A Text centred rhetorical analysis of Paul's Letter to Titus

A TEXT-CENTRED RHETORICAL 

ANALYSIS OF PAUL'S LETTER TO TITUS 

BY 

ALDRED AUGUSE GENADE 

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DOCTOR IN PHILOSOPHY 

DEGREE IN THE FACULTY OF THEOLOGY, DEPARTMENT 

OF NEW TESTAMENT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF FREE STATE 

SUPERVISOR: PROF. DR. D.F. TOLMIE 

THE UNIVERSITY OF THE FREE STATE 

FACULTY OF THEOLOGY 

NOVEMBER 2007 

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

A project of this scope and size is never an individual endeavour, at least not 

for the believer. As one most unworthy of being called a servant of God, I wish 

to acknowledge help received-that mysterious combination of divine and 

human assistance. 

First. All glory alone to God, maker of Heaven and Earth, the Father of our 

Lord Jesus Christ for saving me and equipping me to serve His Church. 

Next. While there no doubt have been many, koinonia in this project have 

been more direct with the following, individuals, groups and institutions: 

1. My Doktorvater, Prof D.F. Tolmie, whom I’ve grown to love and 

respect, an example of diligent labour, thorough scholarship and 

reverence for God’s Word. 

2. My wife Celeste who helped me to remain focused during this time, for 

her timeous and delightful “distractions” 

3. Bellville Baptist church for their magnanimous accommodation while I 

finished this project, especially the Saturday morning prayer group, 

who held me accountable and kept me before the throne of grace by 

their prayerful support. 

4. Br. Chris Mathews and Rev. Dr. Taeheon Song who “saw” this journey 

ere I set but one foot to traverse it. 

5. The Faculty of Theology of UFS for financial assistance 


DECLARATION 

I declare that the dissertation/thesis hereby submitted by me for the Ph.D. 

degree at the University of the Orange Free State is my own independent 

work and has not previously been submitted by me at another 

university/faculty. I furthermore do cede copyright of the 

dissertation/thesis in favour of the University of the Free State. 

Signature:________________________________ 

Aldred Auguse Genade 


Declaration 

Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

SECTION 1 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1 OVERVIEW OF EXISTING SCHOLARSHIP 4 

1.1.1 INTRODUCTION 4 

1.1.2 AUTHORSHIP OF TITUS 5 

1.1.2.1 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 5 

1.1.2.2 OVERVIEW OF THE DEBATE ON AUTHENTICITY 6 

1.1.2.3 THE PRESENT POSITION OF THE DEBATE 7 

1.1.2.4 CONCLUSION 22 

1.1.3 THE THEOLOGY OF TITUS 27 

1.1.3.1 INTRODUCTION 27 

1.1.3.2 TRENDS 27 

1.1.3.3 THEOLOGY AND CHRISTOLOGY 29 


1.1.4 STRUCTURE AND COHERENCY 35 

1.1.4.1 INTRODUCTION 35 

1.1.4.2 TWO POSITIONS 36 

1.1.5 RHETORICAL APPROACHES TO TITUS 40 

1.1.5.1. INTRODUCTION 40 

1.1.5.2 CARL JOACHIM CLASSEN: “A RHETORICAL READING OF THE EPISTLE TO TITUS” 42 

1.1.5.3 CRITICAL EVALUATION OF RHETORICAL APPROACHES TO TITUS 47 


1.2 RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS AND METHODOLOGY 50 

1.2.1 RESEARCH PROBLEM 50 

1.2.2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 52 

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com 

1

SECTION 2 

RHETORICAL ANALYSIS 

2.1 RHETORICAL SITUATION 55 

2.1.1 INTRODUCTION 55 

2.1.2 DEFINITION 55 

2.1.3 PAUL 56 

2.1.4 PAUL AND TITUS 57 

2.1.5 PAUL AND THE CRETAN BELIEVERS 59 

2.1.6 PAUL AND THE OPPOSITION 61 

2.1.7 PAUL AND OTHER CHARACTERS 62 

2.1.8 CONCLUSION 62 

2.2 RHETORICAL ANALYSIS 63 

2.2.1 TITUS 1:1-4: ADAPTING THE SALUTATION TO EMPHASISE THE DIVINE BASIS OF 

LEGITIMATE MINISTRY 63 

2.2.1.1 EMPHASISING THE LEGITIMACY OF HIS MINISTRY 64 

2.2.1.2 EMPHASISING LEGITIMATE TEACHING 65 

2.2.1.3 EMPHASISING THE LEGITIMACY OF THE MINISTRY OF TITUS 69 


2.2.2 TITUS 1:5-9: OUTLINING THE CRITERIA FOR LEGITIMATE LOCAL LEADERSHIP 71 

2.2.3 TITUS 1:10-16: DISCREDITING THE ILLEGITIMATE TEACHERS 77 

2.2.4 TITUS 2:1: DISTINGUISHING TITUS AS A MINISTER OF SOUND DOCTRINE ON THE 

BASIS OF APOSTOLIC AUTHORISATION 89 

2.2.5 TITUS 2:2-10: PERSUADING THE CRETANS THAT PERSONAL CONDUCT COMPLIANT 

WITH SOUND DOCTRINE IS COMPULSORY AND SHOULD CHARACTERISE ALL BELIEVERS 91 

2.2.5.1 THE BEHAVIOUR OF OLDER MEN 92 

2.2.5.2 THE BEHAVIOUR OF OLDER WOMEN 94 

2.2.5.3 THE BEHAVIOUR OF YOUNGER WOMEN 95 

2.2.5.4 THE BEHAVIOUR OF YOUNG MEN 98 

2.2.5.5 THE BEHAVIOUR OF TITUS 98 

2.2.5.6 THE BEHAVIOUR OF SLAVES 100 

2.2.6 TITUS 2: 11-15: EMPHASISING THE DIVINE BASIS OF OBEDIENCE TO SOUND 

DOCTRINE 104 

2.2.6.1 THE UNIVERSAL APPEARANCE OF GRACE IN THE PAST 106 

2.2.6.2 THE PARTICULAR INSTRUCTION OF GRACE IN THE PRESENT 106 

2.2.7 TITUS 3:1-2: PERSUADING THE CRETANS OF THE COMPULSORY TREATMENT OF ALL 

UNBELIEVERS IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH SOUND DOCTRINE 117 

2.2.8 TITUS 3:3: EVOKING DISGUST WITH PAST SINFUL BEHAVIOUR IN ORDER TO 

REINFORCE BEHAVIOUR IN THE PRESENT THAT COMPLY WITH SOUND DOCTRINE 124 

2.2.9 TITUS 3:4-7: PERSUADING THE CRETANS THAT DISPLAYING GOOD WORKS TO THOSE 

CONSIDERED UNDESERVING DEMONSTRATES CONFORMITY TO THE DIVINE EXAMPLE 129 


2

2.2.10 TITUS 3:8-11: REINFORCING THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SOUND AND 

ILLEGITIMATE DOCTRINE IN ORDER TO ENCOURAGE COMPLIANCE TO THE FORMER AND 

REJECTION OF THE LATTER 151 

2.2.11 TITUS 3:12-15: ADAPTING THE CONCLUSION TO REINFORCE THE NOTION OF 

LEGITIMATE MINISTRY 159 

CONCLUSION 166 

BIBLIOGRAPHY__________________________________________________ 186 

ABSTRACT 194 

OPSOMMING 197 

KEY TERMS 200 

TREF WOORDE 201 


3

SECTION 1 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1 OVERVIEW OF EXISTING SCHOLARSHIP 

1.1.1 INTRODUCTION 

Current research focusing on the Letter to Titus evinces several interesting 

trends. Starting with authorship of the Pastorals, it will be shown that a clear 

link exists between that and the treatment of Titus in the areas of theology, 

structure and coherence, and rhetoric. It will be shown that the, perhaps 

unintentional, cumulative effect of the authorship debate was the 

marginalisation of the Letter to Titus. The literature evidence will bear out that 

for a long time there was not much talk about, for example, the theology of 

Titus as opposed to the theology of the Pastorals. Thus, a rhetorical analysis 

of the Letter to Titus must begin with an appreciation for the multiplicity of 

influences that have impacted upon the scholarly interest in this letter. The 

present chapter will review these trends, illustrating in particular how they 

have impacted upon the treatment of the letter to Titus. 

In order to establish a comprehensive assessment, various categories of 

research will be investigated. These include commentaries, recent books and 

related journal articles. Due to the enormous expansion within the field of 

rhetorical criticism, boundaries are required to stay within the focus area of 

this study. Therefore, the selection of commentaries, books and articles will be 

governed by their direct relevance to the problem of the relationship between 

rhetorical criticism and the Pastorals, specifically the Letter to Titus. 

The review will attempt to show that the Letter to Titus still has to benefit from 

a thorough rhetorical critical analysis that will demonstrate its uniqueness as a 

coherent, comprehensive portion of New Testament literature that can be 

interpreted independently from the two letters to Timothy. 


4

1.1.2 AUTHORSHIP OF TITUS 

1.1.2.1 Introductory remarks 

The issue of authorship is undoubtedly the dominant contention in regard to 

the Pastorals. The authorship of the Letter to Titus is directly tied to the 

current debate, because of the relatively recent tendency to categorise the 

three letters into a single unit. Scholarship is generally divided into two camps. 

At the one end of the spectrum, there are those who maintain that the letters 

were authored by Paul, in accordance with the self-identification of the letter. 

In this regard, some scholars display an unqualified acceptance of Pauline 

authorship, for example, Hiebert (1978:421) and McArthur (1996:ix). Until the 

turn of the nineteenth century, this was the unchallenged traditional position. 

An alternative position has emerged since the beginning of the twentieth 

century. Scholars, at the opposite end of the spectrum, maintain that these 

letters are later, non-Pauline or pseudonymous creations. 

Among supporters of the traditional view, are commentators and authors who 

display an unqualified acceptance of Pauline authorship. On both sides of the 

debate, there are also authors who present careful and thorough 

presentations to defend their particular hypotheses. That there are some 

cogent arguments for either view is evidenced by the confession of some 

authors who “converted” from one view to another (Johnson, 1996:2; Hanson, 

1982:10). An author’s position on this crucial issue has far reaching 

implications for the interpretation and treatment of this body of 

correspondence and particularly the Letter to Titus. 

Evidence gleaned from multiple literary sources, including commentaries and 

related journal articles, will demonstrate the extent of the current division and 

the resultant implications for the treatment of the Letter to Titus. It will, 

furthermore, show how the presuppositions regarding authorship of this 

corpus particularly, influence the treatment of the Letter to Titus by scholars. 


5

The content of the authorship debate is an established academic fact and is 

well documented in most commentaries and scholarly literature. Mere 

recitation, therefore, of these facts would not be conducive to the intent of this 

chapter. 

A rather more interesting avenue of investigation is to attempt the 

extrapolation of any insight that will advance our understanding of how 

scholars have come to the positions they so intrepidly defend. This study will 

focus on a rhetorical analysis of the Letter to Titus. However, it will soon 

become evident that the Letter to Titus does not enjoy the attention of New 

Testament scholars to the extent that the Timothean correspondence does. 

While there is undoubtedly some justification for this, and without 

oversimplifying the complexities involved in the science of biblical 

interpretation, a probable explanation for this apparent ‘neglect’, would appear 

to emerge from an investigation of current literature. The question begs to be 

asked, would scholars maintain their views on the authenticity issue if a 

different methodology were to be utilised? Could the disparate position be 

attributable to a ‘flawed’ methodology? I have isolated and classified what I 

term reading principles or methodologies that occur in literature on the 

Pastoral Letters. While not part of the core discussion of the present study, 

the way in which scholars read these letters, illumines our understanding of 

the scholarly treatment of these letters. Additionally, it bolsters the case for an 

appreciation of the individualistic peculiarities of the Letter to Titus. 

1.1.2.2 Overview of the debate on authenticity 

The content and range of the debate on authorship of the Pastoral Letters is 

settled. Scholars have unequivocally sided themselves with one of two 

positions, namely those who argue that these letters are genuinely the product 

of Paul’s hand and those who argue that these are not from Paul. Therefore, a 

mere replication of the facts will not be presented in this section. 

What is important is to attempt to establish a link between the authorship 

debate, and the rhetorical criticism of the Pastoral Letters, specifically the 


6

position of the Letter to Titus. It remains to be shown that the authenticity 

debate has bearing on the resultant neglect of academic appreciation for the 

individuality of the Letter to Titus. This can be established by highlighting the 

operative reading methodologies gleaned from New Testament academic 

literature. This matter will receive attention in the following sections. In order 

to add perspective, a summary of the present position, together with the key 

points of dispute in the authenticity debate will be presented. 

1.1.2.3 The present position of the debate 

a) The authenticity of the Pastoral Letters challenged 

Until the turn of the nineteenth century, the authenticity of the Pastoral Letters 

was unchallenged. Subsequently, there followed a succession of dissident 

voices, mainly from Germany that snowballed into the present polarity on this 

issue. The names of Friedrich Schleiermacher and Ferdinand Christian Bauer 

should be mentioned as the original catalysts in what has become the 

authenticity debate. The grounds upon which the authenticity of the letters 

was considered spurious related primarily to linguistic and stylistic 

discrepancies. An outline of the main criteria follows later in this study. 

The rejection of the authenticity of all three letters occurred rapidly though not 

automatically. In this regard, it is interesting to note how early scholars 

contradicted each other. It is well documented, how some accepted the 

authenticity of one letter while rejecting the rest and vice versa. This problem 

goes back a long time. From the early church era, Tatian is cited by Dibelius 

and Conzelmann (1972:2) as an example of one who rejected 1 and 2 

Timothy, but accepted the Letter to Titus as authentically Pauline. The same 

ambivalence is noticeable among the German scholars. In his Historical- 

Critical introduction to the New Testament, J.E.C Schmidt (1804) questioned 

whether 1 Timothy could have been written by the same author who penned 

the other two. During the same time, Edward Evanson (1805:318-319) 

expressed doubt that Titus came from the hand of Paul, but upheld the 

authenticity of the Timothean correspondence. Even Schleiermacher, 


7

consistently identified as pioneer of the debate, accepted only the authenticity 

of Titus and 2 Timothy. By 1812, however, J.G. Eichhorn would reject all three 

Pastorals. 

A gradual consensus in German critical scholarship emerged throughout the 

rest of the nineteenth century that effectively denied the Pauline authorship of 

all three letters. Late in the second half of the nineteenth century, Heinrich 

Julius Holtzmann (1880) confirmed the German consensus on the non- 

Pauline authorship of these Letters. Two dissenting German voices to this 

general consensus made themselves heard. One came from the commentary 

of J. Jeremias, who in 1963, defended the authenticity of these letters. The 

other was T. Zahn, who in his Introduction to the New Testament (1953), 

insisted that the Pastorals were written during Paul’s lifetime. 

The notion that these letters were not from Paul had far reaching implications, 

not least of which relates to the twin concerns, namely date of composition 

and authorship. Logically, the date of composition would necessarily be post- 

Pauline, which in turn raised a new question of authorship: if not Paul, then 

who? In this regard, several hypotheses were presented and some are still 

maintained. 

Once it was established that Paul could not have written the Pastorals, the 

debate shifted to the determination of a probable date of composition. F. C. 

Baur in 1835 propounded the hypothesis that the Pastorals belong to the 

second century. He maintained that there were similarities between elements 

raised in the Pastorals and the Gnostic threat opposed by Irenaeus. This led 

him to conclude that these letters represent an early second century response 

to the Gnostic heresy. Interestingly, this conclusion has elicited criticism from 

among some modern proponents in the non-Pauline forum (Harding, 

1998:10). More voices from the rest of the world joined the choir of dissent 

from the traditional interpretation. Today, from South Africa to the USA, a 

significant majority of biblical scholars deny the authenticity of these three 

letters. 


8

The final word on this matter belongs to Collins, “By the end of the twentieth 

century New Testament scholarship was virtually unanimous in affirming that 

the Pastoral Letters were written some time after Paul’s death” (Collins 

2002:4). Presently, this status of virtual unanimity is consistently assigned to 

almost every discussion of the authenticity issue. Thus, for example, J. Roloff 

(1988:376) insists that “today there should not even be a doubt that Paul did 

not write directly or indirectly the PE”, a view that is illustrative of the prevailing 

adamance on the issue. Miller (1997:4) considers pseudonymity to be 

“entrenched”, while Harding (1998:16) finds “any insistence on the Pauline 

authorship of the PE, problematical”. Such comments are indicative of the 

present state of the debate, which has effectively polarised academia. 

J. Jeremias was, however, not the only contender to challenge the virtual 

unanimity on the authenticity issue. Reaction from other quarters of the globe 

to German scholarship was equally rapid. In fact, from the early eighteen 

sixties till the early nineteen hundreds, an impressive list of conservative 

scholars, like C. J. Ellicott, being the earliest, J. H. Bernard, T. Zahn (1906) 

and J. D. James (1906) came to the fore (Guthrie, 1957:15; Johnson, 1996:4). 

From Great Britain J.B. Lightfoot (1893) articulated an influential defence of 

Pauline authorship in the English speaking world. Still, the twentieth century 

saw scholars increasingly oppose the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral 

Letters. 

Lists of scholars representative of either position are accessible in several 

extant works and most good commentaries on the Pastorals (Guthrie, 

1957:15; Lea and Griffin, 1992:23; Childs, 1984:378-379; Stott, 1997:21; 

Collins, 2002:3, 4; Hultgren, 1984:13, 14; Quinn, 1990:17, 18). 

Twentieth century scholarship is almost equally divided on the authorship 

issue, represented by careful scholarship on both sides of the debate. Lea 

and Griffin (1992:23) list the following twentieth century adherents to 

pseudonymity: P.N. Harrison, M. Dibelius and H. Conzelmann, F.D. Gealy, 

C.K. Barrett, N. Brox, A Strobel, J.H. Houlden, S.G. Wilson, A.T. Hanson and 


9

J. Quinn. Their list of scholars adhering to Pauline authorship include W. Lock, 

O. Roller, D. Guthrie, J.N.D. Kelly, J. Jeremias, C.F.D. Moule, C. Spicq, B. 

Reicke, W. Metzger and D.E. Hiebert. 

The debate continues to elicit support for both positions. Contemporary 

defenders of Pauline authorship include George W. Knight (1992), Phillip 

Towner (1994), Luke T. Johnson (1996), William D. Mounce (2000), J.D.G. 

Dunn (2000), Andreas J. Köstenberger (2003), and Ray van Neste (2003). 

Equally on the other side very recent proponents of non-Pauline authorship 

include Mark Harding (1998), Raymond F. Collins (2002) and I. Howard 

Marshall (2002). Thus, we see respected scholars on both sides of the debate 

approaching the matter of authorship as something not to be regarded lightly. 

The complexity of the debate has been succinctly summarised by Quinn 

(1990:17) as follows: “All scholars of the PE draw inferences from practically 

the same concrete data in and about the letters, analysing the linguistic, 

historico-sociological, and theological components of the correspondence. 

Yet, these data have provoked the most dramatically different hypotheses to 

explain the origin and purpose of the PE.” 

b) Summary of key dispute issues 

In view of the centrality of the authenticity debate, it is expedient to delineate 

in broad strokes the most salient elements of the debate. They include the 

following: 

Vocabulary and style: Comparative studies reveal that these letters 

collectively contain a high percentage of unique vocabulary and stylistic 

fluctuations that are uncharacteristic of accepted Pauline letters. Likewise, 

words that are present in the rest of the Pauline corpus are absent from the 

Pastorals, while linguistic affinities between the Pastorals and second century 

literature have been established (Barrett, 1963:6). 


10

Developed church order: The various church officers mentioned in these 

letters are understood to be indicative of an advanced state of ecclesial 

organisation. The initially charismatic community developed towards a more 

settled state, a household of God. Within this household, a hierarchy of 

authority has developed, comprising presbyters, deacons, episcopal bishops 

and overseers (1 Tim. 3:1-13; 5:3-22; Tit. 1:5-9). This supposed, multi-level 

leadership structure indicates a later period in the history of the church, 

hence, post-Pauline. 

Recipients: The instructions contained in these letters appear redundant, if 

addressed to the two historical individuals namely Timothy and Titus, since 

they would have been very familiar with Paul’s teachings. Scholars argue that 

these letters only make sense if the actual addressees were later 

congregations. Thus, ‘Timothy’ and ‘Titus’ must be understood in a 

representational capacity, as representative addressees of the actual 

recipients, namely second or third generation leadership or congregations. 

Gnostic opposition: The Pastorals make several references to opponents 

(Titus 1:10, 14; 3:9; 1 Tim. 1:1-3, 7; 6:20). They appear to be primarily Jewish, 

and their teachings involve elements of asceticism and secret knowledge. 

Critics denying Pauline authorship, therefore, deduce some form of post- 

Pauline Judeo-Gnosticism or even that the author wrote in response to 

Marcion (based on 1 Tim. 6:20: “falsely called knowledge”). 

Irreconcilable Pauline chronology: Critics aver that the historical data in the 

Pastorals do not fit into the Lukan record according to the Book of Acts. In 

order to facilitate some reconciliation, supporters of the traditional view have 

responded with what is known as the second imprisonment hypothesis. 

According to this theory, the Book of Acts was never intended to provide a 

comprehensive record of Paul’s ministerial activities. Furthermore, the open 

ended conclusion of the Book of Acts is cited as probable support for a 

second imprisonment, implied by the historical data in the Pastorals. 


11

Uncharacteristic Pauline theology: Scholars claim that these letters are 

inauthentic because of theological emphases that are at variance with what 

are known from genuine Pauline letters. So, for example, there appears to be 

a muted focus on the fatherhood of God since the title ‘Father’ with reference 

to God, never occurs in the body of these letters (Guthrie, 1957:40, 41). The 

characteristic Pauline emphases on the cross and the doctrine of the Holy 

Spirit are glaringly absent from the Pastorals. Instead, these letters testify to a 

growing concern for orthodoxy and the transmission of correct doctrine in view 

of a delayed parousia. The imminence of the Lord’s return has faded and 

believers are encouraged to live godly lives within secular society. 

Most of the literature, cited in this study, treats the above and some additional 

points in great detail and may be consulted if more information is required. 

The summary of issues above was intended to provide insight into the key 

points of contention in the authenticity debate and to aid the survey of 

scholarship to follow rather than to be exhaustive. 

c) Further developments 

The advent of German criticism of the traditional understanding raised a cloud 

of doubt about the authenticity of the Pastoral Letters. Once scholars 

established that Paul was not the author, alternative theories were posited to 

explain the existence and purpose of these letters. Of the four propositions, 

one no longer enjoys any significant support among New Testament scholars. 

The hypotheses are as follows: the pseudonymous or fiction hypothesis, 

fragment hypothesis, secretary or amanuensis hypothesis, and the allonymity 

or allepigraphy theory (Marshall, Travis, et al. 2002:175-176; Mounce, 2000: 

cxviii-cxxix; Hanson, 1982:6-11; Dibelius and Conzelmann, 1972:4, 5). These 

four theories are diametrically opposed to the direct Pauline authorship 

hypothesis. The four theories will be discussed briefly to aid perspective on 

the current position of the debate and eventually shed light on the academic 

diffidence particularly towards Titus. 


12

i) Pseudonymity or fiction hypothesis 

In Germany, it was J.G. Eichorn, who in 1812 argued for the pseudonymity of 

each letter. Gradually, this snow-balled to become what some have termed 

“contemporary critical orthodoxy” (Carson, Moo, et al. 1992:360). One 

contemporary scholar considers the original argument of Holtzmann so 

watertight that he alleges incorrectly that Holtzmann’s five objections still wait 

to be rebutted (Lea and Griffin, 1992:22). Such a rebuttal has been 

adequately proffered by the respected scholar and commentator, Donald 

Guthrie (1957:11-53). Still, it remains true to say that pseudonymity was 

initially a formidable challenge to the authenticity of the Pastoral Letters. The 

simplistic, outright rejection of Pauline authorship has developed some rather 

complex twists and turns since its original conception in Germany. 

At its simplest level, pseudonymity implies that the letters were written by 

someone other than Paul at a time much later than that of the apostle. This 

person is designated a Paulinist (Harrison, 1921:9), while at other times he is 

awkwardly referred to as the mysterious “pastor” (Harding, 1998:103, 16; 

Goulder, 1996:242). In the majority of instances, he is simply called the 

“author” who was probably a disciple of the apostle (Goulder, 1996:243; 

Dibelius and Conzelmann, 1972:1). It is argued, that since this “disciple” was 

familiar with the writings of the apostle, he wanted to preserve the teaching of 

the apostle for a new (second) generation church setting in the light of the 

delay of the parousia, as well as for subsequent generations (Dibelius and 

Conzelmann, 1972:8; Beker, 1991:35-75). 

Pseudonymity raised several tricky questions that have kept scholars 

occupied and continue to do so. A major implication relates to the content of 

these letters and the matter of authorship. If Paul did not write them, then the 

people and historical references contained in this corpus are not real. Caution 

is sounded not to assume “that the historical data of these pseudonymous 

Epistles are necessarily true” (Barrett 1963:30). Hence, some scholars refer to 

pseudonymity as the fiction hypothesis (Mounce, 2000: cxviii; Marshall, Travis 

et al. 2002:179). Thus, references to Paul, Timothy, Titus, Crete, Ephesus, 


13

etc. are not referring to actual people or places. Moreover, the situations 

depicted within the letters are not real. This implies that the perceived threats 

were not real, but the imaginative creations of the pseudonymous author, who 

envisaged future developments and wrote to protect and guide the church by 

means of these letters. A representative of this fictive Pauline authorship is 

Michael Wolter, who believes that what we have in the Pastoral Letters is an 

attempt to represent Pauline tradition for the current situation of the author 

(Wolter, 1988:11-25). Timothy and Titus function typologically as the kind of 

leaders who have to shoulder the responsibility to maintain the Pauline 

deposit. The plot thickens, because if this is true, then more than simple 

pseudonymity is on the table. Hence, according to Raymond Collins 

(2002:10), these letters are “doubly pseudonymous”. Since Timothy and Titus 

would probably have been dead by the time these letters were written, they 

simply “lent their names to the Pastor’s work, because they represented 

Paul’s presence”. Thus, the author and recipients are “literary fictions” 

(Collins, 2002:10). Apart from complicating the matter, this interpretation 

weakens the pseudonymity view. Where do we then stop? Several other 

names appear in this corpus. Are we, therefore, to assume they are also the 

product of a healthy imagination? Besides, the letters are indirectly addressed 

to the congregation through the evidence of the second persona plural 

pronoun, “you”, that occurs within these letters. Was the congregation 

therefore also imaginary? While double pseudonymity might be a novel term, 

it does nothing to ease an already complex situation. 

Scholars are unanimous in their assessment of the complexity of the matter 

and correctly caution against any dogmatic tendencies when so much 

depends on conjecture and so little certainty prevails (Achtemeier, Green et 

al. 2001:464). The implications of pseudonymity have however not gone 

unchallenged. 

Reactions to the pseudonymity hypothesis 

Several key works highlight the substantial reaction by various scholars to the 

claims of those who espouse pseudonymity. The foremost work is 


14

undoubtedly Guthrie’s Tyndale commentary on the Pastorals. Given the 

limited size and scope of this series, his treatment is so comprehensive that 

several commentators cite his work as an authoritative reference on the 

introductory matters (Demarest, 1984:149). 

Critics of the pseudonymous theory base their contentions on four areas, 

namely ethics, history, hermeneutics and apostolic or scriptural objections. 

Ethics 

Several scholars find it hard to reconcile the practice of pseudipigraphy and 

honesty. Stott (1997:30) is representative of this concern. It is alleged by 

proponents of pseudipigraphy that it was an acceptable practice devoid of 

fraudulent intent. In response, Stott and others demand historical evidence for 

the acceptance of New Testament pseudipigraphy. Quoting, as an example, 

Donelson, a proponent of pseudipigraphy, Stott (1997:30) highlights the 

paradoxical acknowledgement/confession that “in Christian circles 

pseudonymity was considered a dishonourable device”. Stott continues to ask 

the following probing questions: If no one intended to deceive, why write in the 

name of someone else? Why invent pseudo-historical persona and situations? 

In the end, Stott finds the very notion of deceit psychologically irreconcilable to 

the human conscience irrespective of whether the dissemblance stems from 

noble intentions. To some scholars, there is no neutral ground. These letters 

are either genuinely Pauline or they must be blatant fabrications. Thomas 

Oden (1989:15) is representative of this position. The final word on this matter 

belongs to him: 

If not Paul, the surrogate had to be blatantly fabricating when he instructed 

Timothy to “bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, also the books, 

and above all the parchments” (2Timothy 4:13). What possible motive could 

there be for inventing such a sentence? Is not the whole of 2 Timothy 4 so 

saturated with intimate, personal, loving details that no one but Paul could 

have written it …? On what imaginable hypothesis would a forger have put in 

the mouth of Paul a claim to be “chief of sinners” (1Timothy 1:15, KJV)? How 

could a deceiver, however well-intentioned, write so movingly of “God, who 


15

History 

never lies” (Titus 1:2)? The case against Pauline authorship reeks with 

difficulties. 

Historically, it is also difficult to uphold the claim for pseudonymity on the 

charge that the church viewed pseudonymity as acceptable. Quite the 

opposite seems true, if one evaluates how well intentioned false authors and 

their works were treated. Two examples of spurious letters written in the name 

of Paul are the Acts of Paul and the Epistle to the Laodiceans. Once it was 

discovered that the letters were not written by the alleged author, it was 

rejected. Where a fraudster was apprehended, he faced severe 

consequences (Carson, Moo, et al 1992:368-369). For example, a presbyter 

in Asia, who wrote in Paul’s name, once he was convicted and confessed to 

have done so, “from the love of Paul”, was removed from office. Contrary to 

what is claimed, the early church did not deal kindly with dissemblers or with 

their written products (Eusebius, 6.12; Tertullian, 1919:67, 68). 

Contrary to the claim that pseudonymous authorship was an acceptable 

practice among the early church, Carson, Moo and Fee (1992:368) raise 

several valid concerns. The first relates to the fact that writings were valued 

for divine content rather than the names attached to them. Thus, we find 

several New Testament writings that do not bear the names of authors. 

Therefore, attaching an apostolic name was no guarantee that the church 

would accept it unquestioningly, as authentic. 

Hermeneutics 

Andreas Köstenberger and Brevard Childs draw attention to the problematical 

hermeneutical implications of the pseudipigraphical theory. Köstenberger 

(2003:4) addresses the matter by asking and answering several pertinent 

questions, namely, 

1. Was pseudonymous letter-writing attested in the first century? 

2. If so, was such a practice ethically unobjectionable and devoid of deceptive 

intent or not? 


16

3. Could pseudonymous letters have been acceptable to the early church? 

4. If so, is pseudonymity more plausible than authenticity in the case of the 

Pastorals? 

He concludes that whereas pseudonymity was not uncommon, 

“pseudonymous letters were exceedingly rare” (Köstenberger, 2003:5; See 

also Bauckham, 1988:487; Carson, Moo, et al. 1992:371). 

According to Köstenberger (2003:7), pseudipigraphy renders all historical data 

fictional, but no extant example of the so called “fictive epistolary” genre in the 

first or second century exists. This creates the problem of interpreting the 

letters, since some parts of it must be discarded, being incidental. Moreover, it 

leaves the interpreter with the unpleasant task of having to decipher which of 

the didactic portions would be significant. The problem is this: By what criteria 

does one make the distinctions? The interpreter is thus faced with this 

hermeneutical conundrum. 

Brevard Childs (1984:383) argues that the hermeneutical assumptions flowing 

from the attribution of pseudipigraphy to the Pastoral Letters have resulted in 

“serious exegetical distortions”. In this regard, he highlights three dangers. 

1. A pseudipigraphal interpretation objectifies Paul. Since Paul is not regarded 

as the author, a shift must occur with respect to the author’s focal position or 

view point. The letters are no longer from Paul but about Paul. A historical 

critical assumption has thus modified the canonical shaping of the Pastorals. 

In essence, this shift reduces the Pastorals to the level of post-apostolic 

references to Paul, such as, for example, as can be found in Polycarp. The 

canonical distinction in the image of Paul is thus obliterated. 

2. The addressees are not who the text prima facie identifies them to be. 

Pseudipigraphical interpretation renders them to be mere fictional 

representatives of a later office. This has the effect of relinquishing the 

canonical portrayal of Timothy and Titus in place of “a hermeneutical theory of 


17

meaning as determined by historical referentiality” (Childs, 1984:384). In other 

words, correct understanding of the letter is made conditional upon the 

“historical assumption that the real addressee must be critically reconstructed” 

first (Childs, 1984:383). 

3. The acute presentation of the heresy is made indistinct through the 

pseudipigraphal genre. The tension between the heresy as a present and 

future threat is compromised by an interpretative assumption that views the 

heresy as occurring fifty years after the letter was composed (Childs, 

1984:384). 

All of the above represent a summary of the general academic rejoinders to 

the pseudonymous authorship theory. A fourth response, suggested here, is 

the apostolic or scriptural objections. 

Apostolic objections 

We have evidence from Scripture that is indicative of the apostolic attitude to 

pseudonymous works. 

In 2 Thessalonians 3:17 and 2:2, we find what appears to be an apostolic 

caution. It comes in the form of a warning against false writings. In the former 

reference, Paul draws attention to the “distinguishing mark”, the mark that 

would indicate to his readers the authenticity of a letter purporting to be from 

him. Additionally, he adds that this mark is in every letter. In several other 

writings, Paul reminds his readers of the fact that he is writing in his own hand 

(1Cor. 16:21; Gal. 6:11; Col. 4:8; Philemon 19). 

The second scripture reference (2 Thes. 2:2) contains a warning to the 

readers not to be perturbed by a “letter as if from us”. This clearly constitutes 

a safeguard against any duplicitous letters. Thus, Paul himself apparently took 

measures to safeguard the church against any counterfeit correspondence in 

his name. It would, therefore, seem improbable for the early church to 


18

carelessly veer from this apostolic injunction, and thereby risk opening 

themselves up to spurious material in the name of an apostle. 

In the same vein, the attitude of the Pastorals appears to weaken the claim of 

pseudonymity. These letters lay such stress on the integrity of the author and 

so vehemently warn against deceivers, making it increasingly unlikely that a 

pseudonymous author would stress honesty (1 Tim. 4:1; 2 Tim. 3:13; Tit. 

1:10). In Titus 3:3, the author confesses to having once been a deceiver. 

However, he is one no longer since he is now saved. Neither would a deceiver 

extol with such passion the character of God as “God who never lies” (Tit. 

1:2). 

This general survey has attempted to show that pseudonymity is not an 

insurmountable theory and that insistence upon the authenticity of the letters 

is not an unreasonable one (Collins, 2002:4). Doubtless, there are valid 

theological perceptions put forward by proponents of pseudonymity (Childs, 

1984:384), but the above factors still demand an adequate response. 

Proponents of pseudonymity have yet to produce proof for the acceptance of 

pseudonymous letters by the church and the onus rests upon them in this 

regard to produce such evidence (Carson, Moo, et al. 1992:371; Knight, 

1992:47; Stott, 1997:33, Lenski, 1961:474). The insistence, that these letters 

owe their existence to a hand other than that of Paul, is therefore far from 

conclusive. 

ii) Fragment hypothesis 

Some distinctly Pauline elements and the rather distasteful associations of 

pseudonymity have led some scholars to postulate alternative authorship 

theories. The so called fragment theory has a modern proponent in Paul N. 

Harrison, but was apparently formulated as early as the late eighteen thirties 

by K.A. Credner. Harrison suggests that the author used authentic fragments 

written by Paul. This theory thus attempts to bridge the gaps left by the initial 

pseudonymity theory of Baur’s Tübingen school. It seeks to account on the 

one hand for the presence of vintage Pauline traits in these letters, and on the 


19

other to explain what these critics call the “incoherence” of these letters 

(Carson, Moo, et al. 1992:366). Harrison originally identified five genuine 

fragments: Tit. 3:12-15; 2 Tim. 4:13-15, 20, 21a; 2 Tim. 4:16-18a and 2 Tim. 

4:9-12,22b. He later modified his findings, reducing the number of fragments 

to three. 

James D. Miller, in his book, The Pastoral Letters as composite documents, 

critiqued Harrison’s theory. Miller amended the theory, arguing that the 

fragments should not be regarded as haphazardly preserved scraps of 

Pauline letters. Instead, the fragments should be seen as the original Pastoral 

letters. Miller best puts it as follows: “Each of our three Pastorals originated as 

an authentic note written by the apostle to Timothy and Titus” (1997:146). 

During the process of transmission from one generation to the next, these 

original letters were expanded by various editors who wanted to preserve the 

traditions as taught by the apostle for their own contexts. Miller claims, in 

support, that a similar process accounts for the book of Jeremiah. It must be 

conceded that Old Testament literature has influenced New Testament 

literature. However, what must be borne in mind is that the book of Jeremiah 

is not only an Old Testament document, but is also a different literary genre 

compared to the Pastorals. The Pastorals are epistolary literature, largely 

modelled after Greco-Roman prototypes. Moreover, it cannot be categorically 

maintained that the book of Jeremiah originated in the manner alleged by 

Miller. According to Miller, there are more than fifteen original “core Pauline 

notes” within the corpus (1997:147, 149, 150). 

Harrison’s original theory does not enjoy much support among scholars today, 

largely due to the lack of indisputable evidence (Hanson, 1982:10; Hultgren, 

1984:18, Ellis, 1979:54). Its waning popularity is also related to the fact that 

this theory raises more questions than the answers it attempts to give 

(Carson, Moo, et al. 1992:366; Guthrie, 1990:636; Lea and Griffin, 1992:23, 

24). 


20

iii) Secretary or amanuensis hypothesis 

Scholars on both sides of the debate account for the vocabulary and stylistic 

differences between the Pastorals and the undisputed Paulines by arguing 

that Paul employed the services of secretaries or amanuenses. The 

forerunner to this theory was Otto Roller in 1933. It was elaborated by E.R. 

