a full grown man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. As no right-minded Christian will aver that this is attained yet, so neither should he doubt the unfailing grace of Christ. Power in external testimony may not adorn the assembly when unfaithful, and no more a visible united light as once here below. But the love of Christ cannot refuse all that is needed for the perfecting of the saints, unto ministerial work, unto building up of His body.
But elders or bishops were a local charge and depended for their nomination on those who had discernment to choose and authorize, ultimately from Christ, to appoint them. Hence we never see them in scripture, among the Gentiles at least, save as chosen by apostles, or by apostolic men like Timothy or Titus expressly commissioned to that end. The democratic idea is a fiction; had it been of God, it would have saved much trouble, and simplified matters outwardly, to have left their election with the assembly. But it is never so heard of in God's word. All power and authority is in the hands of Christ, Who wielded it through those He chose. Hence He called personally the twelve on earth, as He called Paul from heaven; and they did directly, or indirectly through fitting agents as here before us, choose elders assembly by assembly, city by city. The assembly might look out deacons; but elders needed and had a different source, the authority of Christ through men whom He chose and fitted to select them. How solemn a consideration this is, alike for Nationalists and Non-conformists, this is not the place to discuss at large. If they are spiritual and of single eye, they can scarce fail to see how far present arrangements are alien from scripture, how fallen the church is if it were only in the matter of gifts and charges. Alas! it is but a particular case of a ruin far more comprehensive and appalling.
Moral qualities and circumstances in accordance with them are here as elsewhere insisted on for elders. “If any one is blameless (or unaccused).” How censure others, if open to it himself? “Husband of one wife.” If married, he must have but one wife; for many heathen had several and at one time; and Jews discarded a wife with facility when they liked another more. “Having children faithful, not under charge of excess (or profligacy), or unruly.” Next to personal probity stands family relationship; and as plurality of wives would bar, whatever the suitability in other respects, so a disreputable offspring. How could he rule the house of God, who had already and manifestly failed in his own home?