Richards in 1991. The differences from the undisputed corpus are therefore 

attributable to a secretary who had more freedom of expression as was the 

case in the undisputed Paulines (Fee, 1988:26). Both Luke and Tychicus have 

been proposed by some as possible candidates (Lock, 1924: xxix; Moule, 

1965:430-452; Strobel, 1968:191-210; Jeremias, 1963:8). Mounce 

(2000:cxxxix) believes that this theory offers more advantages in regard to the 

internal and external evidence without introducing additional problems and is 

therefore to be preferred over the fiction and fragment hypotheses. 

iv) Allonymity or allepigraphy hypothesis 

A very recent and novel alternative to Pauline authorship has come from the 

pen of I. Howard Marshall. While rejecting both Pauline authorship as well as 

pseudonymity, Marshall endorses a theory he defines as allonymity or 

allepigraphy (Marshall, Travis, et al. 2002:176). In his own words, it “describes 

the writing of a letter by somebody other than the named author, but without 

the attempt to deceive people: from the beginning the readers knew what was 

going on”. This theory thus attempts to soften the charge of deception 

associated with pseudonymity. 

This theory by default appears to confirm what some scholars find problematic 

with pseudonymity, namely the connotation of dishonesty. Furthermore, as 

Köstenberger (2003:4) points out, allonymity fictionalises the recipients 

Timothy and Titus. Köstenberger continues to criticise a theory that reverses 

the traditional and canonical order, when it makes 2 Timothy the primary work 

of Paul and the letter upon which the “allonymous” author based 1 Timothy 

and Titus (Köstenberger, 2003:176). 


21

1.1.2.4 Conclusion 

The various theories testify to the complexity of the issues at hand. The 

debate is not about liberals versus conservatives or vice versa. Reputable 

scholars, who honour the integrity of the Scriptures, are to be found on either 

side of the table. Some scholars changed their perspectives when more 

evidence was forthcoming or after finding a theory lacking scholarly evidence. 

However, what has been an unfortunate consequence of debate was the 

effect upon the succeeding treatment of the three letters. 

The essence of the individual messages of the three letters, put mildly, faded 

into the background, when the authenticity issue became central. The 

dominance of the pseudonymous position affected the subsequent treatment 

of these letters. They were treated as if they had nothing more to offer. 

Luke T. Johnson (1996:4) observes that the Pastorals all but disappeared 

from scholarly consideration. Johnson cites a 1989 survey of New Testament 

scholarship by the Society of Biblical Literature. An article entitled “Pauline 

Studies” contains one reference to the Pastorals mentioned in a single line 

with reference to their inauthenticity. Three books were honoured with only a 

single reference in an article purporting to treat Pauline studies! Johnson is 

therefore not unreasonable when he avers that the determination of 

authenticity or inauthenticity also affected the appreciation or depreciation of 

the Pastorals as Christian witnesses (Johnson, 1996:5). 

The relevance of this review for the topic at hand must now be considered. If 

the authenticity debate has negatively impacted on the entire corpus in terms 

of further treatment, what has been the effect on a single letter, like Titus? 

Initially, it was not good at all. But the tide is changing. McKnight and Osborne 

(2004:292) observe that the burgeoning interest in literary studies has shifted 

the scholarly magnifying glass from matters of authorship and is focusing it 

increasingly upon the text itself - “its theology, rhetoric, and reception”. Some 

of the developments in this regard will be discussed later. 


22

While this transition is encouraging, we still have some way to go. It would 

appear that the two letters to Timothy have been especially dusted off and 

placed back on the table - or a different table as the following article and 

paper indicate. The 1997 article by J.W. Aageson, is entitled “2 Timothy and 

its theological pattern”, while in 1996 J.L. Sumney presented a paper entitled 

“A reading of the theology of 1 Timothy without authorial presuppositions” to 

the Theology of the Disputed Paulines Group at a meeting of the Society of 

Biblical Literature. The same can however not be said of the Letter to Titus. 

A 1994 collection of Pauline studies has absolutely zero references to Titus, 

but at least one to 1 and 2 Timothy (Lambrecht, 1994:464). The Pretoria 

conference on Rhetoric, Scripture and Theology of 1996 has no contributions 

dealing with the Pastorals, yet the index discloses three pages of references 

to the early Christian writings and the classical authors. Suffice it to say that at 

this stage, the reasons for the peripheral treatment of the Letter to Titus could 

be traced right back to all the events that started in Germany at the turn of the 

nineteenth century. It is important to note that, with regard to the original 

challenge of scholars accepting pseudonymity, those who defended Pauline 

authorship largely modelled their responses to the claims of the challengers. 

In terms of the actual points of debate, nothing new has been added. This is 

an important observation and one that will be revisited later in this study. 

The brief Letter to Titus has been relegated to the margins of scholarly 

attention which often views it as a book that primarily addresses pastors and 

has little to say to the rest of the church (Van Neste, 2003:18). Listen however 

to what Martin Luther (1960:389) said about this letter: 

“This is a short epistle, but a model of Christian doctrine, in which is 

comprehended in a masterful way all that is necessary for a Christian to know 

and to live”. 


23

Excursus: Cumulative-complimentary versus individualistic-contrastive. Causal theory 

for conclusions on authorial presuppositions of the Pastorals 

All scholars build their case, whether for or against Pauline authorship, on data derived from the texts 

of the three letters. In this regard certain peculiarities surface as to the methodology these authors 

adopt, whether consciously or unconsciously, in order to prove the correctness of their particular 

positions. The most common approach I have categorised as the cumulative-complimentary reading 

principle. An emergent variation is what I call the individualistic-comparative reading principle. 

In the cumulative-complimentary category, the author interprets the three letters as one, with each letter 

understood to complement the data of the other. Thus, any “gaps” in one letter are filled with reference 

to the others. Subsequent interpretation regarding, for example, authenticity or inauthenticity is then 

based on a cumulative picture derived from a collation of data from the three individual letters. The 

majority of scholars, irrespective of their position on authorship, apply this first principle when 

interpreting the Pastorals. 

In the individualistic-comparative category, the author treats each book in the corpus on an individual 

basis, accentuating the distinctiveness of each book, through comparative analysis with the rest of the 

corpus. Conclusions on, inter alia, authorship are primarily based on the unique and individualistic 

content of each letter. Only after the individual discourse has been analysed on its own, similarities are 

considered on a comparative basis with all other literature of a similar nature, i.e. letters. 

Operation of the cumulative-complimentary reading principle 

The operation of the cumulative-complimentary reading principle goes back to the first time doubts 

were raised about the integrity of the letters. Ferdinand Baur and Julius Holtzmann evaluated the 

Pastoral corpus from a comparative perspective when they eventually concluded that the style, 

ecclesiology, theology and the identity of the false teachers point to an author later than Paul (Harding, 

1998:9). As more points of contention and divergence were added, scholars simply focused on the 

issues of contention. In the early nineteen seventies Dibelius and Conzelmann (1972:5) drew attention 

to the affinities between the letters and on that basis spoke about the “literary character of the Pastoral 

Epistles”. Interestingly, they correctly observe the different character of 2 Timothy as opposed to the 

other two (Dibelius and Conzelmann, 1972:7). Donald Hagner (1998:558) put it bluntly when he stated 

that “these letters need ultimately to be considered together”. Quinn goes so far as to declare the three 

one. He regards the Letter to Titus as the introductory letter of the entire corpus while viewing the two 

letters addressed to Timothy as complimentary to one another (Quinn, 1990:7, 19-20). 

The language employed is very insightful. Commentators and the like speak about “the theology of the 

Pastorals” or of their ecclesiology or of the false teachers in the Pastorals, and so forth. The only 


24

problem is that such blanket categorisations cannot be substantiated from the texts. Let us consider 

some concrete examples. 

Ecclesiology 

The literature refers to the “structure” of the church in the Pastorals. Truth of the matter is that church 

structure per se in Titus is very different from that which we find in 1 Timothy. In 2 Timothy, we can 

hardly speak about “church structure” (Mounce, 2000: lxxxviii). Harding (98:30) refers to Norbert 

Brox who sees the Pastoral Letters as the product of pseudonymity that sought to present Paul as the 

model care giver of the churches for successive generations of officials. The problem with this 

interpretation is the fact that 2 Timothy does not deal with churches per se. In this regard, Fitzmyer 

(2004:582) summarises the content of these letters in the following manner: “They deal with the 

structured ministry of the early church and a concern for orthodox teaching”. Such blanket statements 

obscure the intentions expressed in the three individually and should rather be avoided. 

Old Testament in the Pastorals 

Sometimes researchers allow themselves to be overly influenced by a prior supposition. Hanson 

(1968:112) expresses such an overzealous commitment to the non-Pauline position that he completely 

misses the wood for the trees. Nowhere is this more evident than in his assumptions about the 

appearance of the Old Testament in the Pastorals. In this instance, there are at least allusions to the Old 

Testament in 1 and 2 Timothy, but the same does not hold true for Titus. 

Background of the Pastorals 

It is not only scholars, who maintain of anti-Pauline sentiments that make themselves liable to this 

methodological fallacy. Andreas Köstenberger (2003:8), a staunch defender of Pauline authorship, 

commits the same error. Thus, when he treats the background of Pastoral Letters to establish cultural 

relativity, he extensively cites passages from 1 Timothy. Now this may by due to the limitations of 

space or because the use of the singular source was expedient, but it cannot be maintained that there is 

such a thing as the background of the Pastorals. 

Suffering of the apostle/teacher in the Pastorals 

Harding (1998:141) highlights the sufferings of the apostle together with concomitant calls to suffering 

and training. We can speak of hardship or the suffering motif in 1 and 2 Timothy, but not in Titus. 

fulavssw in the Pastorals 

Harding (1998:148) states that the verb fulavssw appears in the Pastorals five times. The truth of the 

matter is that it appears in 1 Timothy twice (5:21, 6:20) and in 2 Timothy thrice (1:12, 14; 4:15). It 

does not feature in Titus at all. So, are the Pastorals referring to the Timothean correspondence with 

Titus on the side? What do scholars mean when they enumerate characteristics of the Pastorals, when 

in fact those characteristics are not true of every letter comprising the Pastorals? 


25

Lumping or clustering apparent opposition 

According to Young (1995:276), the opposition constitutes a group of teachers of “gnosis falsely so 

called”. The problem is that this description is only mentioned in 1 Timothy. 

Heresy or Heresies? 

Bailey (1994:335) speaks of the heresy as a single indistinguishable entity identical in all three letters. 

However, 2 Timothy has very little information on the heresy. In Titus, the description is comparatively 

vague. This does not leave much room for anything but conjecture. 

God: Sovereign Creator and Sustainer 

Another example of the cumulative contrastive reading principle is found in Bailey (1994:341). In a 

subsection that deals with God’s involvement in his works, the following sentence occurs, clearly 

illustrative of the assumptions of the author: “Three times in these letters Paul credited God with being 

the Creator and Sustainer of everything (1 Tim. 4:4; 6:13, 15)”. Notice how the author refers to three 

letters, when in actuality he only cites three instances from one of the three letters! This is another 

example of the operation of the cumulative-complimentary reading fallacy by a scholar who supports 

Pauline authorship of this corpus. 

The above suffice as examples of the cumulative-complimentary reading principle (fallacy?). Today, 

there are increasing calls among New Testament scholarship to acknowledge the individuality of the 

letters. Thus, according to Mounce (2000:cxx), the three are “so significantly different that apart from a 

few verses on church structure and the opponents, there is little overlap of content”. This recognition of 

the distinctiveness of the three and exhortations to appreciate the individuality of the three letters are 

gaining momentum. A detailed critique of “grouping” can be consulted in Johnson’s commentary 

(1996:8-18). 

Individualistic-contrastive principle 

An emerging trend, among scholars in the Pastoral Letters, favours an approach that prioritises the 

study of each letter apart from and prior to comparison with the rest of the corpus (Van Neste, 

2002:120; Johnson, 1996:7, 19, 22). The most vociferous proponent of this approach is Luke Timothy 

Johnson. In his commentary, he summarises his approach stating that he will pay careful attention to 

the “literary form of each letter … individually and in particular rather than in general and as a group” 

(1996:32). A host of scholars have recently made significant contributions to the study of the letter to 

Titus. These include contributions by Harris (1980), Hagner (1998), Thurston (1999), Kidd (1999), 

Classen (2002), Van Neste (2002), Van Neste (2003) and Faber (2005). My rhetorical analysis of the 

Letter to Titus is motivated in part by the recognition that the letter has its own voice and can stand on 

its own. Like Johnson, I too believe that if scholars evaluated the letters individually first, and then 

compared them with the rest of the Pauline corpus, the conclusions on pseudonymity would stand on 

shaky ground (Johnson, 1996:7; Carson and Moo, 2005:555). 


26

=========================================================== 

1.1.3 THE THEOLOGY OF TITUS 

1.1.3.1 Introduction 

Theology is one of the contested areas, which contributed to the rejection of 

the Pauline authorship of the Pastorals. As was indicated in the above 

excursus, scholars on both sides of the debate addressed the matter by 

combining and extracting data from the three letters in order to arrive at the 

theology of the Pastorals as opposed to the theology of 1 or 2 Timothy, or of 

Titus. It was, furthermore, a picture of a “Pastoral” theology as compared with 

a composite image formed from the so called “undisputed” Pauline letters. 

Thus, a combination of three different letters was being compared with a 

combination of several letters to form a single opinion resulting in the rejection 

of an entire collection of works. For many years, little, if any, research was 

devoted to the theology of the individual letters of the Pastoral collection, with 

even less to the brief Letter to Titus. For example, in their recent survey 

McKnight and Osborne (2004:292) laud a shift from matters of authorship to a 

focus upon the text itself. However, in their footnotes, the only examples of 

this supposed shift are references to works dealing with literary aspects of the 

Timothean correspondence. The consistent marginalisation of the Letter to 

Titus vis a vis 1 and 2 Timothy is a general trend in present scholarship, 

although there are exceptions. 

1.1.3.2 Trends 

In light, therefore, of the resilience of the authorship debate and the resultant 

neglect of the individuality of these letters, two recent works are encouraging 

indicators of an emerging trend, namely moving away from the earlier 

stalemate in and dominance of the authenticity issue. While the proverbial 

dust remains far from settled, when it comes to the authorship debate, there 

appears to at least be a tendency or willingness to move on beyond the matter 

of authorship. Thus, we see scholars setting out to investigate and appreciate 


27

these letters on a more individual level; Titus in particular. However, there is 

much that remains to be done as the sparseness of works seems to suggest. 

On the topic of the theology of Titus, two recent journal articles have surfaced. 

The first is by Raymond F. Collins entitled, “The theology of the Epistle to 

Titus”. The other is by Bonnie Thurston, whose article is entitled simply, “The 

theology of Titus”. The approach of both scholars is very similar. Their articles 

are not apologetic treatises of the authenticity issue. They generally limit their 

attention to their stated subject matter. Thurston, in a footnote, states that she 

makes no presuppositions regarding authorship (1999:171). Collins 

categorically states his support for pseudonymity (2000:56, 57). Both struggle 

to cut themselves free from the resilience of the authenticity issue. Collins 

especially runs the risk of being interpreted to approach the topic with an 

agenda to prove his assumption of pseudonymity, or double pseudonymity 

(Collins, 2000:57). This is an unfortunate tendency, because it obscures our 

appreciation for the individuality of the letter. The complexity of the debate is 

translated into the text itself. By his insistence to raise the authenticity issue in 

his article, Collins has to create an additional person. Why must he say the 

following, “For the pastor the commission entrusted to Paul to proclaim the 

word ...?” (Collins, 2000:63). Paul is transformed into an object, thereby 

complicating the reading, not to mention the interpretation of an otherwise 

straightforward sentence. Because Collins prefers not to designate Paul as 

the author, and opts instead for the more obscure “fictive Paul”, a degree of 

‘awkwardness’ characterises this otherwise helpful article. The following 

examples will suffice, namely, “The pseudonymous author’s intention to 

present ...” or “The author of Titus has enhanced the image of Paul ...” (p. 64) 

or “The real author of the epistle goes on...”, and finally “... the pastor 

attributes to Jesus ...” This kind of hazy language heightens the sense of 

clumsiness to an otherwise good article that would normally exemplify an 

appreciation for the unique theological contribution of this short letter. 

Thurston (1999:176) confesses that, on the surface, the Letter to Titus 

appears to be practical rather than theological. For Collins, on the other hand, 


28

exactly the opposite holds true. He describes it as “[a] most blatantly 

theological ... composition” (Collins, 2000:56). 

1.1.3.3 Theology and Christology 

We have in this letter an interesting, if not inseparable combination of theology 

and Christology. Collins maintains the former emphasis, while Thurston 

stresses the latter. The two authors concur in their identification of three major 

theologically loaded sections, namely 1:1-4, 2:11-14, and 3:4-7. Not all 

scholars agree that there are three theological sections in Titus. Bailey 

(1994:351, 352) categorises seven in total, scattered throughout the three 

letters. Two of these occur in the Letter to Titus, namely 2:11-14 and 3:3-7. He 

does concur in his assessment that Christology and theology are central 

emphases in Titus. Instead, he prefers not to distinguish these distinctive foci 

from the “theology of the Pastorals” (Bailey, 1994:340, 343). 

a) Jesus Christ: salvation 

Thurston (1999:177, 178) sees a Christological soteriology as the focal point 

of the Letter to Titus. In her words, “The theological core of Titus, its writer’s 

main theological interest, is Christology”, understood as “any evaluation of 

Jesus in respect to who he was and the role he played in the divine plan”. The 

main focus of Titus’ Christology is soteriology, the saving role Jesus played in 

God’s plan or put differently “the theology of God-as-Saviour” (Thurston, 

1999:183). 

In the entire Pastoral corpus, the most frequently occurring name is Jesus 

Christ or Christ Jesus or simply Christ as in 1 Timothy 5:11. The name makes 

no less than 32 appearances in the entire corpus of which 4 occur in the 

Letter to Titus. This may not seem like much, but in view of the brevity of the 

letter, it is a comparatively high number of times for any name to be repeated 

within one book. Interestingly, this name appears in every chapter of this small 

letter, namely 1:1, 1:4; 2:13, and 3:6. 


29

Furthermore, the name Jesus Christ appears within a very definite context, 

namely a theological cluster that once precedes (1:1-4) and twice succeeds 

(2:11-14; 3:4-7) sections containing instructions (1:5-16; 2:1-10; 3:1-3). Most 

scholars agree that these theological clusters appear in at least the second 

and third chapters while some do not regard the section in the salutation as 

the third theological section. Nevertheless, within these theological hubs both 

God and Jesus Christ are mentioned. More importantly though, are the 

remarkable titles attached to the name Jesus Christ or Christ Jesus. 

As mentioned elsewhere, the title swthvr makes ten appearances in the 

Pastoral Letters. God and Jesus Christ equally share six uses of this title. In 

Titus, Jesus is referred to as Saviour in chapters 1:4, 2:13 and 3:6. This titular 

attribution designates Jesus implicitly a co-Saviour with the Father, who is 

also referred to as swthvr (Bailey, 1994:344; Thurston, 1999:183). 

b) Jesus Christ: Deity 

One verse, in Titus 2:13, has been the subject of much debate with reference 

to the deity of Christ. Scholars have long debated whether the verse applies to 

Jesus Christ only or whether it makes separate reference to God and Jesus 

Christ. 

Murray J. Harris, in his paper entitled “Titus 2:13 and the deity of Christ”, 

offers an evaluative summary of the various interpretive options on this verse. 

His conclusion is that the verse should be understood to refer to a singular 

predicate, namely Jesus Christ (Harris, 1980:171). His comprehensive 

analysis is well documented and should be consulted for a detailed overview 

of the possibilities (Quinn, 1990:156; Harris 1980:263-271). For the purposes 

of this study, only a bare summary of the different categories will be 

replicated. He lists and discusses several translation possibilities under three 

main interpretive constructions. 


30

A. dovxa and swthvr are dependent on ejpifavneia (with qeou` dependent on 

dovxa): 

“... the appearing of the glory of the great God [= the Father] and [the 

appearing] of our Saviour, Jesus Christ”. 

Dubbed the double epiphaneous view, this interpretation argues for two 

manifestations, namely one by the Father and the other by Jesus Christ. The 

problem is that it requires the merging of an impersonal subject (dovxa) and a 

personal subject (swthvr). While some commentators have avoided this 

conclusion (Harris, 1980:263), there are additional complications. These relate 

to the fact that swthvr does not have an article and could therefore be 

associated either with qeou` or dovxa. Additionally, it is unnatural to separate 

swthvr from qeou`. These two words have great cultic significance. They always 

refer to a single deity when employed in this particular relationship. 

B. qeou` and swthvr depend on ejpifavneia (with th`~ dovzh~ as a “Hebrew 

genitive) and as referring to either one: 

“... the glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ” (NIV). 

or two persons: 

“... the glorious appearing of the great God and [of] our Saviour Jesus Christ” 

(KJV). 

As Harris (1980:264) points out, this interpretation compromises the verbal 

parallelism between verses 11 and 13. By ignoring the article that modifies 

dovxa (verse 13), it undoes the corresponding idea in verse 11, namely hJ 

cavri~. Whereas the first appearance is a manifestation of divine grace, the 

second will be a manifestation of divine glory (Harris, 1980:264). The rendition 

of this dovxa as an adjective reduces significantly the connotative value of the 

term dovxa. Saying that “a person’s appearance will be ‘resplendent’ or 

‘attended by glory’ is a far cry from saying that the person’s own ‘glory will be 

revealed’” (Harris, 1980:264). 


31

C. 1. qeou` and swthvr depend on dovxa and refer to two persons: 

“... the appearing of the glory of the great God and [the glory of] our Saviour 

Jesus Christ” (RSV, ASV, NEB). 

C. 2. qeou` and swthvr depend on dovxa and refers to one person (with Jesus 

Christ in apposition to this dovxa): 

“... the appearing of [him who is] the Glory of our great God and Saviour [= the 

Father, which glory is/that is] Jesus Christ” (F.J. A. Hort). 

C. 3. qeou` and swthvr depend on dovxa and refers to one person (with jIhsou` 

Cristou in apposition tou` megavlou qeou` kai; swth`roi) 

“… the appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ” (RV, 

ASV mg, TCNT, Weymouth, NEB, JB, TEV). 

The expression qevo~ kaiv swthvr was standard cultic language in the first 

century and widely used. In every instance, it denoted a single deity. The 

second reason in support of this interpretation is that grammatically, two co- 

ordinate nouns referring to the same person are usually joined by a singular 

article (Harris, 1980:267). Harris supplies extensive corroborative evidence 

that may be accessed for further study. 

c) God: Salvation 

Collins sees God as the central focus of the letter. He attaches correctly so, 

great significance to the quintuple appearance of the noun God within the first 

four verses of the letter (Collins, 2000:56). God is specified as having a 

servant in Paul (1:1), having an elect (1:1), un-lying (1:2), being a Saviour (3) 

and a Father (4). However, if we consider all the verbs in the salutation 

together with the other nouns occurring in this section, then far more is being 

said about God than is indicated by the frequency of the nouns. Implicitly, it 

could be said that God promised (1:2), God manifested (1:3), has a word (1:3) 

and has a commandment (1:3). Paul discloses that he, the servant of God, 

has been entrusted with a message. The passive voice implies that God, 


32

whose servant Paul identifies himself as in the introductory verse, entrusted 

this message to Paul. Thus, over and above the five nominal references to 

God, far more is said with reference to God, making the salutation glaringly 

theological. In sum, “God is identified in terms of the attributes of truth, 

paternity, and salvation” (Collins, 2000:56). According to Collins (2000:59), the 

theological foundations established by the pseudonymous author in the 

introduction is developed and elaborated in the body of the letter. 

The titular reference swthvr occurs ten times in the Pastoral Letters. Six of 

these designate the Father, and three of the citations appear in each chapter 

of the Letter to Titus, namely 1:3, 2:10, and 3:4. The Father, like the Son, is 

presented as an active agent in the salvific process. 

All that is introduced concerning God is related to His activity, His character 

and the influence of these upon the individuals and the community. Thus, is 

introduced, not only a knowledge of God, but several related mini-themes like 

servanthood, godliness, the ecclesia, promise and hope (Collins, 2000:56-65). 

These are all interpreted in the light of what is said about God and developed 

as the letter progresses. 

Paul’s self-description as “servant of God” (1:1) links him to other Old 

Testament servants of God, like Moses. In this way, the significance and 

credibility of the person of the apostle is established (Collins, 2000:60, 65). 

The quality of Paul’s service is indicated by the designation, “apostle of Jesus 

Christ” (1:1). 

Collins goes on to discuss the topic of godliness as well as the phrase the 

“hope of eternal life” (Collins, 2000:61, 62). He connects the discussion of the 

term godliness to the designation of the church as the elect of God occurring 

earlier. Godliness, therefore, constitutes the behavioural characteristic of 

those qualified to be called God’s chosen ones. God’s calling of Paul, His 

election of the church; His promise and the fulfilment of that promise 


33

accentuate the unmistakable role of God as the initiator and guarantor of 

salvation. 

d) God: Sovereignty 

Salvation is only possible because God is in absolute control. Temporal 

references in relation to the apostle, God, and the church, paint another 

interesting picture reminiscent of God calling Abraham and the Israelites and 

God’s promise to the patriarch. In Titus, God operates within the narrative 

framework of eternity pro; crovnwn aijwnivwn. Paul’s ministry to the elect of God 

is situated at the appropriate historical moment, ejfanevrwsen de; kairoi`~ 

ijdivoi~. Thus, God is presented as transcendent; operating at once outside of 

the boundaries of time, yet at the same time manifesting Himself in time. 

When humanity is saved, this salvation depends entirely upon the Lord (3:4- 

7). God is the “un-lying” sovereign who keeps His promises. 

Collins (2000:66) links the second theological passage, Titus 3:4-7, to the 

salutation. Themes introduced in the latter are developed in this passage. One 

of these is the concept of divine paternity (1:4; 3:5, 7), where a link can be 

established between God as Father and the related concepts of birth and 

inheritance that surface in chapter 3. There, the un-lying God of chapter 1 is 

elaborated. He is “kind” (crhstovth~), “loving” (filanqrwpiva) and “merciful” 

(e[leo~). This knowledge of God is deducible from the appearance of Jesus 

Christ, whose incarnation and atonement are interpreted as the manifestation 

of God’s goodness and love. Divine mercy is the singular cause of salvation. 

The three nouns, kindness/goodness, love and mercy, are combined to 

collectively express the quality of divine “grace” or cavri~ (3:7). Grace is then 

presented as the basis of the hope of eternal life (3:7; 1:2). 

e) The Holy Spirit: Salvation 

Titus contains only one direct reference to the Holy Spirit, namely in 3:5, and 

one implicit reference in a relative pronoun in 3:6. The sparseness of 

references to the Holy Spirit in the Pastorals is interpreted by Bailey 

(1994:348) as indicative of an assumed knowledge of the Spirit’s work on the 


34

part of Paul. Thurston does not elaborate upon the role of the Holy Spirit apart 

from mentioning His agency and that He comes through Jesus Christ 

(Thurston, 1999:181,182). This is presumably due to her interpretation that 

the heart of this letter is Christological. What she is prepared to emphasise, 

and to which Collins concurs, is her conviction that Titus 3:4-7 is a hymn or 

creedal fragment (Thurston, 1999:181; Collins, 2000:66, 67; See also Hanson, 

1968:78-96; Karris, 1996:80). Scholars also concede the conspicuously 

Trinitarian emphasis of this section. What is being emphasised is the role of 

the Spirit in regeneration and renewal (Bailey, 1994:349). 


Central in the theology of Titus is the historical act of salvation. It is a salvation 

that God and Jesus Christ share as co-saviours. Christologically, the letter 

evinces a very high view of Jesus Christ, who in 2:13 is designated as God. It 

is not an overstatement to say that Titus has an exalted Christology. The 

interpretation of such an elevated view of Christ is not without complexities as 

the debate around Titus 2:13 clearly testifies to. The introduction of the Holy 

Spirit, in the last chapter, completes the Trinitarian emphasis of the letter. 

1.1.4 STRUCTURE AND COHERENCY 

1.1.4.1 Introduction 

Any appreciation for the structure of the Letter to Titus must begin with the 

recognition of the difficulty of such an endeavour. This problem relates to the 

prevalence and influence of the authenticity debate which, on the one hand, 

informed an attitude of alienation from matters related to the structure and 

composition of these letters. Thus, scholars and commentators, in particular, 

just simply ignored the existence of structural concerns. It was observed, for 

example, as recent as 1997 that “most commentators on the Pastorals do not 

address the question of literary structure within these letters” (Miller, 

1997:159). On the other hand, a related response was the fostering of a 

negative interest that tended to focus on the exploitation of structural issues in 


35

order to prove issues of authorship, without appreciating the potential value of 

the insights gleaned from structural analysis to advance our understanding of 

the content of the letters. The implications of some positions related to the 

matter of structure and coherency are so severe as to render these letters 

meaningless. 

Fortunately, a shift in scholarly mindset looms on the horizon. The dust having 

almost settled on the authorship debate and the non-Pauline view in the 

proverbial driving seat, scholars are slowly, though increasingly focusing their 

attention on other aspects, like the structure and linguistic features of these 

letters. It must be pointed out that scholars on both sides of the debate have 

sometimes weighed and found wanting any structural coherence in these 

letters. Paradoxically, some scholars are of the view that the majority of 

contemporary scholarship affirms the fundamental coherence of the Pastoral 

Letters (Van Neste, 2002:119). That the matter is far from settled is evidenced 

by the fact that even those who defend the Pauline integrity of these letters 

doubt the coherency of the corpus. No less than Donald Guthrie himself, in 

this regard, found the letters to evince “lack of studied order, some subjects 

being treated more than once in the same letter without apparent 

premeditation”, concluding that the letters are “far removed from literary 

exercises” (Guthrie, 1957:12). This apparent disjunctiveness, however, 

bolsters his conviction that Paul authored this corpus. Non-Pauline 

proponents likewise, interpret the alleged structural “inconsistencies” to 

galvanise their position. While a comparatively great amount of work has been 

done on the letters to Timothy, the Letter to Titus, even on this issue, has 

largely been relegated to the margins. 

1.1.4.2 Two positions 

There are essentially only two positions when addressing the specific matter 

of the structure of Titus. The first is that Titus, in the light of the whole corpus, 

has no structure and is incoherent. The key proponent of this position is 

James D. Miller. The second alternative is that Titus has a definite and 

justifiable structure, and constitutes a coherent unit of discourse. 


36

Representative of this position is Ray van Neste. Several scholars have 

argued for the coherency of the Pastorals. These include P. Towner (1989), L. 

Donelson (1986), B. Fiore (1986), and D. Verner (1983). Only Van Neste has 

exclusively focused on Titus. 

a) James D. Miller 

Miller’s book entitled, The Pastoral Letters as composite documents, 

investigates all three letters. He does however have one section that deals 

exclusively with the Letter to Titus, entitled “Titus: A compositional analysis” 

(1997:124-137). 

He divides the letter as follows: 

1:1-4 Epistolary Salutation 

1:5 Epistolary motive 

1:6-9 Qualities required of a good leader 

1:10-16 Polemical warnings 

2:1-10 Domestic rules: qualities of good community members 

2:11-14 Creedal fragment 

2:15 Literary marker 

3:3-8 Creedal fragment 

3:9-11 Polemical admonitions: on dealing with opponents 

3:12-15 Personalia and greetings 

Miller’s conclusion on the composition of the Pastorals collectively is 

representative of his views on the structure of the Letter to Titus. Some 

examples will suffice: 

“... the letters have no driving concern, no consistent focus of interest; instead, 

they read like an anthology of traditions, many arranged mechanically 

together by topic, some simply juxtaposed” (Miller, 1997:138). 

“... [o]rganization and development of thought ... the Pastorals are 

characterized by a remarkable lack of both” (Miller, 1997:139, 140). 


37

Miller (1997:124) is particularly uncomplimentary in his appraisal of the 

salutation of Titus. Thus, he considers it to be “notoriously complicated and 

confusing”. Moreover, he finds the style of the salutation “overloaded”, its 

grammar “confusing” and its content “unusual”. These “peculiarities” Miller 

(1997:125) attributes to the hand of a later editor. He is prepared to concede 

that the section on leadership displays evidence of unity, but maintains, on 

vocabulary evidence and what he terms as “abrupt” and “sudden” changes in 

sentences, that more than one author was involved (Miller, 1997:126). Earlier, 

I have dealt with Miller, in the section on authorship, and since the matters are 

related, I refer the reader to those sections. Basically, Miller denies that Titus 

has any structure. Moreover, the present form of the letter is attributable to 

intersections of different material by different authors at different stages during 

the formation of this document. Miller’s conclusions, which have been 

challenged recently by Ray van Neste, are applicable to the entire corpus and, 

as mentioned earlier, apply mutatis mutandis to the Letter to Titus. 

b) R. van Neste 

Ray Van Neste has found in the hypothesis of Miller, that the letters are 

composite texts, originating as short Pauline compositions, elaborated over 

time, through multiple editorial embellishments, a great challenge to the 

theology and meaning of the Pastorals (Van Neste, 2002:119, 120). To 

counter the threat, he calls for an analysis of what he terms the “linguistic 

cohesiveness” of the text (Van Neste, 2002:118, 119). This literary or linguistic 

approach must seek to investigate the linguistic mechanisms by which links 

are created between various discourses. In other words, it needs to be 

established how we recognise coherency in a piece of discourse. 

Van Neste (2002:121) defines cohesion as “the quality of a text which creates 

a sense that it ‘hangs together’, and makes sense”. A text is cohesive when 

there are links between all the material comprising that text, so much so that 

“an understanding of one element requires an understanding of other 

elements in the text” through continuity and repetition (Van Neste, 2002:121). 


38

In other words, there should be an element of textual inter-dependence within 

the discourse unit. 

Van Neste (2002:121) focuses on three ways in which cohesion in Titus is 

created. First, is cohesion shift analysis (122-126); next, are transitional 

devices (126-127) and finally repetitions (127-130). Quoting linguists Brown 

and Yule, Van Neste (2002:122) explains the first method as follows: 

“Between two contiguous pieces of discourse which are intuitively considered 

to have two different ‘topics’ there should be a point at which the shift from 

one topic to the next is marked”. Transitions between adjacent units are 

usually identifiable by significant shifts in “cohesion fields”. Cohesion fields 

signify “genre, topic, subject, participants, verb tense, person and number as 

well as temporal and local frames of reference” (Van Neste, 2002:122). 

Continuity between the different fields greatly enhances the cohesiveness of 

the discourse while discontinuity indicates development within the discourse 

(Van Neste, 2002:122). High levels of shifts will indicate paragraphic 

transitions, signifying the start of a new textual unit. Applied to the Letter to 

Titus, Van Neste demonstrates that the unit evinces remarkable 

cohesiveness, linked by the dual concern of ethics and doctrine which “bind 

unit to unit throughout the letter” (Van Neste, 2002:126). His efforts are 

targeted at averting the challenge of Miller’s hypothesis, which he does very 

convincingly. Under the heading of “transitional devices”, Van Neste 

(2002:126) finds evidence in the text of Titus for the presence of “hook” words. 

He discusses and applies two variations of this linguistic device found in the 

letter, namely the “distant hook word” and the “hooked keyword” (Van Neste, 

2002:126). One example of these is the recurrent phrase in 2:10, “God our 

Saviour”, which Van Neste demonstrably judges to introduce and provide 

cohesion with 2:11-14. He, thus, disagrees with Miller’s criticism that the 

transitions between these two units are not smooth and also that the logical 

relationships are not obvious (Van Neste, 2002:127). Van Neste demonstrates 

that the utilisation of transitional devices indicates the intentional cohesion 

within the first part of the letter, again disputing Miller’s insistence that 1:10-16 

and 2:1-10 are isolated units, independent from the rest of the context. 


39

Next, Van Neste goes on to show how the repetition of words, phrases or 

ideas provides cohesion and structure to the Letter to Titus. He sees and 

demonstrates the operation of lexical cohesion between the salutation (1:1-4) 

and the doctrinal sections (2:11-14, 3:3-7). He, furthermore, argues for the 

presence of an inclusio between 2:1 and 2:15 with the repetition of the words 

“to teach” and “to exhort” (Van Neste, 2002:129). He then proceeds to 

demonstrate the parallels between the two sections, 3:1-8 and 2:1-15. He 

observes that both have in view ethical living based on an introductory 

command, both are followed by a doctrinal section introduced by the word 

“for” (gavr), both shift back to the present tense with an exhortation instructing 

Titus to teach authoritatively. Finally, he suggests that 2:1-15 and 3:1-8 should 

be read as a single unit intimating that the earlier reference has a more 

complete introduction that is complimented best by the latter reference’s more 

complete conclusion (Van Neste, 2002:129-130). 

The article is a significant attempt to defend the integrity of the letter and to 

guard against the implications of the incoherency theory which effectively 

reduces the letter and its theology to meaninglessness. 

Van Neste’s cry, which must be heeded, is for “further analysis of the structure 

and cohesion of the Pastoral Epistles, and Titus specifically” (2002:118). It is 

to this task that the present study will address itself. 

1.1.5 RHETORICAL APPROACHES TO TITUS 

1.1.5.1. Introduction 

Exclusive treatises of the rhetoric of the Letter to Titus are, to put it mildly, 

hard to locate, except for perhaps a mention in a footnote or some other place 

of obscurity. There are several reasons for this situation. The first relates, 

perhaps, to the relative novelty of the rhetorical critical methodology. The 

second reason is perhaps the fact that the Letter to Titus is much shorter than 

the other two Pastorals. There appears to be so much more to say about the 


40

Letters to Timothy, because their scope and content are comparatively more 

extensive. The net result, or impression, is unfortunately that the compendious 

Letter to Titus appears to be treated as a footnote within discussions of the 

larger Timothean corpus. One gets the impression that it is almost “tacked” on 

to whatever is said in regard to the other two letters. An exception to this 

perception is the magisterial work by Jerome Quinn, whose posthumous 

volume on Titus is accorded “[p]ride of place” in a recent evaluation of 

commentaries on the Pastorals (Marshall, 2006:140). A final and most 

important reason for the perceived marginalisation of the Letter to Titus is the 

inextricable relationship with the authenticity debate and the cumulative- 

complimentary reading of the letters. 

Over the last three decades, there has been a tremendous surge of interest in 

rhetorical criticism and the literature of the New Testament. Unfortunately, 

very little of this rekindled interest has been directed towards the Pastorals 

collectively and even less to the Letter to Titus. If a glance at several 

academic journals is anything to go by, then much remains to be done. 

For example, a collection of essays entitled Pauline studies (Lambrecht, 

1994:464-465) has zero references to Titus, although 1 and 2 Timothy share 

six. A 1996 collection entitled Rhetoric, Scripture and theology, edited by S. 

Porter and T. Olbricht, has nothing on any of the three letters, but three pages 

of references from “Early Christian Writings and Classical authors”. In a 1999 

series, entitled, The rhetorical interpretation of Scripture, Christian and 

Classical share five pages of references. 1 Timothy is mentioned twice, 

followed by 2 Timothy, which is mentioned four times. Titus is referred to only 

once. A 2002 supplement entitled Rhetorical Criticism and the Bible, edited by 

S. Porter and L. Stamps, has four and a half pages of references to “Post 

Biblical Jewish Literature”, including Josephus, classical authors and other 

ancient sources. This more than 500 page collection has one reference each 

to the Timothean corpus, and zero references to the Letter to Titus. While not 

conclusive, the data is suggestive of a need for a corrective in the area of the 

rhetorical treatment of the corpus and more so of each one individually. 


41

There have been some recent exceptions with one warranting a mention, 

namely Mark Harding’s, Tradition and rhetoric in the Pastoral Epistles. As the 

title indicates, Harding treats and interprets the letters collectively, arguing for 

the “literateness of the PE as letters and as persuasive communications of the 

received Pauline heritage ...” (Harding, 1998:4). His extensive treatment of 

this group of letters, while valuable, is weakened by the cumulative- 

complimentary reading of the texts. Plotting the way forward, he fortunately 

expresses the conviction that these letters are “readily susceptible ... to 

rhetorical analysis” (Harding, 1992:234). 

There is to my knowledge, with the exception of Harding and Quinn, still room 

or even a need for extensive rhetorical analysis of the individual letters, Titus 

in particular. This little letter must be rescued from beneath the shadow of its 

counterparts. Joachim Classen appears to be the only scholar who has 

recently done a rhetorical interpretation or, as he calls it, “reading” of the 

Letter to Titus. 

1.1.5.2 Carl Joachim Classen: “A rhetorical reading of the Epistle to 

Titus” 

a) Introduction 

In the book, Rhetorical Criticism of the New Testament, C. J. Classen has one 

section in which he deals with the rhetoric of the Letter to Titus, entitled “A 

rhetorical reading of the Epistle to Titus”. Classen (2002:45) defines rhetoric 

as “the deliberate calculated use of language for the sake of communicating 

various kinds of information in the manner intended by the speaker (and the 

theory of such use)”. He explains rhetorical reading as, 

[R]eading a text in order to grasp the information it intends to impart, to 

understand its meaning or its message by appreciating and explaining 

the function of every single part of it as well as of the composition as a 

whole (Classen, 2002:46). 


42

This implies: 

[R]eading a text as composed by an authoress or an author with the 

particular intention of addressing a particular audience or individual at a 

particular moment or a wider public (wider both with regard to space 

and time) and, therefore, formulated in a carefully considered manner 

(Classen, 2002:46). 

In his definition of rhetorical reading, Classen understands three aspects to be 

materially significant. First, there is the text itself, then the relationship 

between author and audience as discernable, and thirdly the structure of the 

text. 

Classen begins his reading with a brief reference to authorship in regard to 

which he opts for pseudonymous authorship (Classen, 2002:48). Furthermore, 

he avers that the letter should be analyzed, not in isolation, but rather by 

comparison with the authentic Pauline corpus. 

b) Structure 

Classen’s final structure is divided into seven sections: 

1:1-4: Salutation 

15-13a: The mandate to Titus, qualifications for eldership and the 

characterisation of the opponents 

1:13b-2:15: A long section, involving a general instruction for Titus to 

address Cretan unbelief 

3:1-7: Specific “aspects” with justifications 

3:8-11: Some admonitions and promises related to unbelievers and 

believers respectively 

3:12-14: Particular instructions 

3:15: Final greetings 

c) Methodology 

The author performs his analysis of the letter in two parts. 


43

The first part of the analysis is essentially linguistic. It focuses on the 

explanation of the unique phrases and vocabulary of the letter (Classen, 

2002:48-63). This takes the form of an analysis of the first few sentences of 

the letter, with particular emphasis upon the introductory vocabulary. 

Throughout his evaluation, he highlights the significance of and relationship 

between some of the distinctive words. 

In the second part of his analysis, Classen attempts to show how the 

sentences are related by drawing attention to the linguistic mechanisms that 

tie the letter into a coherent whole. According to Classen (2002:63), these 

include a number of individual keywords that make several reappearances in 

the body of the letter: pivsti", swthvr, ajyeudhv", ejfanevrwsen, and zwhv aijwvnio". 

He shows that the salutation flows, without transition markers, into the specific 

instructions to Titus (1:5-6). This section is then followed by the 

characterisation of elders, which concludes with the requirement that elders 

be able to hold on to the faithful word and to oppose those in opposition (i{na 

dunato;" h\ / kai; parakalei`n ejn th`/ didaskaliva/ th`/ uJgiainouvsh/ kai; tou;" 

ajntilevgonta" ejlevgcein, 1:9). Classen points out how this requirement of 

elders introduces the section dealing with the opposition through the words, 

tou;" ajntilevgonta" (1:9) and “many”, polloiv (1:10). The description of the 

opposition is a tightly knit section that concludes with a description of the 

motives from which these illegitimate teachers teach (1:11) followed by the 

prophet’s quotation in verse 12. The affirmation expressed by the use of the 

faithful saying (1:13) concludes the section. Classen draws attention to the 

linguistic link between verses 7, mh; aijscrokerdh` and 11, mh; dei` aijscrou` 

kevrdou" cavrin. 

Classen highlights the rebuke in verse 13, e[legce aujtou;", which is said to 

draw upon the earlier description of the opponents in verse 9, tou;" 

ajntilevgonta" ejlevgcein. He does not draw attention to these linguistic links 

except to mention it without further elaboration. Next, he highlights the 

repetition of the ideas of sound teaching and belief repeated at various 


44

intervals in the letter (1:13 i{na uJgiaivnwsin ejn th`/ pivstei; cf. 1:9 ajntecovmenon 

tou` kata; th;n didach;n pistou` lovgou; 1:4 pivstin) in order to accentuate 

coherence of the various parts of the letter (Classen, 2002:64). The section 

concludes with another characterisation of the opponents (ajnqrwvpwn 

ajpostrefomevnwn th;n ajlhvqeian). Classen ties the entire section from 1:1-13a 

together as expressive of a mandate for Titus, involving justification for his 

authority, based upon the characterisations of the elders and the opponents. 

The additional pejorative references to the opposition (1:15-16) fall within the 

next division that forms part of a general instruction to Titus. 

Classen attaches great significance to the appearance of imperatival verbs. It 

appears to be the singular influence in his decisions about the structure of the 

letter. His next division commences from 1:13b, which contains an imperative. 

Thus, he does not regard chapter two as introducing a new section, preferring 

instead, to draw a correlation between the imperative in 2:1, lavlei and 1:13, 

e[legce. The recurring emphasis on soundness persuades him further in this 

decision; thus uJgiainouvsh in 2:1 and the verb uJgiaivnwsi" in 1:13. He finds 

additional corroboration in the linguistic allusion between the expressions a} 

prevpei occurring in 2:1 and a} mh; dei in 1:11. Due to the occurrence of the 

imperative verb forms and the similarity in vocabulary, Classen justifies his 

decision to treat the section from 1:13b till the end of chapter 2 as a unit. 

Further links with earlier sections are established through the repetition of the 

word ajntilevgonte" occurring in 2:9 as well as in 1:9. However, Classen 

(2002:57, 58) overplays his hand when he attempts to link 2:10 with 2:11 by 

translating ejn pa`sin (2:10) as “amongst all men”, in order to make it run 

parallel with 2:11, pa`sin ajnqrwvpoi". He, furthermore, prefers to skip the rest 

of the instructions given to the servant category. Instead, he disregards the 

rest of the instructions in 2:9 and 10 focussing only on the i{na-clause in the 

latter verse. Furthermore, the dual occurrence of the adjective, pav~, in verse 

10 is deliberate, a point which the author does not explain in his book. More 

importantly though, Classen is not consistent in this translation of the 

expression, ejn pa`sin, which also occurs in verse 9. Unfortunately, he does not 


45

offer any translations in this regard. Thus, Classen’s decision to translate the 

adjective substantively as “all men” in verse 10 is perhaps a tinge arbitrary in 

order to justify his divisions of the letter. 

Classen (2002:65) observes that 2:1-15 comprises an independent unit in a 

section beginning in 1:13b and ending at 2:15 that contains specific 

instructions about sound belief to different categories of Cretans. The section 

is cordoned off by several imperatival verbs. There are three, namely, lavlei, 

which introduces the section and that is repeated in verse 15. The other two 

are, parakavlei and e[legce. 

The next imperative in 3:1, uJpomivmnh/ske relates back to the preceding 

imperatives and is understood to link the two sections (Classen, 2002:65). 

The reason why Titus is given this instruction is attributable, according to 

Classen, firstly to human weaknesses (3:3) and secondly, to divine love (3:4- 

7). He draws a very faint connection between 3:1-7 and 2:11, without 

highlighting any specific emphases (Classen, 2002:65). Two final imperatives, 

in 3:9, periivŸstaso, and 3:10, paraitou`, underscore the nature of the letter, 

which Classen summarises as follows: 

It is a letter with instructions, mandates, injunctions, admonitions and 

warnings, particular orders which are justified with the help of general 

considerations and put forward in a very clear and carefully structured 

arrangement” (Classen, 2002:65). 

These orders or instructions to Titus are programmatic for the structure of the 

letter. They are key signals together with the repetition of special vocabulary 

provided by the author to aid the reader’s understanding of the letter (Classen, 

2002:65). Classen defines in one sentence the rhetorical elements of inventio, 

dispositio and rhetorical situation (Classen, 2002:65) without offering any 

further elaboration. 

In the very last section, Classen (2002:65, 66) indicates what he considers to 

constitute the basic emphases of the author, 


46

1. “The belief of the people of God in his graciousness and promises of 

salvation and eternal life; 

2. The need to know the sound teaching; 

3. The need to live a moderate life and to perform kalav e[rga”. 

d) Conclusion 

The article concludes with an outline of the letter based on the rationale as 

presented earlier. 

1.1.5.3 Critical evaluation of rhetorical approaches to Titus 

It is fair to say that very little, if any work, has been done that has made the 

rhetoric of the Letter to Titus its exclusive focus. The prevalence of the 

authenticity debate appears to have had a restraining effect on the scholarly 

treatment of the entire corpus. Even commentators treat and interpret the 

letters in the light of the authorship debate, displaying an apparent 

apprehensiveness to appreciate the individuality of Pastorals. Titus tends to 

be treated in the light of the other two. Critical works dedicated to a rhetorical 

study of the Pastorals continue to concentrate upon the Timothean corpus, as 

a survey of recent rhetorical conferences, has shown. 

Generally, therefore, there appears to be a dearth of rhetorical attention when 

it comes to the collective treatment of the Pastorals, which becomes even less 

in the case of the Letter to Titus. In this regard, I am aware of only one study 

that pays direct attention, in a more or less comprehensive manner, to the 

rhetoric of Titus, namely that of Joachim Classen discussed above, whose 

book is dedicated to the rhetorical criticism of the New Testament. He 

apportions 23 pages of his book to the rhetorical treatment of Titus. 

Classen’s work has much to commend it. His decision to take the letter 

seriously and to evaluate it on its own merits is in itself commendable. The 

decision to structure the letter around the occurrence of imperatives is rather 


47

novel. To the best of my knowledge, this is the only analysis of Titus to attach 

such significance to that particular construct. His initial analysis of the 

sentences also renders helpful insight despite a subsequent tendency towards 

a selective analysis of only parts of sentences. Unfortunately, there are also 

some weaknesses in his rhetorical reading. 

Persuasion is a key aspect of rhetorical criticism. At no stage in his treatment 

of the letter does Classen even allude to this element. The issue should be 

“Why does the author say what he is saying in the way he says it?” Classen’s 

examination highlights what is there, i.e. in the text. He never attempts to go 

beyond that and answer the next question, namely, why is it there? Leading 

on from this is, perhaps, a more serious shortcoming of the study. 

Classen’s assessment is more exegetical than rhetorical. His critical treatment 

interprets the contents of the text without disclosing any indication of motive. 

His article merely offers knowledge about the peculiar vocabulary of the letter, 

the special phrases, and the syntactical flow of ideas between sentences. The 

role of the unique vocabulary and what the peculiar sentence flow 

communicate about the intention of the author are left unexamined. His study 

is far more textual and focused on the linguistic aspects of the text than the 

rhetoric thereof. This fact is evident from his definition of rhetoric and 

rhetorical reading (Classen, 2002:45, 46), which emphasises “understanding” 

the message, while “appreciating” and “explaining the function” of the parts as 

well as of the whole composition (Classen, 2002:46). Classen (2002:63) 

places great emphasis on the fact that this is a letter and not a speech. While 

this is true, it is equally true that ancient letter writers wrote in an oral, and 

even an aural manner. Yes, in form it is a letter, but it is not merely a letter. 

The phenomenon of the so called apostolic parousia is an accepted feature in 

New Testament scholarship. It has been demonstrated that the epistolary 

format also functions to communicate the apostolic presence. This 

phenomenon in part contributes to an appreciation of the literary format of 

New Testament letters. Classen’s study does not pay any consideration to this 


48

dimension in his investigation. He would appear to exclude the possibility that 

even letters can be employed with persuasive intent. 

Moreover, this is not a comprehensive treatment of the whole letter. Several 

words and parts of sentences are left unexplained. This situation could 

perhaps be attributed to the fact that the author merely attempted to 

demonstrate rhetorical criticism using Titus because of its relative brevity. In 

other words, his intention might not have been to conduct a comprehensive 

analysis. 

A surprising omission in Classen’s enquiry is the silence on the theology of 

the letter. Whereas the majority of scholars, at worst, allude to the distinctive 

theological emphases of the letter, Classen’s study, at best, hints at it 

(Classen, 2002:50, 51). The reason, why he seemingly misses or selectively 

mutes the evident theological emphases, is not clear. Perhaps, it is because 

he is so committed to prove the relationship of the various imperatives to the 

structure of the letter. As shown in the overview, he is probably overstating his 

case in this regard. Still, the theological sections are underplayed and what 

are highlighted are the orders given to Titus. The theological sections are 

interpreted as mere justifications for the instructions given to Titus. The 

references to possible rhetorical categories are limited to the end of his article 

and even then in only one sentence. Other rhetorical aspects, for example, 

pathos and ethos are not considered in this study. 


Rhetorical treatments of the Letter to Titus are sparse. In the light of the 

modern burgeoning of this ancient critical technique, this is surprising. 

Considered, however, against the backdrop of the authenticity debate, this 

marginalisation of the Letter to Titus is logically explicable. A rhetorical 

treatment of Titus is commendable because it will elevate the significance of 

this letter as one that can stand in its own right. In other words, the letter 

needs to be seen as a biblical text that has its own contribution to make, 


49

ather than as a supplement to the Timothean correspondence. The letter, 

furthermore, has a distinctive theological character that will be highlighted by a 

thorough rhetorical analysis. In this way, the stalemate situation resulting from 

the authenticity debate can be overcome. Already, there are calls from within 

the halls of academia for the three letters to be appreciated individually (Van 

Neste, Thurston, Johnson). A rhetorical treatment of this small letter will 

answer that call. 

1.2 RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS AND 

METHODOLOGY 

1.2.1 RESEARCH PROBLEM 

The above review has shown that the Pastoral Letters, as a corpus, have and 

continue to enjoy significant scholarly attention. Furthermore, the rise of 

rhetorical criticism over the last fifty years has proved beneficial for New 

Testament hermeneutics and exegesis generally, and the Pastorals 

particularly. A preliminary evaluation of current research in the Pastorals (as 

presented above), discloses interesting tendencies in the way researchers 

have treated them as a corpus and individually. This treatment highlights what 

is potentially problematic with regard to the relationship between rhetorical 

criticism and the Pastorals and hence the motivation for this study. The multi- 

faceted nature of the problem involves, firstly, the primacy of the Timothean 

correspondence versus the neglect of the Letter to Titus. Secondly, it involves 

the treatment of the Pastorals as a unit or corpus versus the individuality of 

the Letter to Titus. Finally, it involves the rhetorical praxis versus the 

theological and practical implications of the Letter to Titus. 

1. Primacy of the Timothean correspondence versus the neglect of the Letter to Titus 

Presently, with minor exceptions, the majority of scholars concentrate their 

efforts on the issues of epistolary theory and the authenticity of the Pastoral 

corpus, specifically the Letters to Timothy. On the other hand, the Letter to 


50

Titus, with some exceptions, continues largely to be relegated to the periphery 

of scholarly endeavours. 

2. The Pastorals as a unit or corpus versus the individuality of the Letter to Titus 

Following on from the above, the individuality of the different letters has not 

been sufficiently appreciated while under the microscope of scholarly 

investigation. Despite preoccupying themselves with the Pastoral corpus, 

scholars appear largely to have done so, at the risk of failure to observe that 

this ‘unit’ actually comprises three individual letters. Each of these, despite 

their commonality, manifests sufficient degrees of original emphases, 

revealing remarkable idiosyncrasy. Still, the Pastoral Letters continue largely 

to be treated as a unit with primary emphasis falling on the Letters to Timothy. 

3. Rhetorical praxis versus the theological and practical implications of the Letter to 

Titus 

A major advance, due to the utilisation of rhetorical criticism, was that the 

biblical text again came to enjoy centrality, over against the approach of the 

historical critical methodology. Unfortunately, this has not translated into a 

serious application of rhetorical criticism to the text of particularly the Letter to 

Titus. It appears as if a plateau has been reached in regard to the potential of 

rhetorical criticism. In other words, the promise that rhetorical criticism holds is 

not being maximised as a technique to enhance our encounter with the text, 

climaxing in proclamation and edification of the Church. 

The relationship between rhetorical criticism and the Pastorals seems to have 

reached an impasse: authorship and rhetorical theory. The investigation 

needs to be advanced and the promise of rhetorical criticism must be tested. 

Whereas certain aspects of the theology and rhetoric of the Letter to Titus 

have recently come under the spotlight, there remains room for a 

comprehensive rhetorical analysis of this letter that will bring together and 

develop, what has apparently, till now, been considered in isolated studies. 


51

Accordingly, the research hypothesis on which this study is based will be as 

follows: A thorough text-centred rhetorical approach to the Letter of Titus (i.e., 

without relating it to the other two Pastoral Letters or approaching it in terms of 

the authenticity/inauthenticity debate) will yield new insights for its 

interpretation. 

1.2.2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 

The first section of this research focused upon an overview of existing 

scholarship on the Letter to Titus. The second section will be dedicated to the 

actual analysis of the text with a view to reconstruct the rhetorical strategy 

from the text itself. Above, in the presentation of the research hypothesis, I 

have already indicated that the rhetorical approach that will be followed is a 

“text-centred” approach. A text-centred approach is exactly that: it involves an 

analysis of the rhetoric of a text that focuses primarily upon identifying and 

describing the rhetorical strategies from the text itself instead of imposing pre- 

selected systems or rhetorical models upon the text and making the text fit 

into such systems or models. Thus, the major disadvantage of using pre- 

selected models is that the text is forced to comply with a particular model. 

Furthermore, such an approach implies that a particular rhetorical model can 

explain every aspect of the text. It seems better, however, to let the text 

“speak for itself” or to “trust in the text and in its own internal logic” (Meynet, 

1998:177) instead of contorting it to fit into the rigours of a pre-existent model. 

The fruitful results from Tolmie's rhetorical approach to the Letter of Galatians 

open new possibilities for "other Pauline (and New Testament) letters" 

(2005:247) and will be followed in this rhetorical analysis of the Letter to Titus. 

I will use an adapted version of Tolmie’s (2005) minimal theoretical framework 

approach. The following summary is given for the benefit of readers, who 

might be unfamiliar with his approach. It comes from Tolmie’s book, 

“Persuading the Galatians: A Text-Centred Rhetorical Analysis of a Pauline 

Letter” (2005:28-29). 


52

Starting with the text itself, this approach aims to reconstruct the author's 

rhetorical strategy from the text itself. This involves a text-centred descriptive 

analysis of the way in which the author attempts to persuade his audience. 

The analysis is guided by a “minimal theoretical framework” used as a general 

guideline and involves several steps. I have outlined it below as a series of 

sequential steps only for the sake of an orderly presentation, although Tolmie 

does not present it in this way. 

• Step 1: Identify the dominant rhetorical strategy of a section. This 

involves answering two primary questions: 

o How can one describe the author's primary rhetorical 

objective in the particular section? 

o How does the author set about achieving this objective? 

The answers to the above questions enable one to describe the 

dominant rhetorical strategy of the section, which is then 

expressed in a single sentence. 

• Step 2: A detailed analysis of the author’s rhetorical strategy in a 

particular section. While flexibility is maintained with regard to 

the approach for each section, a general rather than a fixed 

methodological approach is followed to achieve the following 

outcomes: 

§ A description of the main characteristics of the author’s 

strategy in a particular section which may involve 

describing 

o The type of argument or the nature of a specific 

argument (Tolmie, 2005:28), or 

o The way in which an author argues or the process of 

argumentation employed to achieve a particular 

rhetorical objective (Tolmie, 2005:29). 


53

•Step 3: Where deemed necessary, identify the “supportive” 

rhetorical strategies important for the overall argument of a 

section or for the entire discourse (Tolmie, 2005:29). Strategies 

that cannot be directly related to the dominant rhetorical 

objective fall into this category. In the present study, I have not 

deemed it necessary to identify any "supportive" strategies, 

hence this terminology will not be utilised. 

• Step 4: Identify the rhetorical techniques within a section. These 

involve the ways in which an author enhances the effectiveness 

of his communication. 

o E.g. metaphor, rhetorical questions, paronomasia, the 

way sentences are constructed and chiasm (Tolmie, 

2005:29). 

• Step 5. Describe the organisation of the argument in the letter as 

a whole. This final step is done after completion of the analysis 

and is therefore presented in the conclusion of this study. 

Section 2 will be the actual rhetorical analysis of the Letter to Titus. Section 3 

will contain my conclusion and a summary of the prospective areas of study 

stimulated by the present study. 


54

SECTION 2 

RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF TITUS 

2.1 RHETORICAL SITUATION 

2.1.1 INTRODUCTION 

A rhetorical analysis must consider the broader rhetorical environment within 

which a discourse is created and functions. Scholars refer to this environment 

as the rhetorical situation. In this chapter, we will do a rhetorical analysis of 

Titus. The first section of the analysis will describe the rhetorical situation of 

the letter. A clarification of definitions will be expedient in this regard and will 

be considered forthwith. 

2.1.2 DEFINITION 

The concept, ‘rhetorical situation’, is based on the presupposition that every 

discourse owes its existence to a particular situation that necessitated its 

creation. Definitions of what constitutes a rhetorical situation span various 

degrees of complexity. At its most basic level, it refers to “the situation in 

which a piece of communication functions rhetorically” 1 (Tolmie, 2007). A 

more elaborate explanation comes from Lloyd F. Bitzer (1968:6) who defines 

the rhetorical situation as: 

A complex of persons, events, objects, and relations presenting an 

actual or potential exigency which can be completely or partially 

removed if discourse, introduced into the situation, can so constrain 

human decision or action as to bring about the significant modification 

of the exigency. (Emphasis added.) 

1 Spoken by Prof. Tolmie in a private consultation with me during 2007. 


55

The rhetorical situation corresponds in some ways to the Sitz im Leben of 

form criticism. Other synonymous terms are the historical situation or the 

epistolary occasion (Stamps, 1993:193). However, these equivalents are all 

historically orientated whereas the rhetorical situation is essentially oriented 

towards the text. This, according to Wuellner (1987:456), means that the 

rhetorical critic is preoccupied with the "premises of a text as appeal or 

argument". In this regard, Wuellner (1991:99) speaks of the ‘rhetorical’ or 

‘argumentative’ situation. It is the text-centeredness of the approach that 

distinguishes it from the conventional historical critical categories. 

A rhetorical situation may also involve a ‘rhetorical problem’ that confronts the 

speaker, for example, prejudice towards the speaker, the undermining of his 

authority or the complicated nature of the message (Kennedy, 1984:36). The 

persons, events and relations that make up the rhetorical situation of Titus will 

be considered, based on Bitzer's definition. Because we are dealing with a 

particular genre, namely the epistolary genre, the role of people forms a 

significant component of the interpretation of the letter. A letter would normally 

have a sender and a recipient or recipients. The Letter to Titus has a dual 

level recipiency, several secondary characters and an amorphous opposition 

group. 

2.1.3 PAUL 

Paul is the self designated author of the letter (1:1). This is followed by two 

additional self elaborations, dou`lo" and ajpovstolo", which are further modified 

by the two nouns qeov" and jIhsou`" Cristov" respectively. 

Paul's location at the time of writing can only be conjectured. The letter 

suggests that Paul could be en route to Nicopolis although he is definitely not 

there yet as the word ejkei' indicates. With regard to the time of the year, the 

text indicates that it is not yet winter when Paul is writing (3:12). 


56

2.1.4 PAUL AND TITUS 

Paul writes to Titus, who is in Crete with an assignment, namely to complete 

unfinished business (1:5). It seems that Paul did not stay long enough to 

implement the organisation of leadership structures at the churches in Crete. 

Titus is on Crete by apostolic mandate. In other words, he did not appoint 

himself. His presence is furthermore of limited duration. The original situation 

appears on the one hand to have been serious enough to require the 

presence of an apostolic delegate (1:5 ajpelipovn se ejn Krhvth/). On the other 

hand, it appears not to have been as serious as to warrant that Titus remains 

there permanently. In fact, this letter reflects an additional purpose, namely 

the redeployment of Titus, who is instructed to reunite with Paul at Nicopolis 

(3:12). He is also informed that he would be replaced by either Artemas or 

Tychicus (3:12). The presence of these delegates seems a satisfactory 

measure in the present situation. Thus, at no stage is there any intimation that 

the apostolic delegate would not be able to deal with whatever trouble there 

was on Crete. 

The letter gives evidence that Paul was aware of the difficulties related to the 

opposition at the time he left. Paul displays an acute cognisance of the natural 

moral disposition of the Cretans (1:12). Despite this fact, Paul left anyway, 

leaving Titus behind. Whatever the nature of the threat or the opposition, it 

was not as severe as to merit the physical presence of the apostle to address 

it. 

Paul's instructions to Titus are very specific. It does not appear to constitute 

fresh instructions to Titus. The aorist indicative middle verb dietaxavmhn (1:5) 

suggests an earlier time in the past when Paul must have instructed Titus. 

What we encounter in the text appears to be a summary of obligations given 

at a prior occasion and time. 


57

Titus' primary assignment is to appoint elders. However, the elders do not 

receive any direct instruction anywhere within the letter. This is significant, 

because it means that all the instructions are directed to someone who is not 

going to remain permanently. At what stage are the elders supposed to 

exercise their roles: parakalei`n and tou;" ajntilevgonta" ejlevgcein (1:9)? A 

reasonable inference is that Titus represents a model or example to the 

elders. 

Furthermore, at no stage does Paul circumvent or undermine Titus' authority. 

Instead, he galvanises it. In the introduction (1:4), he refers to Titus as 

gnhvsion tevknon. All the instructions are directed at Titus. Paul never 

addresses the elders (or prospective elders, since they are not yet appointed, 

cf. Acts 20:17-38). Titus represents leadership in transition or intermediary 

leadership while the elders, whom he must appoint, will constitute the 

permanent or resident leadership structure. Why then does the apostle not 

address the prospective elders directly? It is suggested that they are too 

recently converted and unskilled at that stage to deal with the challenges 

facing this group of churches. Hence, Titus must demonstrate or model the 

leadership role to them. The apostle is setting up a priority chain of leadership. 

First in this chain was Paul, then came Titus (Artemas or Tychicus), followed 

by the local leaders. 

The letter does not merely concern the elimination of the threat to the health 

of the church. It also involves the implementation of measures to ensure the 

continued health of the church. In the mind of the apostle, the measures 

implemented would be sufficient to keep false teachers at bay. These 

opponents must be treated with firmness of speech as the following 

imperatives indicate: ejlevgcein (1:9), ejpistomivzein (1:11), e[legce aujtou;" 

ajpotovmw" (1:13), and paraitou' (3:10). 


58

2.1.5 PAUL AND THE CRETAN BELIEVERS 

The evidence suggests that Paul’s original stay at Crete was very brief. Thus, 

Paul's relationship with the congregation is not characterised by explicit 

warmth. Paul apparently did not stay long enough to oversee the 

implementation of the leadership of the churches in Crete. Instead, he left this 

to Titus. 

Compared, for example, with the Letter to Philippians there are no explicit 

confessions of delight in the congregation and other terms of endearment like 

ajgaphtoiv. However, Paul implicitly relates to the congregations as fellow 

beneficiaries of God's salvific activity. 

At the very beginning of his letter, he acknowledges their divine origin as the 

people of God, ejklektoiv qeou' (1:1). At the same time, he introduces himself in 

similar language by locating the origin of his office in God and Jesus Christ, 

dou`lo" qeou`, ajpovstolo" jIhsou` Cristou' (1:1). In so doing, he identifies himself 

from the outset with the believers at Crete. He continues this notion 

throughout the letter. 

His language suggests the notion of inclusivity in this regard. Thus, in 2:12, 

God's grace instructs "us” (paideuvousa hJma`"); in 2:13, Jesus is referred to as 

"our" God and Saviour (qeov~ kai; swthvr hJmw`n); in 2:14, Jesus gave Himself for 

"us" (o}" e[dwken eJauto;n uJpe;r hJmw`n) and redeemed "us" (lutrwvshtai hJma`"). In 

3:3, Paul continues with this notion of corporate identification when he lists 

particular sins. It is "we", \Hmen gavr pote kai; hJmei`", who once were guilty of 

the listed activities. Also noticeable in this verse, is how the combined use of 

the verb in the first person plural together with the first person plural pronoun, 

fulfils an emphatic role in the sentence. In 3:5, God saves "us” (hJmei`") not on 

the basis on deeds which "we” have done (a} ejpoihvsamen hJmei`"). In the latter 

citation, the emphatic use of the personal pronoun, together with a verb in the 

first person plural, is noticeable. In 3:6, the Holy Spirit's outpouring, in terms of 

the recipients, is a corporate action; He is poured out “on us” (ejfÆ hJma`"). 


59

Throughout the letter, Paul shares with the believers in the relationship with 

God and Jesus Christ, both of whom are qualified as "our" God or Saviour 

(1:3; 1:4; 2:10; 2:13; 3:4; 3:6). The conduct of the believers implicates the 

reputation of believers as well as that of the apostles. Thus, their behaviour 

should not give the “opponent anything bad to say about us” (peri; hJmw`n 

fau`lon). In this instance, the pronoun could refer to the apostles; alternatively 

it could refer to all believers. Whatever interpretation we attach to the 

pronoun, in this instance, the notion of identification is too explicit to miss. 

In 3:7, the apostle shares in the justification believers have experienced. The 

participle dikaiwqevnte" is passive, nominative plural. This is followed by the 

verb givnomai in the first person plural passive, genhqw`men. Here, Paul shares 

the hope of eternal life together with the believers. The identification is 

categorical and unambiguous. 

In 3:8, Paul pays them a compliment by acknowledging their faith in God. 

Here, he refers to them as oiJ pepisteukovte" qew`/. This reference has the 

effect of differentiating them from those who make false professions of faith 

(1:16). 

The conciliatory tone climaxes with the designation found in 3:14. Here, Paul 

calls them "our people". He deviates from the use of the personal pronoun 

h}mei". Instead, here, Paul uses the possessive pronoun hJmevtero". Paul 

speaks as one who owns them; who feels possessive over them. He shares 

this ownership with Titus as the nominative plural suggests, and shared 

ownership implies shared responsibility for the believers of Crete. This notion 

of ownership, of possession, explains the comparatively formal tone that 

pervades the letter. Paul wants the people (their people) to learn and not to be 

unfruitful (3:14). In the concluding greeting in 3:15, after Titus is greeted, Paul 

passes on a greeting to the believers, referring to them in endearing terms as 

filou`nta" hJma`" ejn pivstei. The apostle seems to assume that the believers of 

Crete are favourably, in fact lovingly, predisposed towards him and those with 


60

him. The letter concludes with a greeting in the second person plural of the 

pronoun uJmei'", modified by the adjective pa'". 

To conclude, Paul feels deeply responsible for the congregations of Crete. He 

writes as one who owns them; who feels a responsibility towards them. His 

concern for the well-being of the congregation is suggested by his 

unwillingness to leave them unattended. This is deducible from his plans to 

send Artemas or Tychicus to replace Titus. 

Paul also writes as a co-recipient of God's salvific grace, by identifying fully 

with the believers in their past sinful actions. He refers to God and Jesus 

Christ as “our” (hJmw`n) Saviour, thereby including himself, Titus and the 

congregations as mutual benefactors of God’s saving actions. The 

relationship between Paul, Titus and the congregations is at once a 

relationship between equals. At the same time, it is reminiscent of that which 

characterises the relationship between a superior and a subject. While on the 

surface therefore, the letter appears formal, it is so in a warm sense. The 

author assumes that a relative degree of intimacy and endearment exists 

between him and the recipients. 

2.1.6 PAUL AND THE OPPOSITION 

The opponents are introduced very early in the letter. They are called tou;" 

ajntilevgonta" (1:9). They appear to be a mixed group, dominated by a Jewish 

segment (1:10, 14; 3:9). Paul is extremely negative towards them. He 

describes them, in 1:10-16, as a very sordid bunch. In 3:10, he mentions a 

factious or heretical individual (aiJretiko" a[nqrwpo") and the measures to deal 

with him. 

Paul has no direct relationship with the unqualified teachers. They are not 

attacking him, his teaching or his credentials. However, their teachings are 

affecting the congregations negatively and this is part of the reason for the 

apostle's letter. Their teachings are unhealthy or unwholesome and result in 


61

equally negative conduct (1:16). Interestingly, Paul does not elaborate upon 

their teaching, nor is he very specific in his identification of the aberrant 

teachers. Instead, he advises that this recalcitrant faction be opposed with 

healthy teaching from qualified teachers. While the unqualified teachers 

appear to have the ear of some believers (1:11), their teaching can still be 

stopped by the introduction of sound doctrine (1:9, 13). The treatment of these 

unqualified teachers is concentrated in chapter one, except for a brief mention 

to something similar in 3:9. The bulk of the letter is concerned with instructions 

to believers. These two factors confirm that Paul, at the time of writing, does 

not consider the false teachers and their teaching as major threats. It seems 

as if the influence of the unqualified teachers among the churches could be 

controlled, if not eliminated, by this extreme negative portrayal of them. 

2.1.7 PAUL AND OTHER CHARACTERS 

Several peripheral characters appear in the letter. These include Artemas, 

Tychicus, Zenas and Apollos. The first two are only mentioned (3:12). One of 

them would be dispatched to release Titus and enable him to re-unite with 

Paul at Nicopolis (3:12). Thus, Titus is hereby informed or reminded that his 

mission in Crete is not indefinite. 

Zenas and Apollos appear to be at Crete (3:13). The congregation must 

render them support for their impending journey (3:14). In this way, they 

present an opportunity to the congregation to demonstrate good works that is 

in evidence for healthy doctrine. 

2.1.8 CONCLUSION 

So why did Paul write, if the opposition was not a major threat to the Cretan 

churches, and if Titus knew what was expected of him? 

The letter evinces a construct I call layered or dual recipiency. On the surface 

layer Titus is the designated recipient. However, the temporary duration of his 

term of office, the appointment of elders who would eventually be responsible 


62

to quell the opposition and the detailed nature of the instructions suggest a 

second layer of recipients. Paul has already instructed Titus (1:5), so why 

would he have to repeat himself to Titus in such detail? Additionally, Paul's 

use of inclusive language suggests that the intended audience of the letter 

extends beyond that of Titus. 

Paul's rhetorical objective is to persuade Titus directly, and the congregations 

indirectly (3:15 uJmw`n) that divinely sanctioned church leadership and divinely 

sanctioned doctrine is necessary for the maintenance of the divine character 

of God's people in the present world. He does this through positive and 

negative stereotyping, persuading the congregation to avoid the latter while 

pursuing the former. 

2.2 RHETORICAL ANALYSIS 

2.2.1 Titus 1:1-4: Adapting the salutation to emphasise the 

divine basis of legitimate ministry 

The salutation is one of five categories of a typical Pauline letter. In it, Paul 

would identify himself as the sender, specify the recipient(s), followed by a 

greeting, thanksgiving or a prayer (McRay, 2003:265, 267; Harvey, 1998:18; 

Tolmie, 2005:31). Titus demonstrates that Paul could deviate from his normal 

pattern with relative ease, since this letter, for example, does not contain a 

thanksgiving section. Scholars recognise the unusual nature of this salutation 

and in this regard Collins (2000:59) observes that “salutations were much 

more than an envelope for a letter: they too had a rhetorical function”, which 

he argues involved getting the attention of the audience and rehearsing facts 

upon which the audience and the speaker agreed. He continues by observing 

that salutations were similar to the first century rhetorical categories of 

exordium and narratio. In the case of the Letter to Titus, the dominant 

rhetorical objective of the salutation is to emphasise the divine basis of 

legitimate ministry. The analysis of this section will show that multifaceted 

objectives lie behind Paul’s digression from his usual pattern. 


63

2.2.1.1 Emphasising the legitimacy of his ministry 

This letter opens in a most unique manner. Paul situates his modified self- 

identification within the realm of the divine. By means of two anarthrous 

nouns, he immediately relates himself to God and Jesus Christ, first as a 

servant of the former, next, as an apostle of the latter. At the same time, Paul 

is relating himself to God and Jesus Christ. He thus, from the outset, 

communicates belief in the equality of God and Jesus Christ. He reiterates 

this by repeating it in verse 4. Additionally, there is a sense in which Paul 

stresses the dual authorisation of his ministry by locating it with God as well 

as with Jesus Christ. While his ministry derives its authority from God and 

Jesus Christ, it remains focused on a single entity, namely the elect of God. 

Later in the sentence, Paul again emphasises this notion of divine sanction of 

his ministry. In 1:3, he declares that he has been entrusted (ejpisteuvqhn) with 

a message. The emphatic use of the personal pronoun ejgw is unequivocal. 

Paul continues to accentuate the divine authorisation of his ministry by 

stressing that he is serving according to the command of God (katÆ ejpitagh;n 

tou` … qeou`). In effect, he is also persuading his audience why they should 

listen to him. He seems keen to persuade his audience that only those who 

serve God and Jesus Christ can serve the church or advance the faith and 

knowledge of the church, for the purpose of godliness. 

One fact is made very clear, namely, that qualified or legitimised service in the 

church is a necessity. Paul seems to communicate the notion that he did not 

simply wake up one day and decide that serving the church would be a noble 

vocation. No. He was entrusted, commanded. He was serving God. He was 

sent by Jesus Christ. Thus, divine authorisation or a theological motivation for 

legitimate ministry seems to be a central feature of this section. 

It remains to be asked, why Paul is so emphatic about the authorisation of his 

ministry. A reasonable conjecture must be presented. He appears, in this 

introductory sentence, to counter a tendency among Cretan believers to 


64

accept or tolerate unqualified teachers. According to him, this is an untenable 

situation, because the spiritual progress, namely, faith and knowledge, of a 

church, depends upon the quality of the leadership. Paul is thus establishing 

himself as the supreme example of an authorised servant; one who has the 

right to speak to the church. However, unlike the situation envisioned in the 

Letter to the Galatians, here it is clear that Paul’s authority or credibility is not 

under attack. Paul is not writing to defend his ministry. He can reasonably be 

said to set himself up as an example of legitimised ministry and as one that 

has the right to address the church. 

2.2.1.2 Emphasising legitimate teaching 

a) References of a doctrinal nature 

Paul’s ministry is directed towards the faith and knowledge (kata; pivstin … 

kai; ejpivgnwsin) of the church or the elect of God (ejklektw`n qeou`). Thus, these 

two specific areas comprise the realm of legitimate ministry. It is a very 

specific knowledge that is the focus of attention, namely knowledge of “the 

truth” (ajlhqeiva" th`"). Through an intricate series of prepositional phrases, 

Paul develops the twin concepts of faith and knowledge to their ethical 

conclusion, expanding it through a series of prepositional phrases. The 

preposition katav features prominently in this opening section: kata; pivstin 

ejklektw`n (1:1), katÆ eujsevbeian (1:1), katÆ ejpitaghvn (1:3), and kata; koinh;n 

pivstin (1:4). According to Wallace (1996:377), one of the basic functions of 

katav with the accusative is to indicate standard, in which instance it is then 

translated as “in accordance with” or “corresponding to”. However, in the first 

instance above, the preposition is best understood to indicate the purpose of 

Paul’s service and apostleship (Bernard, 1980 [1899]:155). Thus, his ministry 

is “for the purpose of (the) faith”, to further the faith (Knight, 1992:283), “for 

(the) faith” (Mounce, 2000:379; Quinn 1990:62), or “in the interest of faith” 

(Hendriksen, 1957:340). The repetition of the preposition, in this section, 

serves as a rhetorical technique that adds to the cohesiveness of this section. 

Interestingly, the unusual repetition of this preposition is located rather 


65

strategically throughout this section forming what could be seen as an 

inclusio: 

kata; pivstin … (1:1) 

katÆ eujsevbeian … (1:1) 

katÆ ejpitagh;n … (1:3) 

kata; (koinh;n) pivstin (1:4) 

While some take a different view, the second instance of the preposition also 

indicates purpose. This time it is not related to Paul but rather to faith and 

knowledge. Faith and knowledge have as their goal or outcome, the godliness 

of the elect. Faith is emphasised through the repetition of the word pivsti~ 

(1:1, 4) as well as through paranomasia of the same word group: pivsti~ (1:1, 

4) and pisteuvw (1:3) in this section: Godliness in turn, is motivated by, or 

premised upon, the hope of eternal life (1:2). Paul is meticulous in defining 

knowledge. He uses the genitive to limit the meaning to “knowledge of the 

truth” (ejpivgnwsin ajlhqeiva" th`"). Here, “the truth”, modified by the article, 

constitutes the gospel, in particular that body of objective truth. 

Faith of God’s elect, knowledge, the truth and godliness specify the 

parameters of legitimate ministry. In the first place, there is a specific group or 

category of people that are related to God in a particular manner. God elected 

them. Thus, they are His. Next, the legitimate ministry relates to a specific 

body of truth, namely ajlhqeiva" th`" kat j eujsebeian. The purpose of the 

apostolic ministry is to bring about a behavioural or ethical adjustment 

(eujsevbeia) in view of the life to come. 

The certainty of this hope is guaranteed. Paul bases his argument upon the 

integrity of the divine or the reliability of God, specifying that His ethical 

character is ajyeudhv". He continues to emphasise that this hope was never 

dependent upon man. God promised it, God brought it about. Through the use 

of temporal references, namely, pro; crovnwn aijwnivwn (1:2) and kairoi`" ijdivoi" 

(1:3), Paul ensures that no credit accrues at any stage to any human being. 

His argument is based on divine authorisation and divine initiation. The hope 


66

of eternal life was manifested in the word of God (to;n lovgon aujtou'). Verse 3 

reiterates the divine authorisation of the apostle’s ministry, in which he strips 

even himself from any credit for the proclamation (khruvgma). Thus, the 

messenger as well as the content of the message must be divinely authorised. 

b) References to God 

There are five references to God in this section. This constitutes a high 

occurrence-ratio for a single noun in such a small section. The noun is used 

twice, first in v.1 and again in v.4, as part of the inclusio that cordons off this 

section. Excepting this usage, the remaining three occurrences are very 

significant, highlighting the theocentric emphases of this opening section. The 

inclusio mentioned previously refers to the repetition of the nouns “God” and 

“Jesus Christ” in verses 1 and 4. 

The use of the word “God” establishes a relationship between God and the 

Church, who is described as ejklektoiv qeou'. This expression is juxtaposed 

with dou`lo" qeou' in verse 1. Thus, Paul’s service and apostleship are directed 

towards a particular group, namely the elect of God. The kind of ministry 

presented here is specified as a divinely sanctioned ministry (dou`lo" qeou'), 

directed towards a group, whose origins the apostle locates in the divine 

(ejklektoiv qeou'). 

Next, God’s character is accentuated by the expression oJ ajyeudh;" qeov" (1:2). 

This description occurs in the context of the promise that God made. Thus, 

the divine character or ethic is used to highlight the reliability of the divine 

promise. What God has promised He has fulfilled. The affirmation of the divine 

character furthermore implies the imposition of a norm. If God cannot lie, then 

His servant cannot either or at least would be expected to be honest. 

The third reference occurs in 1:3 where God is referred to as Saviour (swthvr). 

Thus, we are dealing here with the divine origin of salvation. In the next verse, 

the same description is applied to Jesus Christ. 


67

This section is suffused with the role of the divine. The elect has their origin in 

God. The promise made before the ages was fulfilled because of the 

character of God. The reason there is an elect, the reason for the ethic 

required of the elect is because God is also the one who saved them. Thus, 

central in this first section is the notion of the divine. It takes away all credit 

from man and places the focus on the central and dominating character of 

God. 

c) References to Jesus Christ 

Verses 1-4 contain two references to Jesus Christ. The first reference in 1:1 is 

repeated, but reversed in 1:4. These references appear to accentuate the 

divinity of Jesus Christ who, in both instances, is presented as equal to God. 

In the first instance, the name of Jesus is mentioned in the context of ministry, 

specifically the apostolic office. In the next instance, it is mentioned in the 

context of salvation. Interestingly, though, God is also mentioned in both of 

these contexts. 

In 1:1, Paul relates his ministry first to God and next, as apostle, to Jesus 

Christ. The first reference to Jesus Christ is in a coordinate relationship with 

the noun qeov~. Some commentators interpret the conjunction dev in a 

connective sense as “and”. However, it can also be interpreted in a 

contrastive or adversative sense as “yet” or “but”. The apostle thus introduces 

himself by laying the foundation for his authority to address Titus and the 

church. On the one hand, he is only a bond-servant of God. However, on the 

other hand, his office is that of an apostle, authorised by Jesus Christ. 

In 1:4, he refers to Jesus Christ as swthvr hJmw`n. This is the exact designation 

used in the preceding verse to refer to God. Thus, God and Jesus Christ are 

introduced as co-saviours to whom the salvific activity is attributed. This is 

accentuated through the rhetorical technique known as a chiasm: 


68

tou` swth`ro" hJmw`n qeou' (1:3) 

Cristou' jIhsou` tou` swth`ro" hJmw`n (1:4) 

Another striking feature of this passage is the way in which it begins and ends. 

Verse 1 starts with qeou` … jIhsou` Cristou, while verse four ends with qeou'… 

Cristou` jIhsou'). Except for the reversal of Jesus Christ to Christ Jesus, the 

order is essentially identical. This is known as an inclusio. Why did the apostle 

deem it necessary to accentuate the divinity of Jesus in this manner, namely 

by equating Him with God? Why is he so painstakingly meticulous to ensure 

that the recipient(s) are properly orientated towards Jesus Christ? Could it be 

that he was perhaps pre-empting erroneous notions about the divinity of 

Christ? Was part of the erroneous doctrine that was perpetuated by the false 

teachers related to an incomplete or compromised Christology? An answer in 

the affirmative would not seem unreasonable in this regard. 

2.2.1.3 Emphasising the legitimacy of the ministry of Titus 

Whereas Paul’s authority is derived from God, the legitimisation of the ministry 

of Titus comes from the apostle. Titus is referred to by name (1:4). This 

designation is expanded through the use of kinship language as exemplified in 

the expression gnhsivon tevknon. In return, the kinship is made emphatic by the 

assonance of the w-sound when referring to Titus as, Tivtw/ gnhsivw/ tevknw/. 

Furthermore, the language serves to bestow honour upon Titus before the 

congregation. This is an early occurrence of the rhetorical technique called 

honorific referencing or - classification. 

Towards the end of the salutation, the transcendent quality of the language 

yields to the language of imminence, activated through familial or relational 

referents. Tenderness is introduced by referring to Titus as Paul’s child and 

later claiming God as Father (1:4). The reference to God as “Father” levels the 

proverbial playing fields, since it makes God the source of Paul and of Titus. 

The ejklektoiv qeou' are from a salvific perspective the offspring of the divine, 

but so are Paul and Titus. Titus’ ministry at Crete is couched in the language 

of a son who stands in the service of his father, conjuring up images of loyalty 


69

and trustworthiness. This choice of language constitutes an argument of 

authorisation based on paternal or parental validation. Furthermore, it has the 

effect of confirming to the audience (including the illegitimate teachers) that 

Titus is acting as an authorised representative of the apostle. 


In this section, Paul’s dominant rhetorical strategy has been to adapt the 

salutation to emphasise the divine basis of legitimate ministry. He starts by 

establishing his own authority and concludes by endorsing the ministry of 

Titus by apostolic and divine authorisation. His reason for doing this is not 

because he is under attack, but rather to highlight the notion of legitimate 

ministry. It remains to be asked: Why does the apostle adopt this specific 

approach? 

The salutation contains information that would be redundant if primarily 

addressed to someone who knew the apostle as well as Titus. Instead, the 

very nature of the address, the loftiness of the theology and the inflexible 

insistence upon highlighting the role of the divine, suggest that Paul had a 

wider audience in mind. Most scholars come to this conclusion based on the 

reference in 3:15, but it can be detected right here in the salutation. The use 

of inclusive language at this stage of the letter confirms this fact. In 1:3 Paul 

refers to God as oJ swthvr hJmw`n. Are we expected to believe that the apostle is 

referring here exclusively to himself and Titus? In other words, is the apostle 

suggesting that God is only the Saviour of the two of them? Would someone 

like Titus need to be persuaded about Paul’s authority? Or would he need to 

be taught about the content of legitimate teaching? The answer is obvious. 

Paul is addressing the church at Crete. The reference to qeov~ patevr is 

another example of the rhetorical technique inclusive language that cannot 

simply be applicable to the apostle and his delegate. It is interesting to note 

the expansion or development with reference to God. In 1:1 Paul is dou`lo" 

qeou', and the church is ejklektw`n qeou'. The next description that follows 

describes God as oJ ajyeudh;" qeov". Beyond this point, God is mentioned in the 

context of a plural modifier as swthvr hJmw`n and in a paternal nuance as qeov~ 


70

patevr. God is therefore the key protagonist, the leading actor in this unfolding 

drama of salvation. 

Other rhetorical techniques used in this section, include the unusual repetition 

of the preposition katav, inclusio, chiasm, paranomasia, honorific referencing 

or -classification, and the repetition of the pivsti~-word group. 

2.2.2 Titus 1:5-9: Outlining the criteria for legitimate local 

leadership 

Having established himself as a legitimate minister of the church, the apostle 

concludes the salutation by introducing and affirming Titus as his 

representative. From verse 5 onwards, he develops the concept of legitimate 

ministry, by embarking upon his dominant rhetorical objective namely outlining 

the criteria for legitimate local congregational leadership. Conspicuously 

remiss at this point, is the characteristic thanksgiving section (Classen, 

2002:51). A possible reason for this absence, could be because there was 

nothing to give thanks for, which in turn, could confirm scholarly conjecture 

that the congregation was relatively young, established fairly recently. Since 

there is nothing to give thanks for, Paul unceremoniously launches into his 

topic with great eagerness. 

Paul employs arguments based on authority, namely apostolic authority, in 

order to firstly justify Titus’s presence on the island of Crete and secondly, to 

underscore his authority among the Cretan believers. In verse 5, Paul 

declares that he left Titus in Crete (ajpevlipon se ejn Krhvth/). Now, in all 

probability, Titus knew that Paul had left him in Crete. He would also have 

understood or at least had some idea, before his arrival, of the nature of his 

assignment. So why would Paul now write in this manner? The answer lies in 

our understanding of who the recipients of the letter are. The language 

suggests that Titus cannot be the only recipient. It has to include a wider 

audience, in whose presence, in all probability, this letter would have been 

read. Verse 5 answers questions like, “What are you doing here in Crete?” or 


71

“By whose authority are you implementing these procedures?” or “Who gave 

you command over us?” These kinds of questions are answered by the details 

provided in verse 5. The concluding clause provides the authorisation for Titus 

to fulfil his mandate. In this regard, the use of the first person personal 

pronoun (ejgwv) together with the verb in the first person singular, dietaxavmhn, 

is deliberately emphatic. Paul stresses that he is the one who has directed 

Titus. Interestingly, the tense of the verb, namely aorist middle, points to a 

time prior to that when Titus would have received this letter. These are 

therefore not new directives. Although the verb diatavssw (1:5) is weaker in 

import than the noun ejpitaghv in 1:3, it functions in the same way as the noun. 

This is an instance of the use of synonyms for emphasis and to fascilitate 

intra-sectional cohesion. Paul’s authority derives directly from God while that 

of Titus comes indirectly from the apostolic directive. In other words, there is a 

hierarchy of command where authority flows from the divine through the 

apostle to Titus and ultimately to the local leaders. However, Paul’s choice of 

language indicates that he does not consider his authority, in this instance, to 

be equal with that of God. Hence, he directs (diatavssw) Titus, but God 

commanded (katÆ ejpitaghvn) him, i.e. Paul. It remains to be asked, why Paul 

would write in such a round-about manner. The apostle is perhaps adopting 

an anticipatory stance in view of some opposition against the presence of 

Titus. Already, we find in Crete teachers who were “upsetting whole 

households” (1:11). Titus’ presence would not be amicably received within 

such a context. The teachers, no doubt, held at least some degree of sway 

among the congregations. The difference between them and Titus is a 

significant one, as the salutation and verse 5 indicate: Titus represents 

legitimate leadership, while those in Crete are illegitimate. At a different level, 

the apostle is educating the Cretan believers about legitimate church 

leadership. He is about to develop his lesson, by providing objective criteria to 

ensure that the believers would be able to distinguish legitimate teachers from 

those who presume to be teachers. By so doing, he is laying a foundation for 

the appointment of leaders in the future, i.e. in the absence of apostles and 

apostolic delegates. 


72

The basis upon which these other teachers came to exercise influence over 

the church is not clear. There seems to have been an indiscriminate 

tolerance, if not acceptance, by the church of these persons as well as of their 

teachings. Paul’s purpose, in this section therefore, seems to be to provide 

objective evaluation criteria for the establishment of legitimate or authorised 

leadership in the Cretan church. 

In the salutation, Paul alluded to the purpose of legitimate ministry, namely the 

maintenance of the character of God’s people as ejklektoiv qeou`. Starting with 

himself, Paul showed that even he had to comply with certain criteria through 

the use of the nouns dou`lo" and ajpovstolo". 

Now, in verses 6-9, he is developing the notion that serving the church of God 

is not the domain of individual preference. There are conditions to be met. 

Since compliance criteria are acceptable in secular business, how much more 

among the ejklektoiv qeou'? Those who serve in the church ought to serve the 

interests of God rather than their own interests. The overseer is after all called 

a qeou' oijkonovmo" (1:7). Note how Paul, in his capacity as the dou`lo" qeou' (1:1) 

serving the ejklektoiv qeou' (1:1), now prescribes the criteria for those whom he 

refers to as the qeou' oijkonovmoi (1:7). The consistent pattern emerging from 

these few verses makes all who minister in the church, accountable to God 

(qeov~). 

Paul’s objective is clear, namely to provide observable or measurable criteria 

by which to ensure legitimate leadership in the church. Mappes (2003:214) 

suggests that the qualitications for elders serve as a polemic against the false 

teachers. Some, like Dibelius and Conzelmann (1972:158) have pointed out 

the resemblance between the lists in the Pastorals and first century character 

codes. The stipulated criteria would also serve to explain or defend Titus’ 

selection of some and not others. In other words, these standards effectively 

clear Titus’ actions from potential charges of arbitrariness or subjectivity. More 

importantly though, is the rhetorical significance of the list. In a recent work, 

Tolmie (2005:216, 217) categorised similar lists in Galatians as constituting 


73

“shared knowledge”. The qualities cited in verses 6-9 are not exclusive to the 

Christian context. Extra-biblical evidence corroborates that such norms were 

considered reasonable by the broader society of first century Hellenistic 

culture (Dibelius and Conzelmann, 1972:158). If secular Cretan society 

therefore endorsed these standards, it would be very hard to defend the 

behavioural conduct of leaders that do not comply with these shared or 

common standards. Rhetorically, this has the positive effect of rendering 

Paul’s prescriptions reasonable, since his audience would be familiar with 

these criteria. Negatively, it would be almost impossible to justify tolerating 

anyone whose actions contradict the societal norm. 

Those responsible to minister to the ejklektoiv qeou' ought to be examples of 

the power of the truth (1:1). Their lives and conduct must give evidence of the 

reliability of the promises of God. The first to manifest eujsevbeia are the 

leaders. Faith in God, or the eujsevbeia ejpÆ ejlpivdi zwh`" aijwnivou (1:1, 2), is 

neither cerebral nor merely confessional (cf. 1:16). Instead, it is practical and 

observable. Scholars, who overeagerly emphasise the similarity these 

character requirements share with secular lists, downplay the powerful 

statement made here concerning the gospel or the truth (1:1). Those 

appointed become the direct antitheses of the illegitimate teachers. That men 

of this calibre can even be found in such a context, is an incredible testimony 

to the power of God’s word. In other words, the manifestation of the divine 

promise is not an abstract event. It changes lives; produces the kind of men 

described in 1:6-9. 

To whom is this written? Both Titus and the Cretans are the intended 

audience of these lists. However, Titus is only a secondary recipient. He 

perhaps needs only a reminder. The primary recipients are the Cretans. The 

sheer detail provided in this section suggests a didactic function. There can be 

no mistaking that anyone hearing the content of this letter would leave with an 

almost graphic image of the legitimate leader. Doubtless, there would be 

those followers of the illegitimate teachers who would now be empowered with 


74

an objective standard by which to measure their teachers to whose influence 

they have fallen victim (1:11). 

According to Johnson (1996:220), the catalogue of vices and virtues in 1:6-9 

evinces several instances of unique vocabulary. It contains three New 

Testament (ejpidiorqovw, filavgaqo", ejgrathv") and fifteen Pauline hapax 

legomena. Of the latter, nine appear in the rest of the Pastorals (ajpoleivpw, 

filovxeno", pavroimo", plhvkth", aijscrokerdh'", swvfron, presbutevro", o{sio", 

uJgiaivnw) while six never occur in the Pauline corpus (Krhvth, leivpw, 

kathgoriva, ajnupovtakto", aujqavdh~, ojrgivlo"). Incidentally, Johnson (1996:221) 

maintains that the variation in vocabulary can be explained by the variation in 

subject matter. It is preferable to interpret these hapaxes as context specific 

vocabulary. This is based on the assumption that in the mind of the author the 

recipients would have been familiar with the vocabulary. The anaphoric mh is 

another device employed to highlight the five vices in 1:7. Anaphora is also 

used in two words in the virtue list. They occur in 1:8, namely filovxeno~ and 

filavgaqo~. Both adjectives are compound nouns prefixed by the noun, filov". 

These rhetorical techniques highlight the arenas of the elder-overseer’s 

personal life under observation, namely his marriage, family life and his 

personality or attitudinal behaviour. Moreover, the prefix, filov" emphasises 

the attitude of love that should characterise the elder-overseer. 

The cohesion between this section and the salutation is effected through the 

repetition of specific vocabulary. For example, the noun pivsti" recurs several 

times in the space of a few verses: kata; pivstin ejklektw`n qeou` (1:1), kata; 

koinh;n pivstin (1:4), ajntecovmenon tou` ... pistou` lovgou (1:9). Additionally, the 

word lovgo" (1:3) is repeated in verse 9. 

Paul also uses transitional devices to introduce the different sections. In 1:4 

he introduced Titus and proceeded to address him in verse 5. Now, in 1:9, he 

introduces the opposition or the illegitimate teachers as oiJ ajntilevgonte". 

What is it that they contradict or oppose? It must be the teaching, here made 

conspicuous by the interchangeable use of the nouns didachv and didaskaliva 


75

espectively within the same sentence: kata; th;n didach;n and ejn th`/ 

didaskaliva/ th`/ uJgiainouvsh. The conditions for elders culminate in verse 9 with 

the criterion to “hold to the faithful word”, ajntecovmenon tou` kata; th;n didach;n 

pistou` lovgou. Thus, over and above the character requirements, the 

relationship of the individual elder to the word is paramount. The idea of “the 

word” was introduced in the salutation, 1:3. There, it was the divine word that 

was ‘manifested’, ejfanevrwsen de; kairoi`" ijdivoi" to;n lovgon aujtou'. According 

to 1:9, the elder must cling to the “faithful word”. This description would call to 

mind the earlier reference in 1:3. The authority of the elder derives directly 

from the word, which enables him to do two things, namely “to exhort” 

(parakalei'n) and “to refute” or “convince” (ejlevgcein). It is at this point that the 

issue of opposition is introduced. The distinguishing factor between legitimacy 

and illegitimacy hinges on the relationship of the opposing parties to the 

manifested word. The antithesis between the two groups is highlighted 

through the intentional play on the two participles used to refer to them: 

ajntecovmenoi and ajntivlegonte". Both are prefixed by the preposition ajntiv, 

generally meaning “against” (Zodhiates, 1992:190). The first word connotes a 

positive stance, the second a negative action. Paul, in this way, introduces the 

next step in his strategy namely, the vilification of the opposition. In this 

transitionary sentence, the apostle juxtaposes their negative behaviour with 

the positive behaviour of the overseer. The opposition is thus introduced here 

as “the ones who speak against”. They contradict the action of the overseers 

who “holds against” or “clings to”. The rhetorical objective of this brilliant use 

of a prefix is to launch his denigration of the opposition. 

Conclusion 

In this section, the dominant rhetorical objective is to outline criteria for the 

establishment of legitimate local leadership in the church. His arguments are 

primarily based on authority, particularly apostolic authority. Thus, Titus’ 

presence and jurisdiction are authorised by apostolic directive. The detailed 

explanations, in the form of a catalogue of vices and virtues, are examples of 

the rhetorical technique called shared knowledge. Its use suggests that this 

section is primarily targeted at the congregation. It addresses Titus only 


76

secondarily. The leader must be blameless in his family life as well as in his 

behaviour. In other words, his life must bear testimony to the fact that he has 

embraced the Christian doctrine. Through the rhetorical technique of 

repetition, Paul links this section to the preceding salutation, developing 

certain notions like faith and the primacy of the word. Another rhetorical 

technique, anaphora is used to draw attention to the vices and virtues related 

to the elder-overseers and concludes the catalogue by specifying the most 

important qualification, namely the ability to teach the word. In this regard, the 

elder-overseers are made responsible for exhortation and refutation. 

Also present on the island are “those who contradict” and their followers. Paul 

uses the list of virtues and vices to educate the congregation regarding 

legitimate and illegitimate leadership. The list also represents shared 

knowledge, which constitutes an irrefutable argument in favour of the validity 

of the requirements for legitimate leadership. Another rhetorical technique 

used in this section is that of synonyms. 

This section concludes with the legitimate leaders being pitched against the 

illegitimate ones. Furthermore, the closing sentence (1:9) serves as a 

transitional device that introduces the vilification of the illegitimate leaders. In 

the following section, the disparagement of the opposition takes on a more 

fully developed form. This section presents a clear picture of the legitimate 

leaders and introduces the problem of the illegitimate ones. 

2.2.3 Titus 1:10-16: Discrediting the illegitimate teachers 

In verse 6 and following, Paul focuses the attention upon the “opposition”, 

whom he would eventually expose as being presumptive teachers (1:11). 

Through the use of a transitional sentence, Paul introduces them in the latter 

part of verse 9, as tou;" ajntilevgonta". We first encounter them in the context 

of a conflict situation, at the receiving end of the ministry of the elders, who 

must reprove (ejlevgcein) them. This sentence introduces an “us-them” 


77

dichotomy at the front end of this letter (1:9) that is expanded in the 

subsequent verses (1:10-16). The dominant rhetorical objective in this section 

is to discredit the illegitimate teachers primarily by magnifying their 

illegitimacy. The rhetorical technique employed involves vilification of the 

illegitimate teachers. 

Vilification 

Vilification is a persuasive technique used by an author or speaker to present 

opposing parties or their viewpoints in a negative light, by magnifying some 

aspects of character or propositional weakness, with a view to influence an 

audience to disassociate themselves from the opposition or the viewpoint and 

associate themselves with or endorse the position or person of the speaker or 

writer. Du Toit (1994:404) considers it to have been a “widespread convention 

… obtained throughout the Mediterranean world”. Botha (1993:421) calls it 

“invective”, which aimed to “dispose hearers favourably to the speaker and to 

shame and humiliate the ‘enemy’”. One of the ways in which it was employed, 

involved portraying the opposition as those who are perverting the true faith 

and who are negative influences for the faith of others (Du Toit, 1994:409). In 

order to achieve his dominant rhetorical objective, Paul makes extensive use 

of vilification to portray the opposition in a very negative light. The impact and 

overall domination of the technique in this section becomes obvious from the 

following list: 

1. insubordinate, empty talkers, 

deceivers (v.10) 

2. upsetting whole families (v.11) 

3. teaching for gain (v.11) 

4. teaching without the right to 

teach (v.11) 

5. liars/evil beasts/lazy gluttons 

(v.12) 

6. giving heed to Jewish myths 

(v.14) 

7. giving heed to the commands of 

men who reject the truth (v.14) 

8. corrupt and unbelieving (v.15) 

9. minds and consciences are 

corrupt (v.15) 


10. deny God by their deeds (v.16) 

11. detestable, disobedient, unfit 

for any good deed (v.16) 

78

Verse 10 immediately takes up and builds upon the hostility introduced in the 

latter part of verse 9. The apostle unleashes his verbal artillery upon the 

aberrant ones through a technique I call emphatic clustering. He groups 

together three words to launch his vilification campaign, namely ajnupovtakto~, 

mataiolovgo~ and frenapavth~. This linguistic triplet, combined with the 

adjective pa`~, intensifies the hostile sentiment that this section intends to 

create. It furthermore serves as justification for the apostolic directives that 

this correspondence conveys. Structurally, it cordons off this section and 

magnifies the denigration to follow. 

The vilification procedure is facilitated by several additional techniques, such 

as implicit contrasting. That which is contrasted is not made obvious within a 

sentence. In other words, the author gives no linguistic clues that a contrast is 

being made. Instead, the author provides the information in such a manner 

that the hearer or reader, almost intuitively, “sees” the glaring contrasts within 

the larger discourse unit. For example, the description of the opposition in this 

section is implicitly contrasted with the positive character requirements 

associated with the office of the overseer mentioned earlier. The negative 

attitude of the opposition towards the word (1:9), is made plausible by the 

pejorative description of their character, which manifests firstly as 

insubordination (ajnupovtakto~). This noun was used earlier with reference to 

the children of elders (1:6). This is an example of repetition. The effect is to 

evoke strong disapproval from the congregation for childish behaviour on the 

part of the opposition. Unruly behaviour demands strong disciplinary 

retaliation. 

The noun mataiolovgo~ follows rapidly upon the first and is suggestive of the 

apostolic view of the aberrant teaching. It is vain, empty, and lacking 

substance. In fact, the false teachers are the personification of what they 

teach. They themselves are empty and vain. The final noun in this cluster, 

frenapavth~, describes the opposition as deceivers or impostors. In other 

words, they are unauthorised, invalid and hence unqualified to minister to the 


79

church. Implicit contrasting is also operative here. Thus, compared to 

everyone mentioned in the previous two sections, this group of impostors 

does not match the profile. While the group may be substantial, the apostle 

appears to single out a Jewish faction within the larger group, through the 

adjectival phrase mavlista oiJ ejk th`" peritomh`". Johnson (1996:227, 228) 

suggests that this expression might refer to Gentile Cretans who have come 

to embrace Judaism through the influence of Jewish teachers. If this is so, the 

resemblance to Galatians would be, in his words, “all the more striking” 

(Johnson, 1996:228). 

The effect upon the hearers is nothing short of riveting: If this is what the 

apostle says about these people, how dare some believers (perhaps) think 

amicably about them? At this very point, the congregants are forced to pick 

sides. The tone of the letter has been positive up to the first half of verse 9: 

Paul, Titus, the elders elect. It will, however, from here onwards become 

calculatedly negative. 

Verse 11 offers additional justification for the severe treatment of this 

insubordinate faction. The reasoning relates firstly to the effect of their 

“ministry” among the believers. It is considered absolutely essential that these 

people be silenced or muzzled (ejpistomivzein). Paul and the elders, however, 

are allowed to speak to or teach the believers (1:3, 9). The impact of the 

activities of the illegitimate teachers, is that it subverts or overturns whole 

households or families (oi{tine" o{lou" oi[kou" ajnatrevpousin). The emphasis 

upon the negative effect on the family institution, constititutes a further 

element in the vilification campaign against these people. The reference to 

households (oi[koi) can either indicate house churches or families. Paul’s 

vilification here is based on the family or kinship theme. This calls to mind 

related ideas that were introduced in the previous two sections. For example, 

in 1:4, God is referred to as qeov~ pathvr while Titus is called Paul’s tevknon. 

The language is relational and familial. This kind of relationship is 

characterised by order and submission. The notion of family also features 

prominently in the criteria for elders. In 1:6, the elder is expected to 


80

demonstrate a positive influence upon his own family. All these disclose a 

positive attitude towards the family. The negative impact of the illegitimate 

teachers upon the family institution is thus exacerbated by the use of the 

kinship argument. This implicit contrast highlights an underlying argument 

suggestive of the importance of a stable family life in the ancient world. 

Whereas elder-overseers must maintain a stable family life, the opposition 

threatens that stability and are vilified for it. The text, therefore, suggests that 

it is a severe form of vilification to accuse someone of threatening the family 

institution. Johnson (1996:235) mentions that “[i]n the Greco-Roman world, 

insubordination or instability in the oikos was reason enough to condemn a 

religious movement”. Through a clever play on the word oi\ko~, the apostle 

exploits the connotative value of the kinship argument with direct application 

to the church. In 1:7, he described the overseer as a qeou' oijkonovmo~. The 

false teachers on the other hand, are subverting whole oi\koi. Again, by 

implicit comparison to the elders, these impostors are shown to be illegitimate 

by highlighting the negative impact of their activities upon the church or 

individual families. They must be avoided because they prove to be outsiders, 

non-family, and predatory. 

The next justification for the ruthless treatment of the impostors, relates to the 

content of and the motivation for their teaching, which serves as a further 

basis for their vilification. Their illegitimacy relates to the content of their 

teaching, here described very unflatteringly as a} mh; dei' (“things not 

necessary”). The insignificance of what they teach is expressed by the use of 

the relative pronoun (neuter) a}{. The illegitimate teachers simply teach “things”. 

Again, this is the opposite of what Paul and the elders teach. The selection of 

vocabulary heightens the polarity between the two groups. “Things” do not 

quite compare with “the truth”, “the faithful word”, “the teaching”, and “healthy 

teaching” or “healthy doctrine” (1:1, 9). The readers must choose between 

being taught illegitimate “things” and legitimate “teaching”. 

The next two words aijscroiv kevrdoi, are further examples of paranomasia. It 

intentionally recalls a quality listed in the earlier catalogue of vices with 

reference to overseers, namely aijscrokerdhv~. If an overseer may not be 


81

aijscrokerdhv", and these false teachers are teaching for the sake of aijscroiv 

kevrdoi, then there is no way that the latter group can ever legitimately serve in 

God’s oi\ko~. They are disqualified. The language implies a warning to the 

believers. It is as if the apostle is saying, “Watch out. They are out to exploit 

you!” Clearly, he cannot be speaking to Titus. Those who stand to benefit from 

these caveats are the believers. 

In verse 12, the apostle intensifies his strategy of vilifying the illegitimate 

teachers. His rhetorical strategy involves the use of alienating or exclusive 

language and appeal to an external source of authority. Paul’s use of “them- 

us” serves to alienate the believers from the illegitimate teachers. It also 

harnesses the notion of community and belonging. Here, he uses it negatively 

with reference to the illegitimate teachers. The repetition of the third person, 

plural, of the pronoun aujtov~ (ejx aujtw`n i[dio" aujtw`n profhvth") emphasises 

the notion of “them” and “us”. More importantly, however, the repetition of the 

pronoun functions to corroborate the accusation that is expressed in the form 

of that infamous quote. Thus, here we have information about the false 

teachers from the proverbial horse’s mouth; here is an inside story. 

Paul’s rhetorical strategy furthermore involves an appeal to an external 

authority. The quote, Krh`te" ajei; yeu`stai, kaka; qhriva, gastevre" ajrgaiv, 

effectively points the attention of the hearers away from Paul. It is as if Paul is 

saying: “Don’t be surprised. I’m not sucking these things out of my thumb. 

Here’s what is said about them by someone who knows them. Here is what 

you know is true about them”. The citation suggests a known source, 

insinuating that this is public knowledge. One could read into this citation a 

mild or implicit rebuke towards the congregation. They should have known 

these things. However, if there is a rebuke, it is softened by the earlier use of 

the “them-us” language. 

The quote demonstrates another instance of emphatic clustering. More 

specifically, we have here an example of asyndetic emphatic clustering. 

Together with verse 10, it ties this section into a neat unit and maintains the 

vilification of the false teachers. The vocabulary employed is significant. 


82

Firstly, there is a play on the antonyms noticeable in the expressions, Krh`te" 

ajei; yeu`stai and oJ ajyeudh;" qeov" (1:2). This is an instance of implicit 

contrasting where the character of the Cretans is juxtaposed with that of God. 

It furthermore establishes an argument based on example, and in this 

occurrence it is an irrefutable one, since the character of the opposition is 

presented as being diametrically opposed to the character of the divine. The 

next two descriptions, namely kaka; qhriva and gastevre" ajrgaiv, have the effect 

of portraying the opposition as dehumanised by refering to them as beasts 

(qhriva) and lazy gluttons, or literally “idle stomachs”. The rhetorical effect of 

this quotation is that it belittles the opposition in the eyes of the church. On its 

own, such vilification is rather damaging to any person’s reputation. In the 

context of a local congregation, the relational consequences would be 

devastating. 

In verse 13, the rhetorical strategy involves an apostolic verification of the 

saying regarding the Cretans’ moral disposition. The use of the demonstrative 

pronoun au{th links this sentence to the citation. Here, Paul had opportunity to 

limit the applicability of the earlier quotation; instead he affirms the veracity of 

the Cretan poet’s adage. There is a sense of irony associated with the 

combination of the quote and the apostolic affirmation: A Cretan poet brands 

Cretans as pathological liars, lazy bones and gluttons. Scholars refer to this 

as the liar’s paradox (Mounce, 2000:398), since it makes the statement a 

logical impossibility. The apostolic verification serves to corroborate the truth 

of the statement. Furthermore, we have repetition of the same word in the 

adjective ajlhqhv". The corresponding noun ajlhqeiva was introduced in the 

salutation. Opponents would be hard pressed to refute the characterisation, 

which is here intensified by the apostolic corroboration. A comparative view of 

the various units in chapter 1, discloses the development of a deliberate 

tension between truth and lies or liars: Paul’s ministry is focused on the 

knowledge of ajlhqeiva (1:1). God is ajyeudhv" (1:2). Next, the Cretans are 

yeu`stai (1:12), while the statement is ajlhqhv" (1:13). Structurally, one could 

almost argue for an ABBA structure, but that is not the concern of this study. 


83

The second part of verse 13 contains an instruction on the treatment of these 

false teachers. The second person singular imperative of e[levgcw points to 

Titus as the primary addressee. This verb is repeated, having occurred earlier, 

where it applied to the overseer (1:9). Therefore, the responsibility to refute is 

shared by Titus and the overseers. Titus implicitly, models to the others how 

an elder must exercise his ministry. The purpose clause, introduced by the 

conjunction i{na, serves to defend Paul’s instructions against charges of 

malevolence. In spite of how bad they are, there is still hope for the impostors 

to become sound or healthy in the faith (… i{na uJgiaivnwsin ejn th`/ pivstei). The 

clause uJgiaivnwsin ejn th`/ pivstei brings together in a single expression two 

words used in earlier sections, namely pivsti~ (1:1, 4, 6, 9) and the verb 

uJgiaivnw. In the latter instance, it is the participial equivalent, namely 

uJgiainouvsh (1:9) that is employed. Verse 13 suggests the possibility for 

transformation. Those who may have been led astray can become sound in 

the faith. The verse also expresses an implicit caution against the abuse of 

authority since the harsh treatment has a noble end, namely return to the 

faith. The article in this instance specifies the body of objective gospel 

teaching, synonymous to the truth (1:1). 

Verse 14 describes the content of the false teaching that the impostors are 

embracing, thereby continuing the vilification. Through the use of two related 

verbs, the difference between legitimate and illegitimate teachers is 

intensified. While not directly synonymous, the two verbs are related, in that 

they share the verb e[cw. Whereas the overseer must “cling to” (ajntevcw) the 

faithful teaching, false teachers must not “pay attention” (mh; prosevcw) to 

wrong doctrine. Several parallels are apparent in the description of the two 

groups. Firstly, both verbs share the primary root verb. Next, they are both in 

the present participial form. Thirdly, there is a definite contrast in regards to 

the content of the different teachings. In verse 14, the attention is apparently 

focused on jIoudai>koi`" muvqoi" kai; ejntolai`" ajnqrwvpwn. In verse 9, it is tou` 

(kata; th;n didach;n) pistou` lovgou. Note, how the authorisation of the 

illegitimate leaders derives from human authority (ejntolai`" ajnqrwvpwn), while 

that of Paul originates directly from the divine (1:1-4). The ministry of Titus 


84

and the elders derives more indirectly from apostolic authorisation (1:5-9). In 

this part of the verse, the object of vilification shifts temporarily from 

individuals to the doctrinal origin of the false teaching. False doctrine derives 

from man and is authorised by man. Sound doctrine derives from God and is 

authorised by God. 

The next participial phrase, ajpostrefomevnoi th;n ajlhvqeian refocuses the 

attention on those who are targets of the vilification campaign. Throughout this 

entire sentence, the comparisons are implicit. The illegitimate teachers have 

reneged “the truth” (th;n ajlhvqeian) while Paul’s entire ministry is focused on 

ejpivgnwsin ajlhqeiva" th`" katÆ eujsevbeian (1:1). This description in verse 14, of 

the opposition’s relationship to the truth, constitutes the climax in the 

vilification of the opposition. Here, is the fundamental difference between 

legitimate and illegitimate ministry, namely the latter’s abandonment of the 

truth. Verses 13 and 14 are one sentence in Greek. It opens and closes with 

the word ajlhqeiva, first as an adjective and then as a noun. The word-chain is 

thus continued and serves to tie all the various units of this chapter together. 

The fact that God is ajyeudhv" does not bid well for the false teachers and their 

relationship to (the) truth. The repetitive use of the truth-lie dichotomy 

highlights the illegitimacy of the false teachers and presents them in a 

diametrically opposite stance from the divine. 

In verse 15, the apostle appears to zoom in on a key notion within the 

teaching of the false teachers, namely purity. He continues his vilification 

campaign by elaborating on the description of the teachings he introduced in 

verse 14. He accomplishes this through a technique described as antithetic 

presentation (Tolmie, 2005:33) or antithetic chiasmus (Quinn, 1990:101) 

which he combines with assonance of the vowel a. Additionally, he uses the 

repetition of several key words to intensify his focus. The most obvious is the 

word kaqarov~, which appears three times in this verse: pavnta kaqara; toi`" 

kaqaroi`": toi`" de; kai; ajpivstoi" oujde;n kaqarovn. Next, is the verb memivanw: 

memiammevnoi"… memivantai. Earlier, Paul used the noun pivsti~, now he 

employs the antonym ajpivsto", which accentuates the contrasts between the 


85

different groups. He relentlessly pursues his objective of vilifying the 

opponents, this time through contrasting the pure and the impure and name 

calling: memiammevnoi" kai; ajpivstoi". A final technique is the parallelism in the 

structure AABA, which can be indicated as follows: 

A pavnta kaqara; A toi`" kaqaroi`": 

B toi`" de; memiammevnoi" kai; ajpivstoi" A l oujde;n kaqarovn 

The sentence introduces two groups: the pure versus the defiled and 

unbelieving. The sentence accentuates the futility of trying to attain purity 

when you are already defiled and unbelieving. The participle, memiammevno~, is 

in the perfect tense and in the passive voice. It is translated as “those who 

have been defiled”. The repetition of key vocabulary and concomitant parallel 

structure, plus the rhetorical technique of assonance, draw attention to what 

may have been a dominant feature of the aberrant teaching, namely ritual 

purity. Paul shoots this notion down by convincingly illustrating its futility. The 

second clause emphasises the hopelessness of the efforts of the false 

teachers. Their defilement is not merely external but also internal: ajlla; 

memivantai aujtw`n kai; oJ nou`" kai; hJ suneivdhsi". In other words, they are totally 

defiled or utterly incapable of purity because their defilement extends to their 

minds (oJ nou`") and their consciences (hJ suneivdhsi"). 

In verse 16, Paul’s rhetorical strategy involves focusing on the ethical 

inconsistency of what the opponents are doing. They confess to know God 

(qeo;n oJmologou`sin eijdevnai) but instead they deny God by their works (toi`" de; 

e[rgoi" ajrnou`ntai). The contrast between “to know” and “they are denying” is 

obvious and intentional. The vilification comes in the form of an accusation 

that the false teachers are not serving God by their deeds, which is one of the 

fundamental tenets of Judaism and Christianity (cf. Mathew 7:21). The 

rhetorical effect of this is to provide the hearers with additional criteria by 

which to evaluate these false teachers. This final criterium is the most 

damning of them all, since what the opponents believe about God finds 

ultimate expression in the way they conduct their lives. In their case, it 


86

amounts to a complete denial of the foundational teachings of Christianity and 

Judaism. 

The verse concludes with an instance of polysyndetic emphatic clustering to 

complete this phase of vilification. The illegitimate teachers are bdeluktoi; 

(o[nte") kai; ajpeiqei`" kai; (pro;" pa`n e[rgon ajgaqo;n) ajdovkimoi. The underlined 

words are all adjectives, masculine, nominative plural and are linked by 

conjunctions. Contrary to their appearance of purity, Paul describes the false 

teachers as ajdovkimo~ (abominable or detestable). This interesting word is a 

New Testament harpax legomenon. It denotes that which is an abomination to 

God (Zodhiates, 1992:330; Mounce, 2000:403). ajpeiqhv" denotes 

unwillingness to be persuaded, unbelieving, disobedient (Zodhiates, 

1992:549). The last word in the trilogy, ajdovkimo~, means unapproved, 

unworthy, spurious or worthless (Zodhiates, 1992:96). An ironic picture 

concludes this section. Those who profess to know God is considered an 

abomination (to God). Having earlier referred to them as ajpivsto~, the apostle 

now uses the word ajpeiqhv" to express a similar thought but in stronger terms: 

they are beyond persuasion. The final word concludes the picture by 

accentuating the illegitimacy of these false teachers. The expression pa`n 

e[rgon ajgaqovn is a transitionary device in lieu of the next section and will be 

developed in the subsequent sections. The point is that such works cannot be 

expected from the false teachers and also not from those who subscribe to 

their teaching. 

Conclusion 

In this section Paul’s dominant rhetorical objective has been to discredit the 

illegitimate leaders. His primary rhetorical strategy involves vilification of the 

opposition. Paul uses several techniques to facilitate his objective, reducing 

the opposition to a less than human state. Through the technique called 

emphatic clustering, he immediately and directly focuses the attention upon 

the impostors. This strategy magnifies the illegitimacy of the false teachers 

and provides justification for the apostolic vitriol that they receive in this 

section. The vilification is furthermore intensified through techniques like 


87

implicit contrasting. The negative qualities of the false teachers follow after the 

description of the qualifications for elders-overseers. The proximity of the two 

pictures inevitably encourages the drawing of comparisons between the two 

groups. Paul goes beyond this to compare the false teachers with everyone 

else mentioned earlier, including God. This is made possible through the 

ingenious repetitions of synonyms and antonyms. For example, there is a 

deliberate play upon the truth-lie dichotomy made possible entirely by the 

repetition of words like truth, liars and “unlying”. The false teachers’ lack of 

commitment to the truth is also highlighted through the repetition of the words 

“truth” and “the truth”. 

Alienating language, which involves the use of them-us language, is another 

technique employed in this section. This has the effect of isolating the false 

teachers as well as discouraging those believers who might be tempted to 

embrace the aberrant teaching. In verse 12, Paul draws on external evidence 

to substantiate his position. 

Example is another one of several effective techniques employed in this 

section. Paul implicitly appeals to the example of the divine character when, 

through the use of the quote, he calls to mind verse 2 where God is described 

as one who cannot lie. In this quote, the Cretans are branded as liars. The 

parallel is glaring. 

Paul eventually highlights an aspect of the false teaching that emphasises 

purity. He exposes the futility of the teaching, by using parallelism and 

concludes the section with another dose of emphatic clustering, just for 

emphasis. He also uses the rhetorical technique of assonance and introduces 

a new concept that he will develop in subsequent sections. This latter 

tendency is an example of a transitional device, something Paul has 

consistently done throughout this chapter. 


88

2.2.4 Titus 2:1: Distinguishing Titus as a minister of sound 

doctrine on the basis of apostolic authorisation 

The dominant rhetorical objective in this section is to distinguish Titus as a 

minister of sound doctrine on the basis of apostolic authorisation. This section 

follows on from the previous section in which the author discredited the 

opposition through the rhetorical technique of vilification. Here, he is 

distinguishing Titus by commending him as a minister of sound doctrine with 

apostolic endorsement. Furthermore, the mandate of Titus is extended in that 

he becomes responsible not only for the appointment of office bearers but 

also for the disbursement of sound doctrine to the believers. Titus is thus 

presented here as one who is qualified to teach the church as opposed to the 

opposition (1:11). 

The ministry of Titus is set apart from that of the false teachers in various 

ways. To achieve this task, the apostle uses several linguistic markers. First, 

there is the emphatic placement of the second person singular personal 

pronoun suv at the beginning of the sentence, together with the adversative 

conjunction dev. While marking off the section as separate from the previous 

one, it also contrasts Titus' ministry by drawing attention to the apostolic 

imperative from which his ministry originates. If someone from Crete were to 

ask "Why are you teaching these things to us?” Titus could answer, “The 

apostle Paul commanded me to". Next, Titus is commanded to “speak”, lalevw. 

This is an interesting word choice. The false teachers were “teaching”, 

didavskonte" (1:11). So, why does Paul not instruct Titus to “teach” (didavskw)? 

Why this change of vocabulary? Could it be that he wants to create some 

distance between Titus, here representing legitimate ministry and the false 

teachers who represent illegitimate ministry? Another option is that the close 

proximity to the remaining words in the sentence could have distorted the 

meaning of particularly didaskaliva. Thus, he appears to be protecting the 

distinctive or technical sense of the word didaskaliva. Alternatively, the 

variation of vocabulary might have been intended to avoid redundancy. This is 

an example of the rhetorical technique paranomasia (word play). A third 


89

marker is the use of the plural of the neuter relative pronoun, a}. This pronoun 

has an immediate correlation to the false teachers who, according to 1:11, 

teaches a} mh; dei`. Rhythmically, with reference to metre, as well as aurally, 

with reference to assonance of the vowel a, and the diphthong ei, the relation 

between the words in their different contexts is undeniable. A hearer would 

immediately have picked up this similarity of sound and noticed the intended 

difference between what is said to Titus and what is said about the false 

teachers. Titus, unlike the false teachers must speak, a} prevpei th`/ uJgiainouvsh/ 

didaskaliva. Interestingly, the expression hJ uJgiainouvsh didaskaliva is here 

reversed, when compared to its first occurrence in 1:9. Furthermore, the first 

time these two words appear together is in the context of elders-overseers, 

who must parakalevw the teaching. Now, Titus shares that responsibility as he 

must lavlew it. Here, repetition is used to establish a positive association. The 

parallel between the verbs used is also unmistakable. Thus, Titus and the 

elders-overseers are shown to be allies or associates, while the false teachers 

are shown to be aliens. Purely through the choice of vocabulary, the apostle 

manages to distinguish the ministry of Titus and the elders-overseers from 

that of the false teachers through the ingenious combination of the neuter 

article and an expression used earlier with reference to another set of 

validated ministers of the church: a} prevpei th`/ uJgiainouvsh/ didaskaliva. 

Conclusion 

This section appears upon a first inspection to be addressed to Titus. 

However, from a rhetorical angle, the manner in which the apostle ties this 

section to the preceding one suggests that a wider audience is intended. The 

opening sentence is directed to distinguish Titus and what he does as the 

apostolic delegate among the Cretan believers (cf. 1:5). This is the dominant 

rhetorical objective of this section. More importantly though, is the fact that 

this verse also introduces the notion of healthy doctrine. In the next section 

(2:2-10), the concept of healthy doctrine will be developed in a comprehensive 

sense. The doctrine of the false teachers has been discredited in the previous 

section and their profession of faith was shown to be nothing more than hot air 


90

ecause of their works (1:16). The false teachers were teaching "things not 

necessary" (1:11). Titus is distinguished as one entitled to teach something 

very specific, namely "things fitting for sound doctrine". In this section, Paul is 

simply "backing" or validating his man. The rhetorical techniques used in this 

section include: paronomasia, metre, assonance, emphatic use of pronouns 

and repetition. 

2.2.5 Titus 2:2-10: Persuading the Cretans that personal conduct 

compliant with sound doctrine is compulsory and should 

characterise all believers 

The dominant rhetorical strategy of this section is to persuade the Cretans 

that personal conduct compliant with sound doctrine is compulsory and should 

characterise all believers. Sound doctrine is given its fullest explanation in this 

section. In this section, Paul’s objective is to give substance to the notion of 

sound doctrine. In other words, it sets out to answer the question: What does 

sound doctrine look like?” Paul correlates sound doctrine to the manifestation 

of right behaviour. Earlier, in 1:10-16, right behaviour was shown to be the key 

indicator of a genuine profession of faith in God (1:10-16). The false teachers 

by their deeds are denying God; conversely, believers by their deeds must 

confess God. Thus, the inseparable correspondence between deeds and 

sound doctrine is at the heart of Paul’s rhetorical objective in this section. The 

author makes extensive use of the rhetorical method of implicit contrast to 

achieve this objective. 

The distinction between “sound” and “unsound” is consistently highlighted in 

this section. The objective involves providing the Cretan believers with 

reasons why they should embrace sound doctrine rather than the “things” of 

the false teachers. The text suggests that part of what the apostle is 

countering in this letter is the tendency among Cretan Christians to tolerate 

unhealthy teachers. This weakness corroborates the theory of the relative 

newness of the church of Crete. It appears that they have not yet learnt to 

discern between healthy and unhealthy teaching and was still in need of 


91

instruction in this regard. “Healthy doctrine” is never defined anywhere in this 

letter. This is probably explicable from the fact that Paul does not seem to 

treat it as a theoretical concept. Instead, sound doctrine appears to be 

manifested in practical, personal and public conduct by all believers. 

In 2:2-10, Paul delineates the behaviour that will characterise obedience to 

healthy doctrine as manifested through the lives of different categories of 

believers. These groups seem to be arranged in a particular order and are 

clearly cordoned off from each other. In a footnote, Hendriksen (1957:363) 

draws attention to the rhetorical technique of a chiastic arrangement of the 

first four groups in this section: 

older men (2:2) older women (2:3) 

young women (2:4-5) young men (2:6) 

In verses 2-5, the author describes what behaviour fitting for sound doctrine 

looks like for older men, older women and younger women. This is followed by 

a purpose statement in the form of a i{na-clause. In verses 6-7 he deals with 

the behaviour of young men and of Titus, also followed by a i{na-clause. The 

behaviour of slaves is the final social category (2:9-10) and this too is followed 

by a i{na-clause. The section thus comprises verses 2-10 and is further 

subdivided by three i{na-clauses. The list is general and comprehensive. 

2.2.5.1 The behaviour of older men 

In verse 2, Paul directs attention to the conduct of older men in the 

congregation that will comply with sound doctrine. Here the noun presbuvth~ 

(older man) appears, while earlier (1:5) its adjectival form, namely 

presbutevro~, is used to refer to an officer of the church. The change in 

terminology suggests that this group is distinct from the leaders mentioned 

previously. Fee (1988:185) argues that the agreement between the 

characteristics for elder-overseers and older men could be attributed to the 

fact that the former would be appointed from latter group. Nevertheless, the 


92

language suggests that as members of the church older men are expected to 

manifest observable behaviour that confirms their standing as legitimate 

believers. Through the repetition of a similar word, the idea is communicated 

that there ought to be congruency between the behaviour of older men in the 

church and that of the leaders and vice versa. Thus, by their conduct, older 

men will confirm their allegiance to the teaching of those ministering to the 

church. 

Next, the apostle employs shared knowledge as he lists the reasonable, 

expected conduct of those associated with the church. These constitute 

borrowings from secular society (Towner, 1994:236; Dibelius & Conzelmann, 

1972:50-51). They must be nhfalivoi, semnoiv, swvfronoi and uJgiaivnonte". The 

first and third adjectives communicate the idea of sensibleness, self-control, 

and sobriety. semnov~ refers to the dignified conduct of an elderly man in 

society and the church. Through the use of the adjective swvfrono", this 

section is tied to the virtues associated with elders-overseers (cf. 1:8) in the 

same way that Titus is associated with the elders-overseers through the 

words uJgiainouvsh didaskaliva. 

The participle uJgiaivnonte" is the fourth quality in this list and is modified by 

three nouns that are all dative, feminine and singular: th`/ pivstei, th`/ ajgavph/, 

th`/ uJpomonh/. This is another instance of asyndetic emphatic clustering. Paul 

expects older men to manifest spiritual health or wholeness. In 1:13, Titus 

must rebuke false teachers that they may be “sound in the faith” (i{na 

uJgiaivnwsin ejn th`/ pivstei). The same thing is expected of older men: 

uJgiaivnonte" th`/ pivstei. This parallel expression signifies an instance of 

implicit contrast being made between the older men and the false teachers. 

The latter might become “sound” or “healthy” only after severe rebuke. The 

older men on the other hand, are “sound” or “healthy” as a result of legitimate 

teacher(s) who must lavlei a} prevpei th`/ uJgiainouvsh/ didaskaliva. Older men 

must also be healthy in love and perseverance. The combination of these 

positive qualities appears to balance the citation with the three negative traits 

in 1:12. These qualities are therefore, presented as commendable, made 


93

almost desirable. Thus, legitimate teaching is presented in a very positive light 

through the use of these rhetorical devices. The rhetorical objective is 

evidently to motivate the believers to manifest behaviour that gives evidence 

of their compliance to uJgiainouvsh didaskaliva. 

The participle of uJgiaivnw is used in all three instances thus far, namely 1:9, 

2:1 and 2:2. This is an instance of direct repetition. Sound doctrine ought to 

manifest as soundness that will in turn affect other areas of the individual life. 

The intention behind these lists is to provide criteria for the kind of behaviour 

that would be viewed as evidence for compliance to sound doctrine by older 

men. It communicates the following notion: “Older men, if you really are 

obedient to sound doctrine you will behave in these particular ways. If you are 

not behaving in these ways, it must be reasonably concluded that you are not 

obedient to sound doctrine”. Paul is not suggesting that the older men are 

leaders though. As was said about elders-overseers, the lists constitute what 

is called shared knowledge although is highly likely that local leaders were 

selected from this category (Fee, 1988:185, Towner, 1994:236; Dibelius & 

Conzelmann, 1972:50-51). The positive qualities enunciated here were 

qualities that the broader society considered commendable. Paul however, 

attributes such behaviour to the influence of sound teaching and expects that 

the older men by their conduct must manifest submission to sound teaching. 

Here. the audience is presented with behaviour that complies with sound 

doctrine and that would be considered good by the rest of society. 

2.2.5.2 The behaviour of older women 

In verse 3, older women (presbu`ti") are required to manifest behaviour 

compliant with sound doctrine. The adverb wJsauvtw" relates this sentence to 

the previous one. For older women, compliance to sound doctrine involves 

their behaviour or demeanour (katasthvma). The hapax legomenon, 

iJeroprephv~, refers to religious conduct or behaviour. It means “to act like a 

sacred person” (Zodhiates, 1992:762). While these lists are also examples of 

“shared knowledge”, they undergo a change in the hand of the apostle. This is 

brought about, here and elsewhere, through the use of special religious 


94

language. The word iJeroprephv~ is a case in point. According to Collins 

(2002:341), it was used by classical authors to describe “priests and 

priestesses, religious processions and the like”. The author goes on to 

emphasise this characteristic by immediately restating it with a double 

negative, namely mh; diavboloi and mh; oi[nw/ pollw`/ dedoulwmevnai. Both are 

observable behaviour and where they are lacking such a person cannot be 

said to be iJeroprephv~. Hence, they would not be manifesting compliance to 

sound doctrine. Paul employs these lists to establish objective criteria by 

which to measure a profession of faith in God. Changed lives that benefit 

society are the only evidence to demonstrate the effect of healthy teaching. 

Finally, older women must also be kalodidavskaloi. This compound word is 

made up of the word kalov~ (good) and didavskalo~ (teacher). It is another 

instance of the rhetorical technique called paranomasia. It repeats a similar 

idea following on from the immediate context of 2:1 and links it to earlier 

sections (1:9, 10). Older women must therefore be “teachers of what is good”. 

Older women who qualify are hereby authorised to teach. They would be 

recognised as legitimate teachers in the church, although it would appear to 

be in a limited capacity. Interestingly, the privilege to teach is made subject to 

the fulfilment of prior criteria and thus comes at the end of the list. This same 

principle applies to elders-overseers who can only teach (parakalei`n) if they 

have proven themselves in their family and private lives (1:5-9). Older women, 

likewise, are authorised to teach in so far as they themselves demonstrate 

their willingness to be taught. By way of implicit contrast, older women are 

distinguished from false teachers, since the latter are unauthorised to teach 

and “upset whole families” (1:11), while the former are authorised to “teach 

what is good”. Paul employs the same argument here as in the case of older 

men. The behaviour that older women are expected to manifest, are 

considered to be both Christian, as well as behaviour that society associates 

with older women. 

2.2.5.3 The behaviour of younger women 

In verse 4, older women are made responsible to teach younger women (aiJ 

nevai). The verb swfronivzwin is present active subjunctive, third person plural. 


95

The subject is the older women. This is another interesting vocabulary switch 

or use of alternative vocabulary. Titus must speak (lavlew), and older women 

on the other hand must advise, encourage or urge (swfronivzw). Thus, neither 

Titus nor the older women must didavskw like the false teachers (1:11). The 

rhetorical objective seems to be the maintenance of a gap between legitimate 

and illegitimate teachers, or to avoid confusing associations between the 

opposing groups. More importantly though, is the focus area of the teaching, 

namely the family. The illegitimate teachers with their “things” (aJ) had a 

subversive effect upon o{loi oi[koi (1:11). In contradistinction, legitimate 

teaching proves to be to the advantage of families. As was mentioned 

elsewhere (cf. 81), Greco-Roman culture placed great significance on stable 

family institutions. According to Johnson (1996:235), Christian households 

that ignored the mores of civil society could jeopardise the credibility of the 

Christian message. The apostle begins by emphasising the husband-wife and 

parent-child relationships (4). The family focus is perpetuated throughout this 

sentence, verse 5, through the use of words like oijkourgov" that contains the 

words oijkov~ and ejrgov~. This emphasis confirms the belief surrounding the 

importance of the family unit to the Cretans. The prior vilification section and 

this reference to the family, suggest that people were judged based on their 

commitment to the progress or destruction of the family unit. The behaviour 

commended in verse 4 would constitute a strong argument in favour of 

complying with sound doctrine. 

Through the repetition of key words, the author is able to maintain a sense of 

coherence and momentum in the discourse. Such a word is the word swvfrwn. 

The verbal cognate appears with reference to older women swfronivzwsin. 

The adjective also appears in the virtue lists pertaining to older men (2:2) and 

elders-overseers (1:8). 

The reference to younger women also comprises a list of virtuous qualities 

that constitute shared knowledge. However, Paul adapts the list to achieve 

theological objectives through the use of religious language. For example, 

aJgnov" constitutes such religious language. Particular sounds and words are 


96

also intentionally repeated for emphatic effect. For example, the words ta;" 

neva" (filavndrou" ei\nai, filotevknou") swvfrona" aJgna;" (oijkourgou;") ajgaqav", 

and uJpotassomevna" all give evidence of the deliberate repetition of the a"- 

sound. The same holds true for the ou~ -sound in filavndrou" (ei\nai), 

filotevknou" (swvfrona" aJgna;") oijkourgou;" ajgaqav"…. The word fivlo~ 

appears in the two compound nouns filavndrou" and filotevknou" and 

emphasises endearment within the family context. The prefix fivlo~, is another 

instance of anaphora used earlier with reference to the elders-overseers (cf. 

1:8). A definite link is established between the sound behaviour of the younger 

women and the conduct of the elders-overseers. When these women conduct 

themselves in their homes in compliance to sound doctrine, their behaviour 

places them in company with those who teach and obey sound doctrine. No 

one in the audience would suggest that a wife feel any different about her 

husband and her children. Who would be able to discredit teaching that 

encourages behaviour reflecting such an elevated view of the family; that 

encourages its adherents to serve it; that encourages a view of the family 

institution that even secular society aspires after? It would be extremely 

difficult to resist being persuaded to adopt behaviour fitting for sound doctrine. 

Verse 4 introduces another angle from which Paul argues for compliance to 

sound doctrine. He has argued on the basis of shared knowledge that the 

behaviour characteristic of sound doctrine is behaviour that the rest of society 

values. The behaviour is however, more than simple compliance to human 

expectations. God expects those who believe in Him to manifest this particular 

kind of behaviour! The i{na-clause functions to distinguish the virtue lists from 

any secular lists. Arguing on the basis of divine authorisation, Paul shows that 

God expects His followers to behave in a specific manner so that His word will 

not be maligned, i{na mh; oJ lovgo" tou` qeou` blasfhmh`tai. Paul’s argument is 

that the expected behaviour is of a transcendent quality, being behaviour that 

God requires. The consequence for non-compliant behaviour is also 

transcendent in nature, namely the maligning of the divine word. Thus, the 

relationship between sound doctrine and sound deeds is ultimately 

transcendent and presented as inseparable. Wrong behaviour will impact 


97

negatively upon the oJ lovgo" tou` qeou`. In other words, more is at stake than 

simply the good reputation of individuals. The very reputation of the word of 

God, oJ lovgo" tou` qeou`, depends upon the manifestation of proper behaviour 

by believers, especially by young wives in submission to their husbands. Just 

like Paul was entrusted with the manifest word of God (1:3), so now the 

Cretan believers are required to manifest the word of God through godly 

character. If they would not, God’s word would be discredited (blasfhmevw) in 

the eyes of outsiders. The divine nature of the consequences attached to this 

teaching makes it necessary that believers behave in accordance to sound 

doctrine. 

2.2.5.4 The behaviour of young men 

Verse 6 is related to the previous category through the adverb wJsauvtw". Thus, 

everything said so far also applies to young men, newtevroi, whom Titus must 

“exhort” (parakavlei). The verb parakavlei is another instance of a direct 

repetition of a word used earlier with reference to the task of elders-overseers 

(1:9). It accentuates the proximity between Titus and the overseers and 

supports the idea of Titus functioning as role model to the elders. Titus must 

exhort the young men to swfronei`n. This is also an instance of repetition of a 

similar word. Earlier, a cognate of this verb was used in connection with the 

role of older women who must swfronivzw younger women. 

2.2.5.5 The behaviour of Titus 

The teaching is extended in verse 7 to Titus who must “present himself” 

(seauto;n parecovmeno") as “an example” (tuvpo~) of “good works” (kalav e[rgav). 

The latter expression takes up a similar expression introduced in 1:16 as 

e[rgon ajgaqo;n. The two words are close synonyms. The implicit contrast is 

undeniable: Titus, as a tuvpo" kalw`n e[rgwn, must distinguish himself from 

those who are “worthless for any good work”, pro;" pa`n e[rgon ajgaqo;n 

ajdovkimoi (1:16). The repetition of the adjective pav~ is emphatic and suggests 

the perpetuation of the contrast between the two opposing groups. Another 


98

direct repetition occurs in the word didaskaliva, which here is part of a 

prepositional phrase, in regard to which Titus must be incorruptible (ajfqoriva). 

The combination of three nouns, of which two are modified, is another 

instance of emphatic clustering. The trio comprises the nouns ajfqoriva, 

semnovth~ and lovgo~ uJgihv~, which are here modified by the adjective 

ajkatavgnwsto~ (irreproachable). The minister of legitimate teaching must be 

unmistakably distinguishable from the illegitimate teachers. A more important 

implication is this: even Titus is not above sound teaching. His life must 

correspond to the doctrine. This is totally in line with everything that has been 

taught so far in this letter. 

As in verse 5, where the integrity of the teaching (oJ lovgo" tou` qeou`) was tied 

to the conduct of submissive wives, so in the case of Titus the integrity of the 

teachers are tied to the example of Titus. The second i{na-clause alludes to 

opposition (ejx ejnantiva") who would be put to shame (ejntrevpw) and prevented 

from saying bad things about the legitimate teachers. Most commentators 

understand this sentence to refer to Paul and Titus only. But it begs the 

question as to whether Titus, who is introduced as a “son” of the apostle, 

would behave in a manner that would compromise the integrity of the mission 

and even that of the apostle. A conclusion in the negative seems more 

probable, coupled with the suggestion that the pronoun hJmei`~, represents the 

entire Christian movement. The use of the pronoun is a rhetorical technique to 

facilitate identification; to engender the “us-them” sentiment. The apostle 

speaks as an insider. In this way, he is in effect saying that if they (the 

opposition) bad-mouth you, they bad-mouth me. This part of the sentence 

also evinces assonance of the e-sound: “… ejx ejnantiva" ejntraph`/ mhde;n e[cwn 

levgein peri; hJmw`n …”. This is for emphatic purposes, to highlight the serious 

consequences of compromising conduct. Believers must conduct themselves 

in compliance with sound doctrine because the apostle expects this behaviour 

from them. This constitutes an argument based upon apostolic authorisation. 


99

2.2.5.6 The behaviour of slaves 

In verses 9-10 the behaviour of Christian slaves (douvloi) is addressed. There 

are several instances of direct repetition from earlier sections that ties this 

section to the content of the entire discourse. It includes the following words: 

dou`lo" (1:1), uJpotavssw (2:4), ajntilevgw (1:9), pa`~ (1:15, 16; 2:7), pivsto~ (1:1, 

4, 6, 9, 13; 2:2), ajgaqov~ (1:16; 2:5), didaskaliva (1:9, 11; 2:1, 7), swth`r (1:3, 

4), qeov~ (1:1 – twice, 7, 16; 2:5), and the expression swthvr hJmw`n qeov~ (1:3). 

The rhetorical significance of this extensive repetition lies in the parallels and 

comparisons that are drawn through it. It is also important for the cohesion of 

this unit. 

Paul introduced himself as a douvlo~ in 1:1. This self-signification softens any 

negative connotation associated with this word. In fact, it places the master- 

slave relationship in a positive light, thus serving an ameliorative purpose. 

Furthermore, Paul’s identification with those at the bottom end of the social 

ladder would do much to commend him and especially the content of this 

letter to the congregation. On another level, Paul takes the place of a role 

model as he demonstrates his obedience to God. There is therefore, a sense 

in which Paul is speaking here, not as a high-handed apostle, but rather as a 

fellow slave in submission to the great Master. It is from this perspective that 

he can “urge” slaves in the congregation to follow his example. The rest of the 

congregation would be hard pressed to reject those who are lower in the 

social order, since they would then have to reject even Paul. Thus, through 

the use of this word, the apostle is facilitating harmony within the 

congregation. 

Slaves must “submit” (uJpotavssw) to their (own) masters in the same way that 

younger women are expected to “submit” (uJpotavssw) to their (own) husbands 

(2:4). By contrast, the false teachers have been vilified as ajnupovtaktoi (1:10). 

Through paronomasia, Paul establishes on the one hand, a positive 

connection between the various groups of believers while on the other hand 

facilitating a contrast with the opposition. The paranomasia maintains the 

polarity between those who are “sound” and those who are “unsound”. Paul 


100

makes a very persuasive case for the adoption of sound doctrine and the 

resultant compliant behaviour since sound doctrine manifests as uJpotavssw, 

while false doctrine manifests as behaviour vilified as ajnupovtakto~. The 

audience must choose. Another word that was used to describe the opposition 

is repeated in this address to slaves, namely ajntilevgw. The repetition serves 

a similar objective as the earlier word, namely to discourage such behaviour 

by drawing the parallel with the false teachers. This is an instance of negative 

role modelling or stigmatisation. By associating this word with the opposition, 

it becomes negative; an attitude or behaviour that must be avoided. Paul does 

the same, in a positive sense, through the word douvlo~. 

While the false teachers are “worthless for any good work” (pa`n e[rgon ajgaqo;n 

ajdovkimoi), the slaves must “show/demonstrate all good faith” (pa`san pivstin 

ejndeiknumevnoi ajgaqhvn). The disparity between the two groups is intensified by 

the work-faith antithesis. Slaves who obey the legitimate teaching 

demonstrate by that their alliance to “the faith”. The rhetorical objective is to 

alienate the false teachers through stigmatisation and to attract the believers 

through positive association with those who demonstrate compliance to sound 

doctrine by good behaviour. 

The third i{na-clause, 2:9 is positive, unlike the previous two (2:5, 6) that are 

phrased in such a way as to discourage the negative consequences of non- 

compliance to sound doctrine. God expects behaviour compliant to sound 

doctrine, because it “adorns” or “beautifies” (kosmevw) the teaching of God (hJ 

didaskaliva hJ tou` swth`ro" hJmw`n qeou'). This is the third example of an 

argument based upon divine authorisation. The triple repetition of this 

argument is in itself an emphatic strategy. It emphasises the truth that these 

behavioural characteristics are mandatory, not primarily because the rest of 

society expects it, but rather because God expects people to behave in these 

ways. 

The apostle reserves the highest commendation for the lowest sector of 

society by ascribing to them the honour of adorning the doctrine of God. The 

divine nature of the teaching is emphasised by referring to it as belonging to 


101

or originating from God (tou' … qeou'). This reference to God takes up a theme 

introduced in the salutation. In the present instance, it serves as a 

transitionary device that will be developed in the subsequent section. In this 

way, the apostle systematically ties the various sections together into a unified 

whole. 

The exhortation, to adorn the doctrine of God, is a beautiful variation of 

rhetorical strategy. When one wants to persuade, it is good to present a 

positive challenge to people that encourages the desired outcome instead of 

merely speaking in prohibitory tones. 

There is clearly a parallel between the reference in 2:5 to oJ lovgo" tou` qeou' 

and hJ didaskaliva … tou` … qeou'. On the one hand, the expressions are 

synonymous. On the other hand, they reveal a contrast and progression within 

the section. In the respective sentences, the verbs that are employed 

progress from negative (blasfhmevw) to positive (kosmevw). Additionally, there is 

development in the theological dimension of the two sentences. The reference 

tou` qeou` in 2:5, becomes swth`ro" hJmw`n qeou'. Finally, the presence of the 

personal pronoun is an instance of inclusive language or the “us-them” 

reference. Again, Paul cannot be understood to imply that God is only the 

Saviour of himself and Titus. Everything that has been said about the 

apostle’s use of vocabulary militates against such a narrow interpretation. 

There appears therefore, to be an evident theological progression that will 

climax in the next section. It is as if Paul has not said everything he wants to 

say; he wants to ground the teaching expressed in chapter 2. This is exactly 

what he is going to do in the ensuing section. 

Conclusion 

In this section, the dominant rhetorical strategy is to persuade the Cretans that 

personal conduct compliant with sound doctrine is compulsory and should 


102

characterise all believers. The comprehensive nature of sound doctrine is 

demonstrated by applying it to various sectors of the social strata of Crete. 

Even Titus is not excluded from the influence of legitimate teaching. 

Two lines of argument are used to achieve the dominant objective. The first 

argument is based upon the notion of shared knowledge. Christians must 

manifest the right behaviour because the rest of society also considers such 

behaviour to be good. The next line of argument is transcendent in nature. 

The behaviour that believers must manifest is behaviour that God expects 

from people (5, 6, 9). The repetition of this line of reasoning suggests that the 

apostle considers it to be more authoritative and binding upon believers. In 

other words the behaviour that believers must manifest exceeds the 

maintenance of a good public image - they must live up to the expectations of 

God! 

Through rhetorical techniques like repetition, behaviour compliant with sound 

doctrine is demonstrated to characterise all believers; thus, the 

correspondence between the behavioural characteristics of older men and 

elder-overseers and between Paul being a slave of God and the Christian 

slaves in Crete. The positive effect of Christian behaviour in the home is 

negatively contrasted with the damaging effect of false teachers (1:11). 

Similarly, the behaviour of “teaching what is good” (2:3) spoken about older 

women is contrasted with the false teachers who “teach things not necessary” 

(1:11). These techniques maintain the tension between “sound” and 

“unsound”, forcing the audience to choose a position. 

The superiority of legitimate teaching over against illegitimate teaching is a 

secondary outcome of this section. Thus, sound doctrine must be embraced 

and the corresponding behaviour must be manifested because it is superior to 

false doctrine. This superiority is more implicit rather than explicit in the text. 

Sound teaching benefits the family institution, by respecting the authority of 

the husband. This is the same argument used with reference to slaves. 

Furthermore, some theological progression is discernible from the references 


103

to God and this paves the way for the next section. The expression swth`r 

hJmw`n qeou' is taken up here, having first appeared in the salutation and serves 

as a transitionary device that will be developed in the next section. 

Other rhetorical techniques used in this section include inclusive language, 

paronomasia, role modelling and stigmatisation, while the use of implicit 

contrast occurs constantly. 

2.2.6 Titus 2: 11-15: Emphasising the divine basis of obedience 

to sound doctrine 

The dominant rhetorical objective in this section is to emphasise the divine 

basis of obedience to sound doctrine. In the previous section, Paul highlighted 

the relationship between sound doctrine and deeds compliant with the 

doctrine. Deeds corresponding to sound doctrine were shown to comply with 

the expectations of the rest of society. In verses 5 and 10, he alluded to the 

transcendent nature of the prescribed behaviour, namely that it is behaviour 

that God expects from people. He furthermore, emphasised the benefits that 

legitimate teaching has for the broad spectrum of the congregation as well as 

the beneficial influence of legitimate teaching upon social institutions like the 

family and servant-master relationships. Now, Paul is going to proverbially 

“clinch the deal” by a final argument. He is going to justify the divine 

expectation for sound behaviour in accordance with sound doctrine by arguing 

on the basis of the divine origin of this teaching. Not only is the behaviour in 

line with that which God expects, but so is the doctrine that prescribes the 

behaviour. Paul is now arguing that God is the one teaching the doctrine, 

making the doctrine and the behaviour inseparable. The teaching as well as 

the Teacher are transcendent and must therefore be obeyed because it is not 

of human origin. It applies, and the Cretans are radically bound to it. In other 

words, sound doctrine must be obeyed, because it is the exact opposite of 

“the commandments of men” (1:14). Not to obey the doctrine and therefore 


104

not manifesting these particular behavioural characteristics is tantamount to 

disobedience to God. This is the point that Paul develops in this section. 

Verses 11-14 are one sentence in the original Greek. This is the second 

unusually long sentence in this letter. The use of such a long sentence is in 

itself a strategic rhetorical technique used to emphasise the material 

communicated by it. Fee (1988:193) calls it a “marvellous passage” with “so 

much theological grist that it is easy to analyze it solely on its own merits and 

thereby overlook its place in the context of the letter”. Most commentators 

appear not to see any relationship between the theological references in 

verses 5 and 9 and those in the present section but correctly recognise the 

theological import of the section and its explanatory function with regard to 

2:2-10 (Mounce, 2000:433; Quinn, 1990: 162; Johnson, 1996:240-241). The 

section is related to the previous section by the use of the conjunction gavr, 

which here functions in an explanatory capacity. A number of linguistic 

parallels tie these two sections together. For example, the words in verse 10, 

tou` … qeou` and the proximate word, swthvr, are repeated in verse 11. There is 

also a transition from th;n didaskalivan … tou` … qeou` (2:10) to hJ cavri" tou` 

qeou' (2:11). 

The author employs repetition, unique vocabulary and other rhetorical 

techniques to accomplish his objectives in this section. The dominant 

rhetorical objective is to emphasise the theological foundation of the conduct 

expounded in 2:2-10, by highlighting the divine origin of the teaching. The 

teaching should be embraced because it is not a human idea. 

The best explanation for what Paul is doing in this instance is the analogy of 

an eavesdropper. Paul is ostensibly in a conversation with Titus. Hultgren 

(1984:19, 20) describes this as “talking past” Titus to the community. Paul’s 

conversation with Titus is done, in such a manner as to “invite” or attract 

others to become part of it. While there is no direct communication with the 

Cretan believers at any stage in this discourse, they are an integral part of it. 


105

This explains the use of inclusive language, which is perpetuated throughout 

this section. 

2.2.6.1 The universal appearance of grace in the past 

In verse 11, the transcendent nature of the teaching that mandates the 

behaviour is emphasised first. The transformation that the Cretans are 

required to manifest (2-10) is explicable with reference to the appearance of 

the saving grace of God ( jEpefavnh ga;r hJ cavri" tou` qeou` swthvrio" ...). It 

appeared to all men (pa`sin ajnqrwvpoi"), including the Cretans at some point in 

the past, as suggested by the aorist tense of the verb ejpifaivnw. The universal 

appearance and inclusiveness of divine grace is a key emphasis in this part of 

the sentence. Furthermore, the combination of the verb ejpifaivnw, and the 

adjective pav~, suggests that this event was neither a clandestine occasion nor 

limited to a particular group. According to Quinn (1990:163), the expression 

pav~ a[nqrwpo~ is used by Paul outside of the Pastorals for polemical purposes. 

Thus, the use of the adjective pav~ here suggests a polemical purpose against 

the illegitimate teaching, which may have encouraged mythological, secretive 

and exclusive tendencies. The immediate context confirms such an 

interpretation since Paul takes great pains to specify the different categories 

that can be found in the church. The lowest category, namely “slaves”, is 

presented positively being afforded the privilege to “adorn the doctrine of God” 

(2:10). 

2.2.6.2 The particular instruction of grace in the present 

In verse 12, the expression paideuvousa hJma`" introduces a limitation. The 

participle form of the verb paideuvw is present active. Thus, grace continues to 

instruct in the present. Grace now, at present, instructs, paideuvw, only a very 

particular group, namely “us”. Again, this cannot merely refer to Paul and 

Titus. Instead, it is another instance of inclusive language that includes the 

“eavesdroppers”. By using inclusive language, Paul is clearly showing his 

approval and submission to this teaching or instruction. He is also in complete 

community with those who are so instructed. Commentators debate the 


106

interpretation of the verb paideuvw, arguing that it denotes both chastisement 

or discipline and education (Mounce, 2000:423, 424; Johnson, 1992:241; 

Quinn, 1990:163, 164). A punitive connotation does not suit the immediate 

context. Instead, the focus of the chapter is upon instruction or sound doctrine 

in which case discipline or education is the better interpretation. Thus, grace is 

now “educating us” (Classen, 2002:58). It is also explicable as an instance of 

the use of a synonymous expression to differentiate legitimate from 

illegitimate teaching. Additionally, this verb suggests the notion of family, since 

instruction would first occur in the family. If this interpretation is tenable, then 

Paul’s use of the third person pronoun is a good strategy to facilitate 

identification and community. 

A new aspect to Paul’s strategy is the use of personification. He applies this 

rhetorical technique to the concept of grace, which appeared (11) and now 

instructs (12) the believers. Kelly (1960:244) does not interpret grace as 

personified but prefers instead to interpret it as “God’s free favour, the 

spontaneous goodness by which he intervenes to help deliver men”. The 

present tense of the verb makes the teaching act (paideuvw) real, personal and 

imminent or as Johnson (1996:240) puts it “contemporary and continuous”. 

Obedience to the instruction becomes obedience to “someone”, rather than 

something. This is a very persuasive angle. Grace offers the complete 

opposite of what the false teachers have to offer. This formulation of the 

proposition makes sound doctrine more appealing and the argument for 

compliance to it more persuasive. Furthermore, by personifying grace, the 

notion of accountability is reinforced. Paul’s audience would have been 

familiar with the concept of discipline and instruction. By phrasing it in this 

manner, the point that religious obedience demands the same obedience is 

driven home. 

The significance of what grace accomplishes is emphasised through 

assonance of the a-vowel in verse 12: paideuvousa hJma`", i{na ajrnhsavmenoi th;n 

ajsevbeian kai; ta;" kosmika;" ejpiqumiva". 


107

Furthermore, through the direct repetition of the verb ajrnevomai the author 

creates an implicit contrast. Those instructed by grace deny th;n ajsevbeian kai; 

ta;" kosmika;" ejpiqumiva", whereas the false teachers are vilified as denying 

God (1:16). In this way, the diametrical opposition between the two groups is 

highlighted. The repetition serves to maintain the polarity, keeping the two 

groups at opposite ends and closing the door for any compromise or 

endorsement. The word ajsevbeia constitutes religious language. The antonym, 

ajsevbeia is the opposite of eujsevbeia. Paul’s point is that sound doctrine, does 

not have its origin in man and encourages the denial of ajsevbeia or, positively, 

the manifestation of eujsevbeia in the present life. This argument links up with 

the salutation where faith and knowledge of “God’s elect” is said to be for the 

purpose of eujsevbeia (1:1). To thus claim to know God (be instructed by God’s 

grace), requires a denial of everything that would contradict that claim. Thus, 

the two are mutually exclusive since the students of divine grace cannot 

manifest both ajsevbeia and eujsevbeia. 

Paranomasia is also evident from the two cognate words kosmikav" (12) and 

kosmw`sin (10). The latter verb is a positive action that slaves must perform in 

regard to the teaching of God and is therefore encouraged. The former relates 

to the world in a negative sense and must therefore be denied. The 

paranomasia serves to maintain the polarity between “sound” and “not sound”, 

which leaves the audience with a choice to make. 

Another key concern revolves around the difference between legitimate and 

illegitimate teaching. There is an almost concentric or circular progression 

detectable with regard to the theme of teaching. Through the use of concentric 

or circular progression, the dichotomy between legitimacy and illegitimacy is 

maintained. The progression becomes evident as different ‘categories’ of 

legitimate teaching sources are identified. In chapter 1, it includes Paul, Titus 

and the elders-overseers. In chapter 2, it again includes Titus and extends to 

the ministry of older women. Finally, the readers are informed about the 

manifestation of divine grace that appeared and now teaches. There is a 

sense in which the argument has gone full circle, if we take into consideration 


108

the opening verses of the letter where the manifestation of the divine word is 

mentioned. In the present section, the teaching grace of God is presented as 

another manifestation of the divine word. 

The contrast between that which must be denied and that which must be 

practiced, is highlighted through the juxtaposition of kosmika;" ejpiqumiva" and 

swfrovnw" (verse 12). The latter word is another instance of repetition. This 

word has been used positively throughout the section and in earlier parts of 

the letter. It now forms part of another emphatic cluster along with dikaivw" kai; 

eujsebw`". Quinn (1990:168) correctly identifies assonance and the rhyming - 

w`" of the adverbs, the polysyndeton and the adverbial usage. He proposes 

that this cluster is clearly emphatic and suggestive of the inseparability of 

these qualities in Christian living. Thus, in the instruction of grace, the three 

qualities come together to form a unity characteristic of those who profess to 

know God. Each of the three words in this cluster has been used previously, 

but this is the first time they are combined. In this regard, one can almost refer 

to them as doubly emphatic. 

In the case of dikaivw", it should be noted that the adjective divkaio~ was used 

first with reference to elders-overseers (1:8). It now is a characteristic of all 

who are instructed by grace. Its repetition serves to enhance the identification 

and community of the students of grace. Thus, if the believers manifest 

conduct corresponding to sound doctrine they are in community with those 

identified in 1:5-9 and not with the opposition who are incapable of 

manifesting divkaio~. 

In the case of eujsebw`", it should be noted that the emphatic repetition and 

recollection of eujsevbeia, first raised in 1:1, makes an important point regarding 

the consistency of the divine intent. The purpose of the apostolic ministry was 

for the sake of godliness (1:1). The appearance of grace, who instructs “her” 

students in godliness, emphasises that Paul is not introducing anything new. 

He expects the Cretans to be in total agreement with the divine mandate. 

There is absolute consensus between what the apostle is appointed to do and 


109

what grace is instructing the believers to do. The fact that the audience can 

observe this consistency adds to the persuasiveness of Paul’s argument. 

Paul thus gives “shared knowledge” a theological nuance to the extent that he 

attributes the manifestation of these virtues in those instructed by grace to a 

transcendent or a divine act. There is therefore nothing “ordinary” about these 

characteristics. Johnson (1996:240) in this regard observes “that civilisation, 

and culture are not necessarily “natural” and that the habits of the heart that 

build communities of meaning and of meaningful relationships can be 

forgotten and lost or abused and destroyed. Sometimes, civilisation needs to 

be taught for the first time to the savage heart or relearned by the heart grown 

savage”. Through “religious language”, the theological nature of the 

appropriate conduct is intensified while, by implicit contrast, the positive 

qualities are shown to be in direct contrast to the three in the vilification 

section (1:12). What these and other rhetorical techniques do, is to press 

home the distinction between “sound” and “not sound” and to impress upon 

the audience the inseparable relationship between doctrine and deeds: the 

false teachers are unsound because of their deeds and their deeds are 

unsound because of their doctrine! Likewise, divine and apostolic authorised 

teachers are sound because of their deeds and their deeds are sound 

because of their doctrine. 

Another instance of the rhetorical technique “inclusive language” is evident in 

the verb zhvswmen. It includes all of those who are instructed by grace, whose 

lives give evidence of being lived “sensibly, righteously and godly”. The 

technique enhances the sense of community and presents Paul as one who is 

teachable and in submission to the instruction of divine grace. Furthermore, it 

adds to his credibility and facilitates his rapport with the audience. 

The temporal phrase, ejn tw`/ nu`n aijw`ni, “in the now age", recalls and relates to 

the reference in the salutation (1:2) about God’s divine promise, which was 

before the ages. This serves to enhance a sense of coherence between the 

various sections of this letter. More importantly, it is very emphatic about the 


110

implications legitimate teaching has for this present life. The sentence 

demonstrates multiple time dimensions moving from past to present and in 

verse 13 to future. This heightens the temporal momentum that is evident in 

this section. The motivation behind this notion is clearly to illustrate to the 

Cretans that their conduct does not take place in a vacuum. Their positive 

conduct in the present is attributable to the historical intervention of God. 

Verse 13 takes up the future dimension that is also present in the salutation. 

The ejlpiv" zwh`" aijwnivou in 1:2 now becomes hJ makariva ejlpiv". Paul ties the 

blessed hope to the fact of the return of Jesus Christ, whom he identifies here 

as God. The past-present-future time references place the congregation 

between two appearances: the first was when divine grace appeared in the 

past; the second appearance will be in the future when Jesus Christ will 

return. Complying to sound doctrine with corresponding behaviour is not only 

the wisest option because of its divine origin. Right (or wrong) behaviour has 

implications for the future: those who manifest compliant behaviour do so 

because they demonstrate thereby that they have a "blessed hope". 

Negatively, the implication is that those who do not manifest obedience to the 

instruction of grace must remember that Jesus Christ is going to appear again 

in the future. In other words the "now age" is the age of compliance. 

The divinity of Jesus Christ relates directly to the salutation. Elsewhere, I have 

indicated my concurrence with the interpretation that the expression “our great 

God and Saviour” applies to Jesus Christ. (cf. p. 30). The reference to Jesus 

as hJmw`n is another example of “inclusive language”. If Paul’s arguments in 

chapter 2:2-10 can be described as sociological or even missiological (Collins, 

2002:12-13; Karris, 1979:113, 116), his argument in this section can be 

described as theological. Paul amasses theological terms in this part of the 

sentence, in order to convince his audience of the transcendent implications 

of legitimate teaching. The transcendent nature of sound doctrine places it in 

a class of its own and superior to “Jewish myths and the commandments of 

men” (1:14). The evidence serves as proof for the insistence upon adherence 

and submission to sound doctrine. Through the use of inclusive language, 


111

Paul demonstrates that he is himself in submission to the teaching and lives 

as one anticipating the return of Jesus Christ. 

Most commentators agree that this section serves to explain the preceding 

instructions (Demarest, 1984:320; Johnson, 1996:240; Clark, 2002:111). 

Rhetorically, however, more is involved. Paul is not only saying: “The reason I 

want you to do this (2-10) is because of this (11-14).” Instead, he is claiming: 

“The teaching that I want you to embrace and the behaviour I want you to 

manifest are superior to what those presumptive fellows are trying to sell you. 

Their teaching originates from a human mind. Just look at the way they live! 

This doctrine is divine. If you do not accept it, you are in direct opposition to 

God. It is a choice between teaching that is human and teaching that is 

divine.” It leaves the hearer-reader in the awkward position of having to 

decide. It offers no neutral grounds. 

The vocabulary selected in this section places the emphasis on the 

uniqueness and the distinctiveness of God’s people. There is a sense in which 

Paul almost indirectly uses the language to pointing to the ideal. He does not 

tell or specify to the Cretans that they are a special people; that they have 

been chosen of God. Instead, the emphasis appears to be on the notion of 

privilege to have been chosen by God. 

There are in verse 14 two final instances of inclusive language. Jesus is said 

to have given himself “for us”, to redeem “us” (o}" e[dwken eJauto;n uJpe;r hJmw`n, 

i{na lutrwvshtai hJma`"). The emphasis in the final verse is on the activity of the 

divine. Having identified Jesus Christ as God “our Saviour”, the sentence goes 

on to describe what He has done: He gave himself for us, in order that He 

might save us. This us then become a “unique and peculiar people, zealous 

for good works” (2:14). The reality of the divine intervention thus constitutes 

the reason why Christians or Cretan believers ought to be characterised by 

the performance of good works compliant with sound doctrine. 


112

The final reason why the Cretans must manifest the behaviour stipulated in 

this chapter relates to themselves. They have been changed by the divine 

intervention, namely the appearance of grace. They have become in Jesus 

Christ the objects of divine interest, when He gave himself for them (o}" e[dwken 

eJauto;n uJpe;r hJmw`n). The inclusive language in this part is also emphatic. They 

are no longer mere Cretans, but the people of God; His own peculiar people 

(eJautw/' laov~ periouvsio~). Their identity and consequently their natures have 

been changed. They have been made God’s own “unique people”. This 

expression reinforces the communal sense prevalent in this section. Thus, 

when Cretan believers perform good deeds, in other words when they obey 

the instructions of divine grace, they are acting consistent with their new 

character. Together with the inclusive language, this becomes a compelling 

reason to conform, since it is implied that failure to do so has consequences, 

for example, it could result in exclusion and loss of privileges. God 

“redeemed” (lutroovmai) and “cleansed” (kaqarivzw/) them “from all 

lawlessness” (ajpo; pavsh" ajnomiva"). This is an instance of a divine 

authorisation argument based on the notion of the right of the divine or the 

divine prerogative. God has a right over the Cretans. He purchased them and 

He cleansed them. By implication therefore, they do not belong to themselves, 

but to God. 

The irony lies in the notion that the Jewish segment of the false teachers 

would probably have wanted to get the Cretans to submit to the law of ritual 

purity. Here, Paul stresses that it is God who cleanses from lawlessness. 

Hence, they can no longer act in a way that contradicts all that they have 

become through Jesus Christ. In fact, they should be “zealous for good works” 

(zhlwth;" kalw`n e[rgwn). The argument is based on the notion of irreconcilable 

conduct. This is the opposite of the false teachers (and their disciples) who 

are “worthless for any good work” (pa`n e[rgon ajgaqo;n ajdovkimoi). The choice is 

clear: whether you are of God or not of God will be shown by your works. The 

contrast could not be more blatant than this. 


113

The section closes with the apostle reiterating his affirmation of Titus’ ministry. 

In 2:15 the apostle reaffirms the ministry of Titus. The sentence is a more 

developed and emphatic rejoinder to verse 1. Opening with tau`ta (these 

things) it reveals another emphatic cluster: lavlei kai; parakavlei kai; e[legce. 

The demonstrative pronoun, tau`ta, functions vis a vis the relative pronoun in 

1:11. The false teachers teach "things" and do so without authorisation. Titus, 

however, is authorised to teach and is told what to teach. This affirmation not 

only involves affirming Titus; instead it involves the apostolic affirmation of 

sound doctrine. The congregation has just been instructed not only to 

manifest but also to identify and evaluate sound doctrine; they have been 

reminded what sound doctrine "looks" like. The reference is clearly to the 

content of chapter 2. Paul seems to be saying: "Anyone who does not teach 

'these things' that Titus will be teaching is not a teacher of sound doctrine. 

Beware!" 

All the verbs in the emphatic cluster are in the present tense and in the 

imperative mood. They can also be considered doubly emphatic because 

each one is repeated throughout the letter. Their occurrence here is 

exceptional since they all appear together in one sentence. 

The first verb, lavlei, links the concluding and opening sentences of this 

chapter thereby forming a tidy border around the teaching section. The next 

verb, parakavlei, is a repetition from 1:9 and 2:6. The latter reference is also 

applicable to Titus. The former occurs as part of the duties of elders and 

correlates the ministry of Titus to that of elders-overseers. The only way 

elders are going to know how to perform this ministry is by observing Titus. 

The final of the trio, e[legce, occurs in 1:9 and in 1:13. As with the previous 

word, e[legce, also links the ministry of Titus to that of the elder-overseers 

(1:9). Both occurrences of the word appear in the context of rebuking the 

opposition, first by the elder-overseers (1:9) then by Titus (1:13). Thus, by 

means of this verbal association, ministerial parallels are drawn between 

Titus’ ministry and that of the future leaders of the church at Crete. 


114

The prepositional phrase, meta; pavsh" ejpitagh`", is a further validation of 

Titus’ mandate at Crete. The word ejpitaghv recalls what was said earlier (1:3) 

with reference to God. It seems to suggest that just like Paul was commanded 

by God, that is, by divine authorisation, so now by apostolic authorisation, 

Titus must exercise all command or authority. 

The final command, mhdeiv" sou perifroneivtw, is an instance of tautology. 

Paul is restating the same thing in different words, that is, negatively, for the 

purpose of emphasis. Wendland (1999:338) argues that the expression is 

intended to reinforce the authority with which Titus is expected to execute his 

ministry in Crete. It is clear that the rhetorical objective in verse 15 is the 

apostolic reaffirmation of Titus’ ministry in the Cretan context. 

Conclusion 

In this section, Paul's dominant rhetorical objective is to emphasise the divine 

basis of obedience to sound doctrine. His argument is based upon the divine 

origin of the right teaching. The appearance of the grace of God was the 

watershed moment in the lives of the Cretans. The historical intervention of 

the divine is emphasised through the use of time references. The past– 

present–future perspectives contribute to the sense of temporal momentum 

that permeates the letter. It also provides a context for the conduct that is 

enjoined upon the believers. They must demonstrate in the present the 

required behaviour because something happened in the past. They continue 

in this behaviour because of something else that will happen in the future, 

namely the return of the Lord Jesus Christ. The basic arguments rallied 

involve irreconcilable conduct and the divine prerogative or the right of the 

divine. In terms of the former argument, the Cretans are compelled to act in 

accordance to their new natures. In the case of the latter argument, God has a 

right over the Cretans and can therefore dictate His required conduct to them. 

The origin of this teaching lies in the divine, since grace itself is teaching the 

believers. The usual rhetorical techniques in this section include inclusive 

language, implicit contrasting, emphatic clustering and religious language. 


115

Another technique is personification, by means of which grace is presented as 

the one teaching all believers. The word “teach”, paideuvw, is a totally new and 

distinctive word that suggests the notion of family. 

Having dealt with issue of origin, Paul proceeds in the same sentence to insist 

upon compliance to the teaching based on the argument of the divine 

prerogative. Christ gave Himself for them, purchased them and cleansed 

them. By implication therefore, they do not belong to themselves anymore. 

God has a right to require specific behaviour from those whom He has made 

his own. 

Paul proceeds by arguing for compliant behaviour based on the notion of 

irreconcilable conduct. Through divine intervention, the Cretan believers have 

been changed and therefore their behaviour must testify to this 

transformation. They are now God’s people, recipients of His favour. 

Consequently, a propensity towards good works should be the natural 

manifestation of this reality. Through the combination of the communal 

reference God’s “unique people”, and inclusive language, the author exploits 

the desire to belong. Negatively, it amounts to use of the fear of exclusion to 

enforce compliant behaviour. The persuasive effect of this strategy is that the 

hearers would be more inclined to demonstrate compliant behaviour. They are 

not given any options. The argument is presented in such a compelling 

manner that no compromises are possible; no neutral ground is offered. 

Sound doctrine is of transcendent origin, while the false teaching comes from 

man. Behaviour contrary to what grace teaches is behaviour that God does 

not approve. Believers presently live between the two appearances both of 

which have implications for their lives. The section concludes with a final 

apostolic affirmation of Titus’ ministry as well as that of the elders. This is 

effected through the doubly emphatic cluster, which draws close parallels 

between the ministries of Titus and elder-overseers. 


116

2.2.7 Titus 3:1-2: Persuading the Cretans of the compulsory 

treatment of all unbelievers in a manner consistent with sound 

doctrine 

Several commentators consider this section as a continuation of the 

instructions given in 2:1-10 (Johnson, 1996:246; Quinn, 1990:182; Fee, 

1988:200; Collins, 2002:356). Mounce (2000:443) even views it as a repetition 

of 2:1-14. It is, however, possible to view this as a new section that introduces 

a different rhetorical objective. Paul’s dominant rhetorical objective can be 

summarised as persuading the Cretans of the compulsory treatment of all 

unbelievers in a manner consistent with sound doctrine. Commentators agree 

that the pronoun aujtouv" refers to all believers. However, Quinn (1990:182) 

interprets the pronoun as a reference to, what he calls, the Jewish Christian 

opponents of 1:10, 16. Some differences are however noticeable between 

these two sections. The earlier section in 2:1-10 distinguished between 

various categories of believers, with instructions specific to each group. In the 

present section, the pronoun aujtouv" suggests that the earlier categories are 

now viewed as the collective group of Cretan believers. 

Thus far, Titus has been given many instructions. The verb uJpomivmnh/skw, in 

this instance, indicates another aspect of his ministry as a teacher of sound 

doctrine. It is also in the imperative second person singular like that of 2:15 

and expresses a continuation of the ministry of Titus, who here represents 

legitimate teaching. The choice of this word to describe an aspect of legitimate 

teaching could indicate a caution against accepting novel teachings. Paul 

turns the attention in this section to the whole congregation. The pronoun 

aujtouv" refers to everyone who was mentioned in chapter 2:1-10. The use of 

the pronoun signifies a comprehensive expansion of the teaching ministry. 

Whereas in the previous section the apostle specified particular categories of 

people, he now includes everyone by the use of the pronoun. 

Verses 1-2 are a single sentence in Greek. It contains a list of seven virtues. 

This is counterbalanced in verse 3 by a list of seven vices. The strategy that 


117

the apostle adopts to persuade his audience consists of an argument based 

on an appeal to the prior knowledge of his audience to motivate them to 

manifest the ensuing list of positive behavioural traits. The verb uJpomivmnh/skw 

represents a possible variation in vocabulary to distinguish the ministry of 

Titus from that of the false teachers. The function of this verb is open to 

several interpretive possibilities. It, first of all, seems to introduce another 

dimension of legitimate teaching, namely “remembering”. Next, the use of the 

verb suggests a polemic against novel teachings. It also suggests the 

succession of legitimate ministry. In other words, if sound doctrine is 

consistent and void of novelties, it becomes transmittable from one generation 

to the next by a succession of teachers. The task of new teachers would 

therefore involve reminding the congregations. This implies that the audience 

is expected to be familiar with the teaching, since one reminds people of 

things that they already know. In other words, they have had prior exposure to 

the instructions that are about to follow, having already received instruction in 

it. It is as if the apostle is saying, “Here are things that people already know 

but need to be reminded of again”. In 1:13, Titus had to ejlevgcein aujtouv", with 

particular reference to the false teachers. In the present sentence, the verb 

uJpomivmnh/skw has as its direct object the pronoun aujtouv". Titus is hereby 

authorised to take up the task of reminding the believers. He is given the 

responsibility to continue what someone else has begun. This is therefore 

another instance of apostolic affirmation of Titus’ ministry, through the use of 

an alternative verb in the imperative mode. 

The choice of the verb demands further explanation. “Remind them” implies 

knowledge pre-existent or known beforehand to the hearers. In other words, 

at some stage, when they were first exposed to the gospel, the Cretans were 

exposed to this information. It thus constitutes an argument based on the 

existence of prior knowledge or an argument based on the appeal to memory. 

This argument emphasises the temporal priority of legitimate teaching that the 

Cretans were initially exposed to, over against the illegitimate teaching, which 

must have come afterwards. This argument thus puts the hearers in a position 

to evaluate the veracity of the legitimate teaching. They are able to measure 


118

what they are being taught now with what they have been taught previously. 

The motive could be to prove the consistency of legitimate teaching over 

against the implied inconsistency of illegitimate teaching. Thus, by implication, 

the Cretans have been practising legitimate teaching all along, and are now in 

danger of forsaking that which they have embraced. If the Cretans do not 

embrace and practise sound doctrine, they are implicitly acting against 

themselves. Their behaviour would be interpreted as self-contradictory. 

Another interpretation would be to view it as a polemic against illegitimate 

teaching. The latter could have encouraged the people, namely the Cretans to 

conduct themselves in a manner contrary to the good conduct that is being 

advocated in this section. Whatever the content of the illegitimate teaching 

might have been, its implications may have involved encouraging the 

believers to conduct themselves in a manner unbecoming of good citizens. 

The appeal to prior knowledge relates to knowledge of what is considered 

positively by the secular society. The believers must, therefore, be reminded 

of that behaviour which they have known to be commendable and which 

society admires. They are to make a positive contribution towards society, 

namely demonstrable submissive conduct. In other words, they must not 

abandon that conduct which they have known to be good. The discourse 

suggests the existence of a need to remind the believers lest they make 

themselves guilty of conduct that would elicit a negative response from the 

rest of society and government authorities; conduct that would make them 

appear separatist, exclusivist and insurrectionary since it is to the ajrcaiv 

ejxousivai that they must submit. This interpretation seems to make the best 

sense in the present context, and explains the structure of the section: seven 

virtues (1-2) followed by seven vices (3) with several supportive rhetorical 

techniques, including asyndeton, direct repetition, assonance and 

paranomasia. 

Believers must submit to the ajrcaiv ejxousivai. Commentators struggle with the 

asyndeton here. This leaves them to interpret the two nouns very differently. 


119

Most commentators treat ejxousivai as modifying ajrcaiv, translating it as 

“governing/ government authorities” or “legitimate rulers” (Quinn, 1990:178; 

Fee, 1988:201; Collins, 2002:357). Some commentators supply a conjunction 

and treat the two adjectives as separate, for example, “rulers and authorities” 

(Johnson, 1996:245). Bernard (1980 [1899]:176) translates this literally as “to 

rulers, to authorities”. There would be no need to add a conjunction since the 

absence of the conjunction conforms to the structure of this entire section. 

Furthermore, asyndeton is a rhetorical technique used regularly in this letter. 

The absence of conjunctions in both lists is rather conspicuous. The 

asyndeton is for emphatic purposes. It accentuates the interrelatedness or 

inseparableness of the various elements that make up these lists. The 

cohesiveness is enhanced by the use of the infinitive mode in the first five 

verbs of verses 1 and 2: uJpotavssesqai, peiqarcei`n, ei\nai, blasfhmei`n and 

ei\nai. The list is completed with two adjectives namely ejpieikei`" and 

prau?thta. 

The relationship between believers and the governing authorities is one that 

ought to be characterised by submission on the part of believers. The verb 

uJpotavssesqai is an instance of paranomasia and a repetition from 2:5 and 

2:9. Just as in the context of the home, the wife's relationship to her husband 

is characterised by submission and in the context of employment the servant’s 

relationship is characterised by submission to the master, so in the context of 

society the believer's relationship to government authorities must be 

characterised by submission. The progression in the theme of submission is 

remarkable when considered in the light of 2:1-3:1. It involves the distinct 

realms where submission is required, namely in the home, then in the 

workplace, culminating with submission in the public sector. Then there is 

progression in the three levels of recognised authority: first to a husband, then 

to a master, and finally to governing authorities. There is also progression in 

regard to the sectors from which submission can be expected: Christian 

wives, Christian slaves and Christian citizens. Thus, irrespective of whether 

you are a wife or a slave, a Christian must demonstrate submission to all 


120

authority. Paradoxically, the false teachers are described as ajnupovtaktoi 

(1:10) while the children of elders-overseers must not manifest this 

characteristic (1:6). A compound noun, it has as its root the word uJpotavssw. 

The paranomasia serves to facilitate an implicit contrast between those who 

manifest submission and those who manifest rebellion. Thus, sound doctrine 

can only lead to uJpotavssw, while illegitimate ministry can only encourage 

behaviour that is ajnupovtakto~, which is behaviour that society in general 

would condemn. 

The next infinitive, peiqarcei`n, is another instance of paranomasia. The 

antonym, ajpeiqhv" (1:16) was used in the context of false teachers. 

Furthermore, the noun ajrchv occurring in the first part of the sentence is also 

present in the verb peiqarcevw. By using paranomasia, the author contrasts 

the dispositions of the false teachers and believers, perhaps with specific 

emphasis upon their relationship to authority. Whereas previously, the implicit 

contrasts were being drawn between legitimate teachers and illegitimate 

teachers, now it is illegitimate teachers and legitimate believers that are being 

contrasted. The separation between legitimate and illegitimate is thus being 

maintained. 

The expression, pro;" pa`n e[rgon ajgaqo;n eJtoivmou" ei\nai, but for the infinitive 

and the adjective, is an exact replication of a previous prepositional phrase: 

pro;" pa`n e[rgon ajgaqo;n ajdovkimoi (1:16). This is also an instance of implicit 

contrast, between the illegitimate teachers and the legitimate believers. 

Through implicit contrast, the difference between legitimate and illegitimate is 

highlighted and maintained. The apostle takes great pains to prevent any 

blurring of the boundaries between these two opposing sides. Thus, whereas 

illegitimate teaching renders the one group “worthless for any good work”, 

legitimate teaching makes believers “ready for every good work”. 

In verse 3 the verb blasfhmei`n is also a repetition from an earlier occurrence, 

blasfhmh`tai in 2:5. This repetition also constitutes paranomasia. Thus, two 

things ought not to be spoken evil of, namely God's word, and any other 


121

person. Interestingly, both instances of this verb appear in close association 

with the verb uJpotavssw. Just as it would be wrong for unbelievers to speak 

evil of God's word, it would be equally wrong for believers to speak evil of any 

other person. In fact, evil speaking would put the believer on par with those 

who speak against the word of God. The adjective mhdeiv~ functions to 

accentuate the scope of this prohibition, making it applicable to all people – 

unbelievers and believers alike. 

The next two expressions, ajmavcoi ei\nai (to be uncontentious) and ejpieikaiv 

(kind, gentle, tolerant) emphasise the peaceable nature that ought to 

characterise the believer. It is reminiscent of two synonymous traits 

associated with elders-overseers in 1:7, namely, mh; ojrgivlo" (not quick 

tempered) and mh; plhvkth" (not pugnacious). 

The final characteristic, prau?th~, is emphasised through alliteration of the p- 

consonant: pa`san (ejndeiknumevnou") prau?thta pro;" pavnta" ajnqrwvpou". The 

participial clause states in a positive manner that which was stated negatively 

earlier, namely, mhdevna blasfhmei`n and ajmavcoi ei\nai. The repetition of the 

adjective pav~ reinforces the mandatory and uncompromising nature of these 

characteristics. This is further enhanced by the pairing of the antonyms, pav~ 

(all) and mhdeiv~ (none). Thus, any behaviour to the contrary is completely 

unjustifiable – “all gentleness” to “all people”, without exceptions. 

Conclusion 

In this section, the dominant rhetorical objective may summarised as an 

attempt to persuade the Cretans of the compulsory treatment of all 

unbelievers in a manner consistent with sound doctrine. Paul argues on the 

basis of the prior knowledge of or appealing to the memory of his audience to 

convince them to behave in a socially responsible manner towards authorities 

and society in general. Verses 1-2 comprise behaviour that the audience have 

known to be commendable; a societal ideal. Implicitly, this appeal seems to be 

motivated by a concern about the negative influence of illegitimate teaching 

and the resultant discrediting of the gospel or the Christian movement in 


122

Crete. The appeal to memory is a powerful persuasive strategy because it 

originates from within the individual. 

The section begins with the apostolic endorsement of Titus’ ministry through 

the use of an alternative verb in the imperative mode. Several supportive 

rhetorical techniques include: asyndeton, direct repetition, assonance and 

paranomasia. These facilitate intra- and inter-sectional cohesion. The section 

also evinces an interesting development in the theme of submission through 

the paranomatic repetition of the verb uJpotavssw. In each of the three 

occurrences of this verb, there is a different subject and indirect object, and 

increasing spheres of authoritativeness. This technique ties this section to the 

rest of the letter and highlights the significance of submission in the Cretan 

context. The emphasis on submission also calls to mind the false teachers, 

whose behaviour is described as the exact opposite, being ajnupovtakto~. 

(1:10). This noun is made up of the privative a (without) and uJpotavssw 

(Zodhiates, 1992:198). It is also a characteristic that should not manifest in the 

children of teachers in the church (1:6). This is an instance of the rhetorical 

technique of paranomasia used here to facilitate a contrast between those 

who are sound and those who are not. Another striking example of explicit 

contrast is seen in the direct repetition of the prepositional phrase, pro;" pa`n 

e[rgon ajgaqovn, which facilitates inter-sectional cohesion as well as implicit 

contrast between the illegitimate teachers and the legitimate believers. The 

ultimate objective is to encourage the Cretans to disassociate themselves 

from those who seem to encourage behaviour considered to be disruptive or 

subversive. In this way, the apostle launches his strategy to enforce 

compliance to legitimate teaching by forcing the Cretans to look inside 

themselves and evaluate whether what he is saying is true or not. But the 

apostle is not going to leave it there, and in the next section it will be shown 

how he continues his persuasive strategy through the use of a list of vices. 


123

2.2.8 Titus 3:3: Evoking disgust with past sinful behaviour in 

order to reinforce behaviour in the present that comply with 

sound doctrine 

The seven virtues in the previous two verses are counterbalanced in verse 3 

by seven vices. The dominant rhetorical objective of this section is to evoke 

the audience to be disgusted with their past sinful behaviour in order to 

reinforce behaviour in the present that comply with sound doctrine. This 

interpretation requires some justification in light of the different ways in which 

commentators treat the list. 

Structurally, scholars correctly identify the “once-now” or “pote-o{te” scheme 

that characterises this section, concluding that the purpose of this section is to 

contrast the old and the new person (Collins, 2000:358). Towner (1994:253, 

254), and Johnson (1996:245) refer to this as a transition or conversion 

formula respectively, which purpose is to indicate the transition to the new life. 

According to Mounce (2000:446), verse 3 forms part of the theological 

motivation for the kind of conduct enumerated in the previous section. He 

maintains that these sins are not directed towards the opponents as much as 

they are a reflection of the sins of humanity in general. Towner (1994:253) 

makes the point that the vice list emphasises the actuality or reality of the 

change that has occurred. Latching on to this, Hultgren (1984:168), claims 

that the reference to a former life in contrast to the present is a literary device 

employed to make a theological analysis of the pre-salvific state, without 

necessarily having any direct bearing on the author or recipients. Fee 

(1988:202) also believes that the list depicts the general “human fallenness” 

and regards 3:3 as the evangelistic motive behind the appeal of 3:1-2. While 

all of these interpretations are probably correct and highly reasonable, they do 

not satisfactorily explain the purpose of the list itself. Furthermore, these 

conclusions are based on premature assumptions about the applicability of 

these vices to the stated recipients. Scholars are hesitant to apply the vices 

listed here to those whom the apostle identifies as “we”. Thus, Quinn 

(1990:200) avers that these lists are “not biographical, much less 


124

autobiographical” and “the items of this vice catalogue are not vices as such; 

they are adjectival of persons”. While there may be a modicum of truth in this 

comment, it downplays what the text intends to communicate about the 

recipients and the purpose behind the list. Bernard (1980 [1899]:177) captures 

the intent of this verse as indicated by his chapter heading: “No reason for 

pride”. Unfortunately he does not elaborate upon this in the rest of his 

commentary. In a single sentence, Simpson (1954:114) succinctly expresses 

the intention of the list, namely “to inspire disgust”. In all fairness to Quinn 

(1990:208) he does eventually, in his explanation for the abrupt conclusion of 

verse 3, allude to the function of these lists as “bring[ing] the reader up short.” 

The “affective” function of these lists, particularly that of the vice list, is a 

notion that most commentators seem not to appreciate fully. These lists were 

intended to affect the recipients. The graphic description of the vices, which 

fills even a modern audience with disgust, supports such an interpretation. 

The overarching rhetorical objective in 3:3 is to fill the audience with disgust, 

to show them up. Why? The candour of the apostle is only justifiable if he is 

enforcing compliance to sound doctrine. 

Most modern commentators provide more than adequate explanations for the 

vocabulary that comprises verse 3 and may be consulted for that purpose. 

This study will highlight some of the rhetorical techniques employed that tie 

this section into a coherent unit. These include alliteration and rhyme, 

chiasmus, inclusive language, implicit contrast, and “emphatic pairing”. 

Paul uses the conjunction gavr rhetorically (cf. 2:11) to emphasise the 

relationship between the present section and the previous one. The enclitic 

particle potev anticipates the follow-up to this verse with its parallel particle in 

the next verse, namely o{te, to form what scholars identify as a transition or 

conversion formula (Towner, 1994:253; Johnson, 1996:245). Another 

rhetorical technique occurs in the use of the verb h\men in the first person 

plural, with the personal pronoun, hJmei`". The purpose is clearly to emphasise 

inclusiveness and to facilitate identification between the apostle, Titus and the 

Cretan believers. Quinn (1990:201) believes this expresses a relational 


125

purpose while Mounce (2000:446) believes it is emphatic to accentuate the 

contrast between the past and present life. The latter may be a secondary 

objective, but its primary objective must certainly be the facilitation of a 

relationship with the emphasis upon the “rhetorical identification with his 

audience” (Johnson, 1996:247). It softens the harshness of the list by 

presenting Paul as an insider and not as a judge speaking from a 

sanctimonious height. Conversely, it conveys the humility of the apostle to 

establish apostolic pathos. According to Hendriksen (1972:387) “it causes the 

reader (Titus) and the hearers (the Cretan believers when the letter is read to 

them) to feel that the writer is standing on common ground with them and 

understands them”. This interpretation is in line with the pattern that has 

characterised the discourse thus far. Paul argues from the basis of 

identification with his audience in order to enforce compliance to the required 

behavioural conduct. 

Collins (2002:358) and Quinn (1990:201) offer insightful comments with 

reference to the rhetorical arrangement of this verse. The opening two vices, 

ajnovhto" and ajpeiqhv" both contain alpha privatives. The latter word is an 

instance of paranomasia and is used for emphasis. It is a direct repetition of 

the word that appears in 1:16, which describes the false teachers. It is also 

the antonym of the virtue that appears in 3:1. The effect of this word can best 

be visualised when we outline the order in which it appears in the discourse: 

ajpeiqhv" (1:16) – negative, false teachers in the present 

peiqarcei`n (3:1) – positive, believers in the present 

ajpeiqhv" (3:3) – negative, believers in the past 

The persuasive effect of this technique is compelling: any manifestation of 

being ajpeiqhv" is a step backward; a step into the past; a step into fellowship 

with the false teachers. 

The paronomasia, combined with the double negative, in the form of two 

alpha privatives, highlight the heinous nature of disobedience, by linking it with 


126

the vilification section, more specifically, a section where a profession to know 

God is cancelled out by ethical conduct that translates into a denial of Him. 

The present vice list is therefore a graphic picture of behaviour that 

demonstrates an absence of the knowledge of God. In other words, Paul is 

saying, “We also were like ‘them’”. The use of this shame list constitutes what 

I term self-vilification, which serves to induce disgust within the hearers. By 

forcing them to remember their past, especially the shamefulness thereof, the 

overarching rhetorical objective of compliance to the sound teaching is 

compellingly reinforced. 

Quinn (1990:201) is particularly helpful when he demonstrates how, through 

rhyming endings (assonance) in –oi, several items on the list are linked. Thus, 

ajnovhtoi is linked with the third word, planwvmenoi, and the sixth, stughtoiv. The 

list evinces a combination of asyndeton and syndetic pairing. The conjunction, 

kaiv, appears very strategically within the two participial phrases of the 

sentence: douleuvonte" ejpiqumivai" kai; hJdonai`" poikivlai", ejn kakiva/ kai; fqovnw/ 

diavgonte". Quinn (1990:201) is perhaps correct when he identifies this as the 

“central chiasmus” of the section. Moreover, he shows how the assonated 

sounds encircle the central chiasmus: 

douleuvonte" ejpiqumivai" kai; hJdonai`" poikivlai" 

ejn kakiva/ kai; fqovnw/ diavgonte" 

This chiasmus is introduced and concluded by the alliteration and rhyme of 

douleuvonte" … diavgonte" (Quinn, 1990:202).The rhetorical function of the 

chiasm is to emphasise how servitude to vice (douleuvonte") becomes a 

manner of life (diavgonte"). The verb douleuvw is furthermore an instance of 

paranomasia. It has been preceded by the noun dou`lo" in both plural (2:9) 

and singular (1:1) form. Its use, however, in this present context, is a 

development of the previous two occasions in that it now functions in a 

metaphorical sense. The two earlier instances of the theme of slavery were 

communicated in a positive light, while the present one is presented as 


127

negative. Paranomasia and the metaphorical nuance of the slavery thus 

highlight the negative side of enslavement. True freedom is therefore not 

freedom from an earthly or divine master, but rather from ejpiqumivai" kai; 

hJdonai`" poikivlai", and ejn kakiva/ kai; fqovnw diavgonte". In other words, the real 

slaves are not those who serve earthly masters, but those who serve sin. 

Interestingly, the apostle, by using the first person plural pronoun, presents 

himself as one who is presently a slave of God (1:1), and as one who was 

previously (potev) a slave of sin (3:3). 

Scholars are keen to interpret the vice list as follows: We were not really much 

better than other people; “hence let us not be too hard on the people who are 

still in that condition, but let us strive by godly conduct to win them for Christ” 

(Hendriksen, 1972:389). Such an interpretation unfortunately ignores the key 

concern of this discourse, namely, the supremacy, efficacy and necessity of 

sound teaching and hence the urgency of compliance to sound teaching. The 

evangelistic efficacy of the gospel follows as a result of the believers’ 

compliance and embracing, through the totality of their lives, of legitimate 

teaching. The Cretans are not yet at the place where they have grasped or 

demonstrated that they have grasped the necessity for legitimate teaching. 

Instead, there is reason to believe that they are allowing themselves to come 

under the influence of illegitimate teachers and their teaching, resulting in 

conduct that places the integrity of God's word or legitimate teaching at risk. 

These two lists present them with an opportunity to evaluate their pre-and 

post-conversion behaviour. It holds before them two kinds of behaviour that 

are mutually exclusive. The overall rhetorical impact of this section is to 

emphasise the utter unworthiness of Paul, Titus, the Cretan believers and the 

rest of humanity. 

Conclusion 

The dominant rhetorical objective of the vice list in verse 3 is to evoke disgust 

at past sinful behaviour, in order to reinforce behaviour in the present that 

complies with sound doctrine. It has been shown how scholars all too often 

gloss over this section by a) interpreting it exclusively from an evangelistic 


128

perspective and b) portraying it as primarily a picture of human sinfulness. 

The section is applicable firstly to the Cretans, Paul and Titus and then to the 

rest of humanity. 

The section evinces what I refer to as self-vilification. The purpose of the 

shame list is to evoke disgust within the hearers with a concomitant sense of 

worthlessness. Through the “once-now” or “potev-o{te” scheme, which serves 

as a transitional device, the author is anticipating the event that made the 

difference in his audience, something they would only appreciate once they've 

come to terms with their own unworthiness. 

Intra-sectional coherence is achieved through rhetorical techniques like 

alliteration and rhyme, chiasmus, inclusive language, implicit contrast, and 

“emphatic pairing”. Intersectional coherence is achieved through the use of 

the conjunction gavr, paranomasia and repetition, particularly of the following 

words: ajpeiqei`" and douleuvonte". The latter word is also used in a 

metaphorical way as opposed to its “normal” meaning in the rest of the letter. 

We also have in this section the simultaneous use of asyndeton and 

syndeton, with the latter in a structure referred to as syndetic pairing. All of 

these are emphatic and used to facilitate coherence within the discourse. The 

apostle argues from the basis of identification with his audience in order to 

achieve his objective of engendering a compliant attitude. This technique 

provides the apostle with a platform from which to address his audience, 

effectively reinforcing his authority over or right to speak to them with such 

candour. 

2.2.9 Titus 3:4-7: Persuading the Cretans that displaying good works to 

those considered undeserving demonstrates conformity to the divine 

example 

In this section, Paul’s dominant rhetorical objective is to persuade the Cretans 

that displaying good works to those considered undeserving, demonstrates 


129

conformity to the divine example. In order to achieve this objective, Paul 

structures his argument by appealing to the divine example. To this extent, he 

adapts traditional material to remind his audience of God’s salvific 

intervention. The highly theological nature of this section continues to evoke 

much discussion and debate. A rhetorical analysis of this passage 

necessitates an evaluation of how scholars tend to treat it. It will become clear 

how some scholars have already suggested the interpretation adopted in this 

study without actually developing it far enough. 

Some general observations on this passage must precede the evaluation of 

academic treatment of this passage. Verses 4-7 constitute a single sentence 

in the original. Salvation is clearly the main focus of the sentence as indicated 

by the main verb and direct object, e[swsen hJma`". The rest of verse 5 concisely 

expresses, according to Fee (1988:203), “the basis (his mercy), the what (new 

birth, renewal, justified), the means (by the Holy Spirit, (‘by his [Christ's] 

grace’), and the goal (the hope of eternal life) of salvation”. Expressions like 

the “Gospel in a nutshell” (Simpson, 1954:115), the “essence of the gospel” 

(Demarest, 1984:326) or “the gospel summarised in a highly condensed form” 

(Oden, 1989:36) confirm the recognition by scholars of the essential content 

of this sentence. 

Scholarly treatment of this passage is characterised by a debate that is both 

intense and technical. One area that continues to attract discussion, involves 

the character and delineation of the section. In regard to the former, scholars 

cannot decide whether this passage is a hymn (Guthrie, 1957:204; Karris, 

1996:127), a liturgical formula, a creedal formula (Mounce, 2000:440; Fee, 

1988:203), or a baptismal prayer or act of praise (Hanson, 1968:95). With 

regard to the latter, Hanson (1968:83, 86, 90, 95, 96) adopts a source-critical 

approach when he argues for the existence of a common or original source 

shared by the authors of the Letter to Titus, 1 Peter and Ephesians. 

The majority of scholars, however, regard this passage as a hymn. Thus, 

Karris (1996:127) insists that this section “is indeed a hymn”. This insistence 


130

is primarily based on typological and, more importantly, textual considerations. 

Regarding the latter, Karris (1996:128, 131) argues that the section conforms 

to six of Markus Barth’s eleven “objective” criteria “for detecting the existence 

of hymns in the New Testament”. Although he refers to six he only lists the 

following five: 

a) The passage use of verbs as aorist participles in relative clauses and in 

consecutive clauses (criterion 3) 

b) Those who benefit from God’s mighty acts speak in the first person 

plural (criterion 4) 

c) The presence of unique words (criterion 6) 

d) Artistic structure-“parallelism” (criterion 8) 

e) The content of a given passage interrupts the context (criterion 11) 

Karris (1996:127, 128) bases his typological considerations on the fact that 

this section is indented by the editors of the NASB and the Novum 

Testamentum Graece (27 th edition). Karris believes that it would not be 

indented if it was not considered poetic or hymnic. He also cites Ralph Martin, 

a scholar of hymns who includes Titus 3:4-7 as part of the “sacramental” 

hymns. 

Mounce (2000:440) disagrees with Karris, because the suggested hymnic 

structure is disrupted by the unusual placement of e[swsen hJma". Furthermore, 

there are other criteria suggestive of a creed rather than a hymn. These 

include the use of plural pronouns and a purpose clause in verse 7 rather than 

an indicative. According to Fee (1988:203), the sentence “altogether lacks the 

poetic elements of a hymn”. 

Unanimity among scholarship is also absent when it comes to the delineation 

of the formula. This issues from the authenticity debate, and relates to the 

differentiation between traditional material and Pauline additions. With regard 

to traditional material, various possibilities are posited: verses 3-7, 5b-6 and 5- 

7 (Guthrie, 1957:204). The majority of scholars, however, regard verses 4-7 


131

as traditional, with verse 3 as an addition (Knight, 1979:81; Mounce, 

2000:440). Still, the matter remains moot, since “it is virtually impossible to 

differentiate between traditional and Pauline material with any degree of 

certainty” (Mounce, 2000:441). 

Another area of debate relates to the meaning of the word loutrovn and its 

relationship to what follows in the rest of the sentence. The word is translated 

in at least four primary ways: cleansing from sin, baptism, baptism of the Spirit 

and laver/bath of washing/washtub. Oden (1989:37) follows the classical view 

that regards baptism as the bath of the new birth. Simpson (1954:115-116) 

takes issue with the Roman Catholic or sacramental interpretation of this 

sentence that interprets dia; loutrou' as denoting the material apparatus of 

baptism, namely the laver or bath. He argues that the word refers to baptism 

and simply means “washing”. Hendriksen (1957:391) supports this 

interpretation, adding that “the washing referred to is wholly spiritual.” Karris 

(1996:135) disagrees, insisting that the word refers to “a bath”, which was a 

“ubiquitous Roman institution” used for recreation and ablution purposes by all 

citizens. The image of the bath would strike a chord with the audience of this 

letter rather than the “dominant image” of baptism in our modern-day Christian 

language. Mounce (2000:439) and Fee (1988:204) prefer not to interpret the 

word in a strict baptismal sense. They argue that the word is a metaphor for 

inner or spiritual “cleansing”. In fact, Mounce (2000:439) maintains, “It is 

possible for the New Testament to use the imagery of cleansing without any 

reference to baptism”. On the other end of the spectrum, we find Hultgren 

(1984:169) who interprets dia; loutrou` paliggenesiva" kai; ajnakainwvsew" 

pneuvmato" aJgivou as a reference to baptismal regeneration in which “God 

saves through baptism”. Towner (1989:115, 117) believes the word is a 

description of spiritual baptism and emphasises the “salvation-historical 

orientation of the passage”. 

A related area of debate focuses on the collection of genitives that follow the 

preposition diav. The succinct summary of the debate by Fee (1988:204-205) 

is very helpful and relied upon here. There are three positions, namely: 


132

1. The word loutrou` refers to conversion (or baptism) and ajnakainwvsew" to 

the coming of the Spirit. Both are dependent upon diav and refer to two distinct 

realities. Thus, “through the ‘washing’ found in rebirth and through the renewal 

that comes with the gift of the Spirit”. However, the narrow proximity in 

meaning between the words paliggenesiva" and ajnakainwvsew" weakens this 

interpretation since it would necessitate an additional diav to make this 

meaning clear. Interestingly, this is the interpretation propounded by Mounce 

(2000:442-443) who puts forth the following arguments in defence of his 

position: a) Regeneration and renewal, though contemporaneous events, are 

none the less distinct realities; b) renewal is never described as a washing, 

therefore ajnakainwvsew" cannot be said to modify loutrou`; c) If the imagery of 

washing suggests a “once-for-all” cleansing and renewal refers to the 

believer’s initial renewal, then we find in the words paliggenesiva" and 

ajnakainwvsew" a description of the singular conversion-event from a dual 

perspective; d) stylistically the dependence upon diav maintains a better 

parallelism; e) Paul characteristically omits the second preposition (diav) in a 

construction where a preposition governs a series of phrases connected by 

kaiv; f) the absence of an additional article, tou` or preposition uJpov preceding 

pneuvmato" aJgivou enhances its proximity to ajnakainwvsew". The additional 

article or preposition would have brought paliggenesiva" and ajnakainwvsew" 

closer together while its absence appears to corroborate the notion that the 

two are separate; g) the dependence of the four genitives upon the 

preposition diav eliminates interpreting the sentence as teaching the doctrine 

of justification by baptism. Mounce (2000:443) concludes that “Paul is 

describing one event, not two”. Scholars are therefore, not unanimous in their 

interpretation of the string of genitives and Mounce (2000:442) is prepared to 

acknowledge “[i]t is difficult to decide between the two, and in many cases the 

distinctions are not that significant”. He is joined in this regard by Bernard 

(1980 [1899]:178) who admits that “both (1) and (2) are admissible in 

grammar”. 

2. The word loutrou` refers exclusively to baptism and the two genitives 

paliggenesiva" and ajnakainwvsew" which are effected by the Holy Spirit, 

depend upon it. Thus, “through the regenerating and renewing work of 


133

aptism effected by the Holy Spirit”. The terms therefore, function either 

synonymously or complimentarily. While this interpretation has much that 

commends it, it nevertheless tends to emphasise baptism in a manner that 

stretches the present context. 

3. The word loutrou' is a metaphor for spiritual cleansing and not a synonym 

for baptism. The emphasis is on the cleansing, regenerative work of the Holy 

Spirit. Thus, “through the ‘washing’ by the Holy Spirit that brings rebirth and 

renewal”. This view conforms to Pauline theology concerning the centrality of 

the Holy Spirit for Christian existence and is seemingly confirmed by the 

emphasis in the sentence. Fee (1988:205) believes that paliggenesiva" and 

ajnakainwvsew" are “twin metaphors for the same spiritual reality-the re- 

creating work of the Holy Spirit in the believer’s life”. 

In summary, the influence of the authenticity debate is clearly felt in the 

analysis of the sentence. There is a definite correspondence between the lack 

of consent around the extent and delineation of the passage and the degree 

to which scholars regard portions of the sentence or passage as authentic 

Pauline or not. The same holds for the interpretation of the word loutrovn. 

Apart from textual considerations, continuity or discontinuity with Pauline 

theology significantly affects the interpretation of this word. The debate around 

the nature of the passage is less influenced by the authenticity issue. The 

above discussion represents the primary areas of contention in the translation 

and analysis of this passage. It would be remiss to highlight the areas of 

disagreement, while ignoring what scholars generally agree upon in regard to 

this section. 

There is widespread consensus around the content of the sentence. 

Commentators generally agree about the soteriological nature of this 

passage. The majority acknowledge the unique aspects of the passage, 

particularly the Trinitarian character of the passage (Mounce, 2000:450; 

Karris, 1996:129; Towner, 1994:258; Quinn, 1990:212; Oden, 1989:37; Fee, 

1988:206; Hendriksen, 1957:392). Similarly, almost all scholars recognise this 


134

as a doctrinal section congruent with 2:11-15 (Van Neste, 2003:25). The 

themes of divine grace and salvation are clearly present in the section and 

scholars correctly point this out as illustrated by the following quotes: 

Precisely at the point where God has every right to express his judgment of 

us, he chooses instead to meet us with kindness and love (Demarest, 

1984:328). 

Salvation by grace stands forth in clearest relief in the language employed, 

which effectually excludes all glory on man's part and denies to any stock of 

good works amassed by any sinner a “merit of congruity” drawing forth the 

riches of divine mercy (Simpson, 1954:115). 

These and every interpretation given by scholars has some degree of 

legitimacy or represents an accurate interpretation of an aspect of the 

sentence. However, regarding the full import of what the apostle is 

communicating, room exists for additional contributions, especially in light of 

the context of the entire letter thus far. 

The shortcomings surrounding scholarly discussions of this section relate to 

their analysis of the passage within the context of the letter itself. Many 

interpret the passage within the context of Pauline theology, attempting to 

reconcile their interpretation with what can be found elsewhere, either extra- 

biblically or in the rest of the New Testament. For example, Mounce 

(2000:443, 455), in his otherwise excellent commentary, does not see this 

section as contributing anything new to the apostle’s argument, observing that 

“Titus 3:1-11 is a repetition of 2:1-14”. Perhaps I am being overly critical of an 

unfortunate choice in vocabulary, but as my analysis will show, there is a 

significant development in this part of the argument; more than a mere 

repetition of what is said earlier. Likewise, Oden (1989:35) is content to 

classify this section as the epitomy of “the word of justification by grace”. True, 

the passage touches on justification by grace, but to imply that it does so 


135

exclusively or that this constitutes the primary function of this section is not 

entirely justified. 

Others simply fail to relate this section to the rest of the letter, except for 

pointing out obvious linguistic correspondences. Collins (2002:359), for 

example, is of the opinion that this section is simply a return to the epiphany 

motive. While he is not altogether incorrect, there is more to this passage than 

simply a thematic revisit of the “saving appearance of Jesus Christ, our 

Saviour”. In fact, the primary focus of scholarly works consulted is on the 

nature of the sentence, specifically its origin as a baptismal hymn or creed. 

Other commentators appear to get lost in linguistic analyses and etymological 

studies, all of which are valid and render valuable insights into the vocabulary, 

but unfortunately fail to adequately relate the passage to its immediate and 

extended contexts. 

The tendency to make baptism and salvation the foci of the passage is a 

major criticism. Thus, scholars approach the text with a preconceived notion 

of, for example, baptism or baptismal regeneration, utterly disregarding the 

recorded order of the sentence. In regard to the latter, some (correctly) point 

out the main verb of the sentence and make that the starting point of their 

interpretation. But that is not the best way to approach the text. A better 

approach would be to deal with the structure of the sentence in the way it has 

been recorded, in order to appreciate the different syntactical relationships 

within the sentence and the section at large. Thus, the shortcomings relate to 

the grinding of theological axes and vocabulary analyses instead of 

appreciating the sentence as it stands and seeking more adequate 

explanations for the unusual nature of the sentence structure. In this regard, 

some scholars like George Knight III and Jerome Quinn, prove rather helpful. 

Knight (1992:337, 338) drawing attention to the second word in v. 4, namely 

dev, captures the essence of this passage and relates it to the preceding 

verses, 1-3. Contrasts are clearly in view: the characteristics of God and the 

characteristics of believers’ past condition. In his own words, 


136

This attitude of God is contrasted with Christians’ past attitude (verse 3) so 

that no one less than God the merciful Saviour can be the norm for exhorting 

Christians “to be gentle, showing all meekness toward all people” (verse 2), 

since God showed to the Christians his “kindness and love toward mankind” 

when they were as “all people” are now (Knight, 1992:338, Emphasis added.). 

The normative role of the divine example is a key aspect in our understanding 

of this sentence. Unfortunately, Knight neither takes this up again in the rest 

his analysis nor does he relate it to the argument of the apostle earlier in the 

letter. 

Quinn (1990:215) gets even closer to target in his summary of this sentence, 

best presented in his own words: 

Jews were devoted to the God who loved humankind; they could not 

reasonably hate what their God loved …. Jesus, the savior, was the visible, 

historical revelation of God’s philanthrōpia to all human beings. That vision of 

the baptismal profession became in its turn the antithesis to the vicious 

existence that converts from extremist Jewish sects had once led. They had 

formerly been “detested, hating one another.” Now, in faith, they have seen 

“the humane munificence of our savior, God … revealed.” They have no 

longer any basis for hating those whom God, their Father and savior, has 

loved (Emphasis added). 

This comparative-contrastive dimension best explains the function of this 

unusual sentence. The apostle has not abandoned his dominant rhetorical 

objective, namely to enforce compliance to sound doctrine. Instead, he takes 

his argument a notch higher in this final of three strategic, though unusually 

long sentences, occurring here, in 1:1-4 and in 2:11-14. Each of these three 

long sentences forms a strategic part of the rhetorical strategy of the author. 

He thus tends to use these sentences to communicate highly concentrated 

theology. Each of the sentences contains shared knowledge or traditional 

material apparently known to the recipients. The present sentence is therefore 

also a strategically placed rhetorical technique. After shaming the believers 


137

through self-vilification in the opening verses of this chapter, the apostle does 

not relent. The employment of the potev-o{te formula serves to connect this 

sentence with the previous section. Thus, the argument based on prior 

knowledge is implicitly perpetuated in this section. The believers must be 

reminded about good conduct (vv. 1-2), about what they were (v. 3) and now 

the apostle reminds them of what God did while they were unworthy of his 

beneficence. Paul is enforcing compliance to sound doctrine arguing now on 

the basis of the power of the divine example. Believers’ past negative conduct 

in v. 3 is juxtaposed with the positive attitude of God in the opening 

description of v. 4. The pote-o{te formula emphasises this contrast. Thus, 

when believers are instructed to manifest the positive behaviour of 3:1-2 to 

outsiders, lack of compliance will put them at variance not with man, but with 

God himself. Furthermore, this argument is based on transcendent conduct. 

When believers manifest these attitudes, their behaviour transcends common 

decency or what is expected from good citizens. Their conduct testifies about 

something extraordinary that has happened to them, namely the way God 

treated them! This is certainly a powerful line of reasoning, highly convincing 

and persuasive. A schematic presentation of the argument will demonstrate 

the careful reasoning in which the contrasts between the divine and human 

actions are accentuated: 

(3:1-2) Present: Believers manifesting positive behaviour 

(3:3) Past: Believers manifesting negative behaviour 

(3:4-7) Past: God manifesting positive behaviour 

(3:8) Present: Believers manifesting positive behaviour 

Most scholars recognise the temporal aspects of this sentence (3-7), 

particularly the believers’ past conduct and the attitude and intervention of the 

divine in the past, but are less appreciative of the rhetorical intent and function 

behind these shifts in temporal perspectives. 

The lack of unanimity among scholars, in identifying or categorising this 

section, prohibits any dogmatic notions about the nature of the section. The 


138

most that can be said is that this section contains elements of traditional 

material. Attempts to classify it as either a hymn or creed, cloud the rhetorical 

intent behind the sentence. For the purposes of this study, this sentence will 

be categorised as constituting shared knowledge and as forming part of the 

overall rhetorical intent of the passage. Paul is adapting the traditional 

material in a manner that draws attention to the salvific activity of the triune 

God and not primarily to present a comprehensive theological treatise. He 

wishes instead to accentuate the lavishness of the divine condescension 

towards people who did not deserve it. The rich and distinct theological flavour 

is empathic, drawing attention to and highlighting the benevolent action of the 

divine. In fact, if the structure of the sentence is appreciated, it provides a 

clearer indication of the apostolic intent of this sentence. 

This section is inspired by the rhetorical objective namely, motivating 

compliance to sound doctrine. If someone dared to ask Titus: “Why must I 

show kindness to these unsaved Cretans?” the answer would be: “Look at 

what you were and look at how God treated you”. Furthermore, there also 

appears to be a polemical intention behind this section. The false teaching 

seems to have encouraged isolationists’ tendencies, even hostility towards 

pagan neighbours, who appear to have been branded as unworthy to 

associate with. This kind of thinking is confronted head on by the argument of 

the apostle in this section. 

Most commentators provide elaborate and helpful vocabulary studies of this 

sentence and may be consulted for further information. Classen (2002:61) 

argues that it is the order of the sentence rather than the unusual vocabulary 

that demands an explanation: “Here it is the sentences which he arranges in 

such a way as to give his words special force and emphasis...” Prominent 

rhetorical features in this section include syndeton, implicit contrast, repetition, 

and paranomasia. Other features include emotive or anthropopathic, highly 

theological and inclusive language. 

In earlier sections, implicit contrasts are drawn primarily on the human level, 

whereas in the present situation it takes on a different dimension. The 


139

crhstovth" and filanqrwpiva of God are contrasted with the unworthy 

condition of believers in their pre-conversion state (v. 3). This is borne out by 

the pote-o{te construction, which links the two sentences. The words 

crhstovth" and filanqrwpiva are examples of the rhetorical technique called 

anthropopathism, so entitled because of the approximation of human 

emotions to the divine. The rhetorical objective of this strategy is twofold. First, 

it presents God in a manner that people can identify with; it personalises God. 

Secondly, it emphasises the stark contrast between the divine attitude and 

those human qualities listed in 3:3 as well as those negative qualities referred 

to with respect to false teachers and their followers (1:10-12,15-16). 

Interestingly, this word pair has been used extra-biblically to describe some 

emperors (Collins, 2002:361). 

The expression hJ crhstovth" kai; hJ filanqrwpiva is an example of syndeton. 

Classen (2002:60) points out the “asyndetic enumeration” of the Cretans past 

behaviour (3:3), here contrasted with the syndetonic enumeration of the divine 

attitude. The use of asyndeton and syndeton thus functions to accentuate the 

contrast between the opposing attitudes while magnifying the distinctiveness 

of the divine beneficence. Another helpful enumeration by Classen (2002:61) 

is the pairing of significant concepts that are evident in this sentence: 

“crhstovth" kai; hJ filanqrwpiva (“kindness and love for mankind”), e[rga ta; ejn 

dikaiosuvnh/ a} ejpoihvsamen hJmei`"/to; aujtou` e[leo" (“works done in 

righteousness which we have performed”/ “his mercy”: antithesis), loutro;n 

paliggenesiva" kai; ajnakainwvsew" pneuvmato" aJgivou. The notion of contrast 

between the divine and human is consistently emphasised in this brilliant 

sentence, reinforced here by the antithesis that Classen highlights. Paul’s 

primary objective is therefore not related to the presentation of a fully orbed 

Pauline theological treatise. This is an important observation since many 

scholars appear to get sidetracked here to either want to prove or disprove 

whether this sentence correctly reflects authentic Pauline theology. The 

author is simply exalting the excellencies of the divine example over against 

the poverty of the pre-conversion human condition. If it was simply a matter of 

conveying knowledge, i.e. theology, then there is much that the apostle is not 


140

saying. However, as Tolmie (2005:132) points out, the original hearers would 

have heard this sentence in a manner of seconds. What they would have 

heard was not detailed information per se but rather a rhetorical intention, 

namely to force them to compare themselves with none other than God 

himself. An observation in Tolmie (2002:132) pertaining to Galatians is 

applicable to this current sentence: “This provocative utterance is not arrived 

at slowly by a careful process of thought. It is flung out in the heat of debate – 

and the hearer in the sentence is left to consider in what sense or senses it is 

true”. Therefore, in the debate surrounding the nature of the discourse, the 

adamance to categorise the sentences as either a creed or a hymn proves 

rather fruitless. It is unquestionable that the sentence resembles traditional 

aspects. The most that can be maintained is that the apostle has modified this 

traditional material to serve a rhetorical purpose, namely to emphasise the 

exemplary nature of the divine example. The net effect of this customisation of 

traditional material is that the audience is confronted with a choice: either 

follow inferior teaching modelled by inferior examples or follow sound teaching 

and a superior example – not Paul, nor Titus, but God. The ultimate 

consequence of sound teaching is to make the attitude of the adherent thereof 

conform to that of God Himself. 

Other rhetorical strategies include inclusive language, repetition, antithesis, 

and theological vocabulary. This section contains a high concentration of 

inclusive language in pronoun and verbal forms: 

tou` swth`ro" hJmw`n qeou (v. 4) 

ejpoihvsamen hJmei`" (v. 5) 

e[swsen hJma`" (v. 5) 

ou| ejxevceen ejfÆ hJma`" (v. 6) 

jIhsou` Cristou` tou` swth`ro" hJmw`n (v. 6) 

genhqw`men (v. 6) 

In v. 5, the pronoun functions emphatically since the verb ejpoihvsamen already 

contains the first person plural ending. The pronoun highlights the antithesis 

between divine grace and human works: oujk ejx e[rgwn tw`n ejn dikaiosuvnh/ a} 


141

ejpoihvsamen hJmei`" (works) ajlla; kata; to; aujtou` e[leo" (grace) e[swsen hJma`". 

There seem to be a polemical intent behind this sentence, particularly the 

negation concerning a “works righteousness”. It is probable that the false 

teaching emphasised a “works righteousness” or that there was a leniency 

towards such a teaching among the Cretan believers, hence the strong 

negation on the part of the apostle. If we accept the notion that this sentence 

constitutes some form of tradition or shared knowledge, it would underscore 

the polemical nuance of the sentence. It makes sense rhetorically to counter 

any doctrinal aberrance by reciting doctrine already known to the believers. 

The sentence o{te de; hJ crhstovth" kai; hJ filanqrwpiva ejpefavnh tou` swth`ro" 

hJmw`n qeou` (v. 4) is parallel to that of 2:11. These two sentences share several 

commonalities. For example, they contain the same verb in the aorist, namely 

ejpifaivnw. In 2:11 it is hJ cavri" tou` qeou` that appeared. In 3:4 it is the 

manifestation of hJ crhstovth" and hJ filanqrwpiva … tou' … qeou` that is in the 

spotlight. The use of this verb, together with the synonymous verb in 1:3, 

namely fanerovw convey the notion of accessibility or absence of secrecy. 

Everything God has done He did openly and publicly. There are no secrets – 

whether it is the source of Paul’s authority to teach (1:3) or the contents of 

sound doctrine (2:11-12) or the nature of the divine beneficence (3:4); it is all 

known. The employment of this verb seems to counter any notions of secrecy 

perhaps taught by the false teachers. 

Paranomasia is seen in the occurrence of the noun swthvr and adjective 

swthvrio~ found respectively in 3:4 and 2:11. Also, both sentences contain the 

expression tou` … qeou`. In 2:11, it is divine grace that appeared while in 3:4 it 

is divine kindness and love-for-mankind/people. The presence of the third 

person singular verb ejpefavnh, has lead some scholars to view the expression 

crhstovth" kai; hJ filanqrwpiva, as conveying a single concept namely the 

divine attitude (Knight, 1992:338; Hendriksen, 1957:389). The paranomasia 

and parallel expressions facilitate inter-textual coherence between the above 

respective sections. Coherence extends to the rest of the letter, specifically 

the opening verses of this letter, by an interesting theological exchange of 


142

titles between God and Jesus Christ. In 1:3-4, we find the following references 

to God and Jesus Christ: 


Cristou` jIhsou` tou` swth`ro" hJmw`n (1:4) 

In 3:4 and 3:6, the exact references are repeated: 

tou` swth`ro" hJmw`n qeou` (3:4) 

jIhsou` Cristou` tou` swth`ro" hJmw`n (3:6) 

In both of the above instances, the references form a chiasm. Interestingly, in 

2:13, all of the above vocabulary appears again. Only this time, it refers 

exclusively to Jesus Christ who is called both our God and Saviour: 

(ejpifavneian th`" dovxh" tou` megavlou) qeou` kai; swth`ro" hJmw`n jIhsou` Cristou`. 

Note in the above sentence, the presence of the noun form (ejpifavneia), from 

the verb ejpifaivnw. This makes the occurrence of the verb, in 3:5, another 

instance of paranomasia. These direct repetitions bind the letter into a 

coherent unit that evinces development of the Christological motif. Viewed 

holistically, the following outline demonstrates the Christological progression 

within the letter: 

1:3 - God our Saviour (PAST) 

1:4 - (God our Father) Christ Jesus our Saviour (PRESENT) 

2:13 - our (great) God and Saviour Jesus Christ (FUTURE) 

3:4 - God our Saviour (PAST) 

3:6 - Jesus Christ our Saviour (PAST) 

It is only in 1:1, 1:4 and 2:13 that the words God and Jesus Christ or Christ 

Jesus occur together. In the first two instances, they refer to two separate 

persons whereas in the last instance a single person is in view. Thus, in the 

presentation of Jesus Christ, there is progression. Furthermore, from the 

above scheme, it is interesting to note the time referents associated with 


143

these titles. The future appearance of Jesus Christ as God and Saviour 

appears to be a central theme in the letter. This outline confirms the scholarly 

consensus surrounding the soteriological character of the letter. 

In v. 5, the contrast between the divine and human attitudes is also 

highlighted through assonance of the e-vowel in the nouns e[rgwn and e[leo", 

as well as in the verbs ejpoihvsamen and e[swsen. Furthermore, the order in 

which the audience would have heard the divine and human actions described 

also accentuates the differences: 

God (v. 4): hJ crhstovth" kai; hJ filanqrwpiva 

Man (v. 5): e[rgwn tw`n ejn dikaiosuvnh/ 

God (v. 5): e[leo" 

The aural impact is overwhelming in this section, because God is presented 

as the sole actor with man at the receiving end of his divine benevolence: He 

saved the saints, e[swsen (v. 5) and poured out the Spirit richly, ejxevceen ejfÆ 

hJma`" plousivw" (v. 6) upon them. The adverb plousivw" reiterates the 

generous nature of divine salvation: God was not skimpy when He acted. 

Thus, the Cretans are without excuse, having no reason to boast or to avoid 

compliance to sound doctrine. Any action contrary to that stipulated in 3:1-2 

would amount to flagrant disobedience or serve as proof that they do not 

belong to the divine family (cf. 1:4). To disobey, in the light of such divine 

lavishness, would be unthinkable to a true believer. The basis of their being 

part of the divine family lies entirely outside of themselves being saved not 

from e[rgwn tw`n ejn dikaiosuvnh but kata; to; aujtou` e[leo". The careful and 

deliberate structuring of the argument suggests an embedded polemic against 

a doctrine of works righteousness or salvation by human effort, particularly by 

observing the law (Johnson, 1996:248). 

The repetition of the noun e[rgon, while facilitating coherence throughout the 

text, recalls previous appearances of the word. These are as follows: 


144

toi`" de; e[rgoi" ajrnou`ntai (1:16) 

pro;" pa`n e[rgon ajgaqo;n ajdovkimoi (1:16) 

kalw`n e[rgwn (2:7) 

zhlwth;n kalw`n e[rgwn (2:14) 

e[rgon ajgaqovn (3:1) 

oujk ejx e[rgwn tw`n ejn dikaiosuvnh (3:5) 

The above list confirms the vital role of works in this letter. The repetition of 

the word reintroduces it in this section as a reminder of what works cannot do, 

namely render anyone righteous. Furthermore, while works cannot justify, 

believers will manifest good works and are shown to be genuine believers by 

their works. Works also serve as evidence that some are not part of God’s 

family and are “worthless for any good work”. Believers ought to be zealous 

for good works. Thus, the nature of an individual’s works will reveal the 

existence or non- existence of the knowledge of God. In this manner, the 

author is rhetorically strategic in his reintroduction of this key word. 

Verse 5 also contains the much discussed phrase, dia; loutrou` 

paliggenesiva" kai; ajnakainwvsew", which emphasises the newness of those 

who have encountered divine grace. Rhetorically, it functions to further the 

notion that those who have been renewed in this way are no longer what they 

used to be, since they have been regenerated and renewed. Thus, the good 

conduct espoused in 3:1-2 ought to be manifested by those who had been 

regenerated and renewed. By negative implication therefore, the absence of 

such conduct would testify to the fact that such individuals never experienced 

renewal and regeneration. 


145

The certainty and completeness of the transformation is guaranteed by the 

Trinitarian references within the sentence. Failure to manifest godly conduct 

would amount to a denial of the salvific intervention of God the Father, Jesus 

Christ and the Holy Spirit. 

Verse 7 presents another instance of paranomasia in the participle 

dikaiwqevnte". Its rhetorical functions include highlighting again the contrast 

that is so endemic to this sentence (vv. 3-7). Other functions relate to inter- 

sectional cohesion since cognates of this word occur in 1:8 (divkaion), 2:12 

(dikaivw") and 3:5 (dikaiosuvnh). Righteousness is a quality inherent to 

believers. Elder-overseers must manifest it (1:8) as a requirement to serve in 

the church. Believers must live righteously, as they are instructed by grace 

(2:12). Righteousness manifests after salvation and cannot be attained by 

human efforts (3:5). Thus, the only time this positive quality is presented 

negatively is when it is viewed as attainable by works of righteousness. In 

every other instance, the word is presented as a positive Christian trait. In 3:7, 

the answer or explanation is given as to how a believer comes to manifest this 

quality: they are made righteous by divine grace. Likewise, in 2:11, it is grace 

that instructs believers to live “godly” (dikaivw") in this present age. The 

paranomasia serves to highlight the endemic nature of righteousness in the 

life of believers. Rhetorically, this has the effect of making genuine sainthood 

inseparable from the quality of righteousness. Thus, where this quality is 

absent it can reasonably be inferred that no salvation has occurred. The 

Cretans were not saved by righteous works they have done (oujk ejx e[rgwn tw`n 

ejn dikaiosuvnh/), instead they have been made righteous (dikaiwqevnte"). In 

other words, they are passive in the act of acquiring the status of 

righteousness. The passive participle constitutes an emphatic denial of human 

boasting, contrasting directly with the sentiment expressed in the first part of 

v. 5. The use of inclusive language employed both in verbal and pronoun 

forms, functions among other things, to restrain any credit from accruing to 

human beings. Paul is implicitly affirming that even his Jewish heritage was of 

no value in his salvation or in acquiring this righteousness. Titus also has 

nothing to boast in apart from divine grace. By implication therefore, the 


146

Cretans are only saved by the gracious condescension of God who 

manifested his e[leo". 

Inclusive language also functions to foster a sense of community and 

identification. Paul, by indicating his own unworthiness to be saved, as well as 

that of Titus, facilitates thereby a full identification with the Cretans. The 

presentation of a Jew as a co-recipient of divine grace must communicate 

powerfully against any temptations towards proud superiority. The rhetorical 

impact of this line of communication harnesses a sense of community and 

unity, while discouraging any latent allegiance to teaching and teachers that 

encourage the opposite. 

In verse 7 we find the word cavri~ which is repeated from 2:11. The rhetorical 

objective of this repetition is to demonstrate the relationship between grace 

and righteousness. Here, it also concludes a conglomeration of related terms 

or synonyms used in this sentence to distinguish the divine action vis-a-vis the 

human action. From 3:4-7, the following terms are employed to describe 

God’s behaviour: 

hJ crhstovth" kai; hJ filanqrwpiva (v. 4) 

e[leo" (v. 5) 

cavriti (v. 7) 

This conglomeration is emphatic, highlighting the supremacy and totality of 

the divine action. In each of the above instances, the accompanying pronoun 

or modifier reiterates that with reference to the salvation of people, including 

the Cretans, God alone is the author thereof: God’s kindness and love for 

mankind (tou` … qeou'), His mercy (aujtou` e[leo"), and His grace (ejkeivnou 

cavriti). This triple emphasis stands in stark contrast to human effort with its 

emphatic first person plural pronoun following after the verb: oujk ejx e[rgwn tw`n 

ejn dikaiosuvnh/ a} ejpoihvsamen hJmei`". 


147

The next two words in v. 7 are examples of kinship and inclusive language 

respectively. The noun klhronovmo~ evokes images of family and privilege. 

Together with the verb givnomai, it serves as a very powerful confirmation of 

the transformation shared by all the believers without discrimination or 

exception. It is reminiscent of the earlier paternal reference to God as “our 

Father” (1:4) and parent-sibling images in Paul calling Titus his “true child” 

(1:4). The verb, genhqw`men, being in the passive voice, reaffirms the 

consistent emphasis throughout this sentence on the passivity of man and the 

radical activity of God. The prepositional phrase, katÆ ejlpivda zwh`" aijwnivou, 

introduces a shift in the temporal emphasis of this sentence. Hope points to 

that which is still to come or to be expected, thus some future event. More 

importantly though, this phrase repeats the reference in 1:2, ejpÆ ejlpivdi zwh`" 

aijwnivou, where the apostle ties present godliness to the future hope. The 

repetition has the rhetorical effect of bolstering the coherency of the 

discourse, particularly as it also relates to 2:13 and the makarivan ejlpivda. The 

three references to hope (ejlpiv~) impact on the temporal momentum of the 

discourse by introducing a future dimension to it. This future perspective 

serves an important rhetorical function. Positively, those who embrace sound 

doctrine and obey it can anticipate eternal life with its implicit rewards. 

Negatively, those who reject sound doctrine or who embrace false teaching 

are “warned” by the notion of a future reckoning. In other words, the teaching 

about the future serves to ground or anchor adherence to sound doctrine in 

the present while also warning those who risk ignoring sound doctrine. The 

obedient ones will have something good to look forward to, while those who 

are reckless in this life will, by implication, also have something to look 

forward to, but less pleasant. 

The overall rhetorical effect of this future perspective is to communicate the 

truth that present godliness has future implications, while present ungodliness 

will also have future implications. This is an ingenious way to motivate the 

believers to embrace sound doctrine that results in godliness (1:1-2). 

Furthermore, the certainty of this hope is stressed by the triple repetition 

thereof throughout this letter. Additionally, in each of the theological sections, 


148

1:1-4 and in 2:11-14 and 3:4-7 there is transition in time frames – past, 

present and future. Each relates how God has acted and how His purposes 

were established. In this manner, the reader-hearers are given a “track 

record” or profile of God’s actions. Logically, therefore, it can be deduced that 

if God has acted in the past and it came to fruition, then the future or ejlpiv~ is 

certain. 

Conclusion 

The dominant rhetorical objective of verses 4-7, a single sentence in the 

original, is to enforce compliance to sound doctrine by appealing to the divine 

example through the reminder of God’s salvific intervention. This section in 

particular, has also not escaped the pervasiveness of the authenticity debate 

which has contributed to a mellow appreciation for the actual content of the 

sentence and the intent of the author. The approach to this sentence has 

centred upon three central issues: a) the extent and delineation of the 

passage and the degree to which this passage is considered representative of 

authentic Pauline work; b) the interpretation of the word loutrovn. In this 

regard, the evidence shows that continuity or discontinuity with Pauline 

theology impacts upon the interpretation of this word; c) the nature of the 

passage, specifically whether it is a hymn or creed. Apart from these 

differences in opinion, there is widespread consensus surrounding the content 

of the sentence, particularly its soteriological nature. Scholars also recognise 

the unique Trinitarian emphases of the passage as well as its essential 

doctrinal character. While the text hints at baptism and salvation, it has been 

demonstrated that these are not the primary foci of the passage and to insist 

that is so, does not advance our appreciation for the unique contribution of 

this letter. 

The key aspect to appreciating this sentence is to interpret it in the order in 

which it appears. Such an approach reveals the intricate and powerful 

rhetorical argument that characterises this sentence. Paul’s overall rhetorical 

strategy is to hold before his audience the example of no one less than God 

Himself. The behaviour that they ought to conform to was demonstrated in 


149

their salvation by God. The divine attitude is set up as the standard by which 

to evaluate their own willingness or reluctance to comply with and manifest 

sound doctrine. It is suggested that this is the only objective the apostle sets 

out to achieve in this sentence. To this task, he draws from an arsenal of 

rhetorical techniques which were already used earlier on in the letter, with one 

exception, that of anthropopathism. He uses the latter to personalise God and 

to present God as an example not only to the saints but also to the 

disobedient whose actions are showed to be glaringly inconsistent compared 

to that of the divine. 

Minor rhetorical techniques utilised in this section include syndeton, implicit 

contrast, repetition, and paranomasia. It was demonstrated how strategic the 

repetition of e[rgon is in this section. Paranomasia of several words occurred, 

the most prominent being dikaiwqevnte~. Other features include highly 

theological and inclusive language, like crhstovth~, filanqrwpiva, e[leo~ and 

cavri~. The language of inheritance calls to mind kinship, community and 

inclusiveness. The orientation towards the future is reintroduced in this section 

through the expression katÆ ejlpivda zwh`~ aijwnivou. This orientation functions 

rhetorically to, on the one hand, hold before the obedient the implicit promise 

of reward, while on the other hand, hint at negative consequences or 

punishment in the future to those who disobey now. The certainty of this hope 

is communicated by the triple repetition thereof throughout the letter, as well 

as, by the recollection of God’s consistency in the past. In this manner, the 

author uses the temporal momentum within this section as a guarantee of the 

future hope. 

The sentence in itself, functions as a rhetorical instrument. As was shown 

above, this sentence is one of three that are strategically located throughout 

this discourse. They are unique in character revealing high concentrations of 

theological truths, probably known to the recipients. In the present example, 

scholars agree that the sentence constitutes pre-existent traditional material 

or shared knowledge, known to the recipients. The fact that the recipients 

probably knew this material significantly adds to their persuasive value. 


150

2.2.10 Titus 3:8-11: Reinforcing the differences between sound 

and illegitimate doctrine in order to encourage compliance to the 

former and rejection of the latter 

In this section, beginning from 3:8-11, the author’s dominant rhetorical 

objective is to make a final appeal for compliance to sound doctrine by 

reinforcing the differences between sound and illegitimate doctrine. He sets 

out to achieve this objective by encouraging the adoption of the one and the 

rejection of the other; in this case it is false doctrine that must be rejected. As 

he nears the conclusion of his letter, he wants to help his audience maintain 

the mutual exclusivity of the opposing doctrines. Negatively, he wants to 

provide the congregation with some final reasons why they should forsake or 

not be lured to embrace false doctrine. This strategy is a repetition of that 

pursued in 2:1-10. To accomplish this objective, Paul again contrasts sound 

doctrine with false doctrine, unleashing an assortment of rhetorical techniques 

to this end. In fact, this small section is unusually inundated with a variety of 

these techniques. 

Some scholars, like Quinn (1990:244), argue that this section contains the 

final contrast between sound doctrine and false doctrine. He goes so far as to 

entitle this section “True and False Instruction” (Quinn, 1990:233). Scholars 

are however divided on the exact demarcation of the section. Some scholars 

begin this section with the second part of verse 8, indicating it as 8b-11 

(Quinn, 1990:233; Collins, 2002:366). Mounce (2000:434, 455) views it as 

comprising 3:1-11. Knight (1992:350), interestingly, includes it as part of 3:3-8. 

Others argue that v. 8 commences a new section (Guthrie, 1957:207; 

Simpson, 1954:116). The demarcation accepted in this study is based on the 

following arguments: Verse 8 should be viewed as separate from 4-7, 

because of a difference in genre. Verses 4-7 constitute some form of earlier 

tradition, that is, it could be a hymn or creed. Verse 8a is an observation about 

the preceding sentence and therefore not part of it. A final consideration, for 

the view that v. 8 begins a new section, relates to its function within the 


151

discourse. In this regard, consideration must be paid to the rhetorical intention 

behind this section. 

The function of the sentence pisto;" oJ lovgo" is multifaceted. It is one of three 

short sentences used in this section, together with the others being tau`ta 

ejstin kala; kai; wjfevlima toi`" ajnqrwvpoi" (8) and eijsi;n ga;r ajnwfelei`" kai; 

mavtaioi (9). Its brevity makes it conspicuous and highlights the claim that it 

makes about the previous section (4-7), which is one sentence. This, in itself, 

supports the decision for the division between the sections. The use of short 

sentences is one of several rhetorical techniques exploited in this section for 

emphatic purposes. At a basic level, the sentence serves to connect verses 8- 

11 with the preceding section, facilitating a degree of fluidity in this part of the 

apostle’s argument. Later, it will be evident how it functions as an antithetic 

hedge with the description in verse 9 of the false teaching as ajnwfelei`" kai; 

mavtaioi. Its immediate function therefore, is transitory, indicating the transition 

from one genre form to another, i.e. from verses 4-7 to 8-11. At a rhetorical 

level, this statement functions as an apostolic affirmation of the preceding 

section. The apostle underscores the traditional material as pisto;" oJ lovgo". 

This is an important insight, if we want to appreciate the rest of his argument. 

The dominant rhetorical intent behind verses 8-11 is to contrast legitimate and 

illegitimate teaching in order to reinforce compliance to the former. Pisto;" oJ 

lovgo" therefore should be interpreted to mean: “Everything said thus far 

constitute legitimate teaching. I affirm that to be so, as dou`lo" qeou`, 

ajpovstolo" de; jIhsou` Cristou`” (1:1). Put in more colloquial terms, the apostle 

is saying: “This is the real thing”. The first person singular, bouvlomai, suggests 

the reasonableness of such an interpretation of the text. This sentence 

therefore introduces the first reason why sound teaching is to be embraced as 

well as why it is superior to false teaching. This is an argument based on 

apostolic authorisation. Sound doctrine must be heeded because unlike false 

teaching, it is apostolically authorised. In the rest of the sentence, the apostle 

is going to give two more reasons why Cretan believers must comply with 

sound doctrine and reject false doctrine. 


152

The second half of v. 8 builds upon the first part. Since these teachings are 

legitimate, the apostle proceeds to express his desire (bouvlomai) that Titus 

should insist or speak confidently (diabebaioovmai) about them. The strong 

diabebaioovmai leads Mounce (2000:452) to interpret touvtwn as referring to all 

of chapter 3. Knight (1992:350) agrees, arguing that it refers to 3:1-7 while 

Hendriksen (1957:394) limits it to verses 4-7. Contextually, it is more tenable 

to argue that the pronoun refers to everything that has preceded thus far and 

not only to 3:4-7. The ensuing purpose clause includes the key expression 

kalw`n e[rgwn which is best interpreted to include the virtues commended in 

3:1-2. 

Earlier, in 2:1 Titus was exhorted to “speak” (lavlew). In contradistinction, the 

false teachers must be silenced, ejpistomivzw (1:11). Thus, sound doctrine can 

be spoken about confidently. This command, like the earlier ones, is an 

instance of apostolic affirmation or authorisation of the ministry of Titus. 

The purpose clause, i{na … qew`/, has a very interesting structure. The 

preposition, i{na, is followed by the verb, frontivzwsin. These two are 

separated from the infinitive, proivŸstasqai, and subject, oiJ pepisteukovte", by 

the key expression, kalw`n e[rgwn. It is only at the end that the subject, oiJ 

pepisteukovte" is revealed. This structure emphasises a concern or 

eagerness for good works. Thus, Titus must insist or speak confidently so that 

a concern or eagerness for sound doctrine will result or be manifested. The 

emphasis in the second part of this sentence is that only those who believed 

and continue to believe in God are able to be occupied in good works. The 

participle, pepisteukovte", is in the perfect tense and expresses the idea of a 

completed action perpetuated in the present. The faith allegiance of those 

who are careful to perform good deeds is directed towards God, qew`/. The 

juxtaposition of the subject and indirect object stresses the inseparability of 

faith in God and good works. Put differently, those who believe in God will be 

those who perform kala; e[rga. This is in direct opposition to the false teachers 

who profess to know God but deny him by their deeds, qeo;n oJmologou`sin 

eijdevnai, toi`" de; e[rgoi" ajrnou`ntai (1:16). In this way, the chasm between the 


153

two groups is accentuated and the disparities are made all the more obvious. 

This constitutes an argument based upon the irreconcilability of conduct. 

Thus, the second reason why sound teaching is different, relates to the 

ensuing good works, which, in turn, confirm them as the ones who actually 

have come to faith in God. The substantive use of the participle supports the 

notion of identity. Here, the apostle uses the rhetorical technique of honorific 

referencing to encourage compliance to sound doctrine. Thus, by behaviour 

compliant to sound doctrine the audience will demonstrate their faith or the 

absence of faith in God. The Cretans must decide whether they deserve the 

honour of being referred to as oiJ pepisteukovte" qew`/ or not; only their conduct 

will show this. 

The beneficial impact of sound doctrine and deeds consequential to it upon 

the rest of society is another distinctive from false doctrine. The last part of v. 

8 contains the final reason for compliance to sound doctrine, namely its 

positive impact upon the rest of humanity. These things, i.e. all the teaching 

contained in chapter 3, are kala; kai; wjfevlima toi`" ajnqrwvpoi". The use of 

syndeton emphasises the double significance of the sound doctrine. Several 

words are repeated in this section and each instance is emphatic. The word 

kalovn repeats, within a single sentence an earlier occurrence, namely kalw`n 

e[rgwn. The hearers would hear this double reiteration of “good”, which in turn, 

connects this section with all the earlier occurrences of this word. The word 

ajnqrwvpo" recalls several occurrences of this noun, some of which are positive 

while one or two are negative. In 3:2, the believers are called to exhibit 

kindness pro;" pavnta" ajnqrwvpou". Grace appeared pa`sin ajnqrwvpoi" (2:11). 

Both of these could be classified as positive uses of this word. The first 

negative occurrence is in 1:14 with reference to the false teachers who adhere 

to the commandments of men, ejntolai`" ajnqrwvpwn. Within the immediate 

context of 3:8-11, the word appears again, but in a negative context, with 

reference to the opposition who are, aiJretiko;n a[nqrwpon. In 3:8, the intention 

is surely to accentuate the positive benefits of sound doctrine to the greater 

humanity, similar to 2:11 with regard to grace. Rhetorically, the intention to 

contrast the positive effect of sound doctrine with the negative effect of false 


154

doctrine cannot be clearer. Whereas false teaching was “upsetting whole 

households”, o{lou" oi[kou" ajnatrevpousin (1:11), this cannot be maintained 

about sound doctrine. The repetition of ajnqrwvpo" serves the additional 

purpose of facilitating coherence throughout the letter or facilitating inter- 

sectional coherence. 

Thus, in v. 8 the apostle has successfully highlighted the distinctiveness of 

sound doctrine. Sound doctrine is commended by the apostolic affirmation in 

the sentence pisto;" oJ lovgo". The results of sound doctrine can be seen by 

the good works which those who believe in God will be careful to perform. 

Finally, the good works will benefit the community at large. Through repetition 

of key words, the apostle facilitates implicit contrasts with the opposition from 

earlier sections of the letter. The highly positive presentation of sound doctrine 

is the main rhetorical intent of verse 8. In the next section, the contrast 

between sound and false doctrine is perpetuated, but this time through an 

intensely negative portrayal of the opposition. 

The primary rhetorical intent in 3:9-11 is the perpetuation of the contrast 

between sound and false doctrine. This section is replete with rhetorical 

techniques employed to achieve the rhetorical objective, namely to encourage 

the audience to reject false doctrine. However, most commentators reveal an 

etymological preoccupation with the vocabulary in this and other sentences, 

although they sometimes cite some helpful extra–biblical occurrences of the 

words (Simpson, 1954:117-118; Quinn, 1990:244-248). However, as a result 

of this focus they do not pay much attention to the other stylistic features 

present in this section. Mounce (2000:453) and Knight (1992:353-354), for 

example, categorise mwra;" de; zhthvsei" kai; genealogiva" kai; e[rei" kai; 

mavca" nomika;" as merely a list of “errors to avoid”. There are exceptions, like 

Collins (2002:368) and Quinn (1990:245), who draw attention to the 

polysyndeton in this sentence. Unfortunately, they do not explain its function 

in the sentence. This will now be addressed. 


155

Verse 9 opens with the adversative dev followed by four references to the false 

teaching, each separated by the conjunction kaiv. Mounce (2000:453) correctly 

identifies the function of the adversative conjunction, namely to “establish … 

contrast”. He unfortunately limits the contrast exclusively to this chapter, 

whereas it is best understood to perpetuate the contrast that runs consistently 

throughout the letter. In all fairness to him, there is definitely a contrast in the 

immediate context, but it exceeds the context, as the analysis of this section 

will show, and as the repetition of key vocabulary in verse 8 has 

demonstrated. The rhetorical technique employed in this verse is 

polysyndeton. The four descriptions of the false teaching are separated by 

three conjunctions: mwra;" (dev) zhthvsei" kai; genealogiva" kai; e[rei" kai; 

mavca" nomika;". The polysyndeton emphasises the false teaching. The 

rhetorical objective behind it is the vilification of the false teaching. The terms 

are largely negative, almost mocking. The false teaching must not be 

confronted, instead Titus must “steer clear” from or “avoid” (periivŸstaso) it. 

The imperative indicates that the problem is not endemic to the congregation. 

It was not something to get rid of; rather it was to be avoided. Rhetorically, 

and as far as Paul is concerned, false doctrine is invalid, unnecessary, not 

worthy of Titus’ consideration or time. It is, by implication, an utter waste of 

time. This is therefore, a clear instance of vilification. Here, it is the false 

teaching itself that is vilified rather than its promoters (cf. 1:10-16). The 

polysyndeton accentuates the worthlessness and futility of the false teaching. 

The reason given in the second half of this verse reinforces the uselessness 

of the teaching: eijsi;n ga;r ajnwfelei`" kai; mavtaioi. The polarity between sound 

and false doctrine is accentuated by opposing terms used to describe both. In 

8:1, sound doctrine was affirmed to be pisto;" oJ lovgo". Verse 9 concludes 

with a judgment on false doctrine being ajnwfelei`" kai; mavtaioi. The latter 

expression constitutes an apostolic denunciation of the false teaching. This 

denunciation could be seen as an additional evidence for the distinctiveness 

of sound doctrine. Rhetorically, therefore, anyone who embraces false 

teaching would be affirming that which the apostle has judged to be “worthless 

and unprofitable”. It would place such a person in the very awkward position 


156

of going against the judgment of a “servant of God and an apostle of Jesus 

Christ” (1:1). 

The positive-negative disparity is reiterated through the employment of 

several smaller rhetorical techniques of which some have already been 

pointed out earlier. Verses 8-11 contain several antonyms: sound doctrine 

was considered profitable, wjfevlima (8). False teaching on the other hand is 

condemned as unprofitable, ajnwfelei`" (9). Paul brands false teachings as 

“quarrels”, mavca" (3:9), but wants believers to be “peaceable”, ajmavcou" (3:2). 

Another contrast is drawn through the choice of words used to describe 

people in this section. In v. 8, believers are spoken of honourably as oiJ 

pepisteukovte" qew`/, while the false teacher is labelled a aiJretiko;n a[nqrwpon 

(10). When compared to earlier sections, a progression can be observed with 

regard to the increasing discrimination between the opposing parties in the 

letter. In 1:9, the elder-overseer must “oppose tou;" ajntilevgonta"”. Here, the 

opponents are are represented synecdochially by the reference to the singular 

aiJretiko;n a[nqrwpon. This is an instance of the rhetorical technique of 

synecdoche. Furthermore, there is progression: from confrontation or 

ejlevgcein (1:9), to censuring, ejpistomivzein (1:11), to avoidance of the doctrine 

(3:9) and, finally, shunning of the person, paraitou` (3:10). There can clearly 

be no compromise between those who teach and adhere to sound doctrine 

and those who teach and embrace false doctrine. The chasm only becomes 

wider. The paranomasia by the use of the two words, “empty talkers”, 

mataiolovgoi (1:10) and “empty”, mavtaioi (3:9) does not paint a very 

complimentary picture of the false teachers or their doctrine. 

Through syndeton, ajnwfelei`" kai; mavtaioi, the groundless futility of false 

teaching is emphasised while at the same time accentuating its 

distinctiveness from sound doctrine, which is also emphasised through 

syndeton positively as kala; kai; wjfevlima. The syndeton of v. 10, mivan kai; 

deutevran, emphasises the specificity of the manner in which erroneous 

teachings must be treated. No tolerance must be entertained; just two 

warnings followed by shunning or rejection. The apostle seems to show great 


157

awareness of the insidiousness of false teaching to the church. This alone 

could justify the severe treatment advocated so emphatically here. 

Verse 11 drives home the proverbial final nail in the coffin through emphatic 

clustering of verbs that describe the false teacher: ejxevstraptai (oJ toiou`to") 

kai; aJmartavnei w]n aujtokatavkrito". This is akin to the vilification section of 

chapter 1. In the present section, the apostle has vilified not only their 

teaching but also the person of the teachers and accentuates it through 

emphatic clustering. The description portrays a gradual downward 

progression from perversion, to sinning to the final state of self condemnation. 

Conclusion 

The dominant rhetorical objective of this section is to reinforce the differences 

between sound and illegitimate doctrine in order to encourage compliance to 

the former and rejection of the latter. The argument is structured by way of 

contrast to highlight the virtues of one over the other. Thus, verse 8 contains 

reasons for the adoption of sound doctrine while verses 9-11 provide reasons 

for the rejection of false teaching. This task is accomplished through the 

employment of an array of rhetorical techniques. The opening sentence is one 

of three very short sentences in this section and is used to emphasise the 

resultant contrast between sound and false doctrine. 

The apostle highlights three characteristics of sound doctrine, namely the 

apostolic commendation thereof, its association with those who have come to 

faith in God and finally its beneficial impact upon the rest of society. 

Through repetition of key words like kalovn e[rgon, kalav and ajnqrwvpo" the 

apostle facilitates implicit contrasts with the opposition from earlier sections of 

the letter. This results in a highly positive presentation of sound doctrine. 

In verses 9-11, the negative aspects of the false doctrine are highlighted. This 

section has much in common with chapter 1, repeating similar tones and 

sentiments. The apostle basically vilifies the false teaching in 3:9, contrasting 


158

its negative impact with that of sound doctrine through the use of another 

short sentence, eijsi;n ga;r ajnwfelei`" kai; mavtaioi. In 10-11, he vilifies the 

person of the false teacher and uses name calling or labelling, like he did in 

1:10. The effect of all this criticism and commendation is that the chasm 

between sound and false doctrine is maintained, if not reinforced. It removes 

any possibility for compromise between the two parties. Clearly, the intent of 

the author, towards the end of his letter, is to hold before his audience two 

pictures, one of false doctrine and another of sound doctrine, showing them 

why they should comply with the latter and reject the former. They cannot but 

choose sound doctrine and reject the other, because this puts them in 

community with the apostle who authorises sound doctrine. Furthermore, it 

confirms their identity as those who believe in God when they order their 

conduct in line with sound doctrine. Other rhetorical techniques employed 

include syndeton, polysyndeton, antonyms, repetition, synecdoche, 

paranomasia and emphatic clustering. 

2.2.11 Titus 3:12-15: Adapting the conclusion to reinforce the 

notion of legitimate ministry 

Scholars regard the closing section as “standard” Pauline (Demarest, 

1984:331; Knight, 1992:356; Mounce, 2000:456, 459). While all the standard 

elements of a Pauline conclusion are present, the vocabulary and the rich 

network of cognate linguistic concepts suggest that Paul is adapting his 

normal conclusion for a more important purpose, namely to round off his 

overall argument for compliance to sound doctrine, especially reemphasising 

the notion of legitimate ministry. This is the best opportunity since he has just 

in the previous section (9-11) addressed illegitimate ministry and dictated 

procedures for the treatment of the false teacher(s). The conclusion leaves 

the recipients in no doubt as to what constitutes legitimate ministry. 


159

This is a very tight unit, carefully, almost abruptly, demarcated from the 

preceding section through repetition and paranomasia. There is however a 

clear transition in terms from the perspective of the content of this section; it 

deals with practical and personal arrangements. Based on this, scholars like 

Quinn (1990:260) argue that the unit should be read exclusively with the 

opening verses as a “compositional envelope”, instead of with the preceding 

sections. Paranomasia and repetition do seem to suggest some 

correspondence with the opening sections. Quinn points out several 

examples: leivph/ (3:13) and ajpevlipon … ta; leivponta (1:5); ejn pivstei (3:15) 

and kata; koinh;n pivstin (1:4); cavri" (3:15b) and the same in 1:4, 5. The unity 

of this section is underscored by the repetition of the following words in rapid 

succession to each other: pevmyw (12) and its cognate provpemyon (13); 

spouvdason (12) and the adverb spoudaivw" (13). Quinn (1990:260) adds oiJ 

hJmevteroi (14) and hJma`" (15). Verse 15 discloses an interesting repetition of 

the verb ajspavzomai and the adjective pav~ within a single verse. The repetition 

serves to emphasise the important function of the greetings, in particular its 

contribution to enhancing a sense of community. It furthermore affirms the 

legitimacy of the believers at Crete. Those who are far from them 

acknowledge them by greeting them. The same holds true for Titus, who is 

not serving in isolation but in community. 

The emphasis of this final section recalls and rejoins the opening verses of 

this letter but not initially in as strong a manner as Quinn insists upon. With 

due respect to Quinn, there remains sufficient reasons to argue for a close 

connection between this section and the preceding units. The word pivsto~ 

and its cognates appear nine times in this letter, in five different forms 

scattered in each chapter of this letter (1:1, 4, 6, 9, 13; 2:2, 10; 3:8, 15). The 

word cavri" also appears elsewhere in 1:11; 2:11 and 3:7. The repetition of 

these words facilitates coherence within the letter rather than just establishing 

a link between two isolated units. Furthermore, overemphasising the 

abruptness of the unit suggests that there is very little relationship with the 

previous section. On the contrary, there is a very deliberate link between the 

two sections when considered from a rhetorical perspective. The abruptness 


160

facilitates a mental break from a chilling presentation of the negative 

consequences for rejecting sound doctrine (11). It also introduces a positive 

picture of legitimate ministry and ministers. It is here where the link with the 

opening verses is strongest and credit must go to Quinn for his observations 

in this regard. 

The dominant rhetorical emphasis of this section is upon the notion of 

legitimate ministry. No overt contrasts are presented and no new propositions 

are introduced. In fact, this part of the letter points back to concepts 

introduced in the opening of the letter. 

In verse 12, Paul introduces measures to ensure the perpetuation of 

legitimate ministry in Crete. He had just advised them to reject the false 

teacher (3:10). Now he is about to introduce legitimate ministry. The duration 

of Titus’ ministry is limited and a replacement will be sent in the future. Collins 

(2002:370) considers the introduction of the four characters, Artemis, 

Tychicus, Zenas and Apollos an outstanding characteristic of this conclusion. 

The fact that Paul plans to send a replacement rather than transfer 

responsibility for ministry to the elder-overseers, is suggestive of the relative 

young age of the church in Crete. Hendriksen (1957:398) observes in this 

regard that “churches cannot be made ‘indigenous’ overnight. As long as 

leadership from the outside is necessary, it must be provided”. The kind of 

legitimate ministry envisaged is similar to that introduced in opening portions 

of the letter. Whereas the ministry of Paul has divine sanction, subsequent 

ministry must enjoy apostolic sanction in order to prove legitimate. Such 

ministry must be in harmony with that taught by the apostle. 

The provision of ministerial successors furthermore functions to present a 

positive picture of Paul. He is portrayed as one deeply concerned about the 

church and expresses such care through the careful appointment of sound 

leaders. This is what led him to leave Titus there in the first place (1:5) and 

now he remains unwavering in his commitment to them. Furthermore, Paul 

wants to ensure that the church continues to receive sound doctrine which, in 


161

turn, requires the presence of sound teachers, hence Artemis or Tychicus. 

The use of the first person singular verb, pevmyw, confirms that it is Paul who 

will be sending one of them. 

Additionally, by expressing the desire for Titus’ presence, the apostle says 

much about the latter’s reputation with the apostle. The ministry of Titus has 

constantly been affirmed throughout this letter. Presently, this request that 

Titus join the apostle (spouvdason ejlqei`n prov" me eij" Nikovpolin) functions in a 

similar manner. It affirms the present ministry of Titus while still in Crete. In the 

eyes of the congregation, Titus is presented as one whose company the 

apostle seeks. Thus, if the apostle Paul appreciates Titus, how much more 

should the Cretans; how privileged they are to have him minister among them. 

If the Cretans harboured any secret wish for a visit from the apostle, such 

desire is disappointed by the present arrangements as well as by the 

information that he will be spending the winter in Nicopolis (ejkei` ga;r kevkrika 

paraceimavsai.) 

What is very clear is that the perpetuation of legitimate ministry does not 

require the physical presence of an apostle, only the presence of those 

committed to the teaching, which would eventually include elder-overseers 

from their own ranks (1:9). 

The list of names in this section also introduces at least four other men who 

uphold legitimate teaching and who are committed to that which the apostle is 

committed to, namely the integrity and perpetuation of sound doctrine among 

the believers. These are men who care about them, unlike the false teachers 

who teach from selfish and exploitative motives (1:11). 

The list of names functions rhetorically to highlight again the notion of 

legitimate ministry. Proper names are only mentioned here and in the 

introductory parts of the letter. In this manner, the closing section functions 

beautifully to round off the letter. Interestingly, though, the false teachers 

remain nameless. 


162

Verse 14 is rhetorically significant since the apostle includes a final 

exhortation for good works. This reiterates the lesson of the entire letter that 

sound doctrine results in a healthy ethic. The opportunity that is presented to 

them is to provide practical help to those committed to legitimate teaching, 

Zenas and Apollos. The verb, manqavnw, is one of four synonyms used in the 

letter to refer to teaching and or learning: didaskaliva (1:9, 11; 2:1, 7, 10); 

kalodidaskavlo" (2:3), swfronivzw (2:4); and paideuvw (2:12). The word implies 

the existence of an attitude that responds to teaching and results in the 

performance of good deeds. Those who respond positively to teaching are 

described as “our ones/people”, oiJ hJmevteroi. This is an instance of honorific 

referencing or classification and is rhetorically significant, because anyone 

who refuses to practise good deeds demonstrates by that refusal that he or 

she does not belong to the people of Paul and his delegates. The expression, 

kalw`n e[rgwn proivŸstasqai, repeats an earlier occurrence (3:8). In the latter 

appearance, those who performed good works were described as oiJ 

pepisteukovte" qew`/. Here, they are honorifically referenced or classified as oiJ 

hJmevteroi. Thus, legitimate teaching results in sound doctrine that results in 

good deeds by those who submit to it, demonstrating by it that they believe in 

God or are in community with the apostles, the delegates and the rest of the 

churches. The honorific reference serves to reinforce their identity and to 

distinguish them from the false teachers and their followers. More importantly, 

it serves as a final reinforcement of the inseparability of sound doctrine and 

good deeds. The purpose clause, i{na mh; w\sin a[karpoi, uses an agricultural 

metaphor, and restates in the negative (a[karpoi) the necessity to bear fruit. 

The believer’s good works are his or her fruit. A fruit tree benefits others when 

it does what a fruit tree does, namely bear fruit. 

The closing greetings in verse 15 reinforces a sense of community and 

functions as an encouragement to the recipients. Interestingly, Titus receives 

a separate greeting from the rest of the congregation. Perhaps this serves 

again to reiterate the prominence of Titus to other believers, oiJ (metÆ ejmou`) 

pavnte" and hence to affirm him in the eyes of the Cretan believers, in line with 

the endearing manner in which he is referred to in the salutation (1:4). The 


163

closing greeting to the Cretans involves another instance of honorific 

referencing or classification. They are called tou;" filou`nta" hJma`" ejn pivstei. 

This expression serves a vicarious function, firstly as a term of endearment; 

an affectionate reference to the congregations in Crete. The verb filevw is an 

instance of paranomasia at this late stage in the letter. The cognate words 

were used in the context of family relationships in 2:4 and with reference to 

elders-overseers in 1:8. Wives must love their husbands and children, 

filavndro" and filotevkno" respectively, while local leaders must demonstrate 

filovxenon and be filavgaqon. Seen from this perspective the word, filevw 

positively reinforces the idea of family love, community and intimacy. It serves 

to draw Paul and the others with him relationally closer to the believers at 

Crete. The second and negative nuance relates to the limitation that is set 

through the expression ejn pivstei. In other words, it excludes those who are 

not “in (the) faith”. Paul’s greeting is therefore limited to those who are in the 

faith and to no one else; only to those who are of the same family – who are 

oiJ hJmevteroi (14). The Cretans are again forced to recognise that one can be 

“in (the) faith” or negatively “out of (the) faith”. This kind of eradication of grey 

areas is consistent with Paul’s argument throughout the letter. He remains 

uncompromising to the very end – although it must be added that the choice 

of vocabulary “softens” the reality of what he is saying in this concluding part 

of his letter. 

This gentle tone culminates in the final sentence where it takes the form of a 

blessing directed to all the believers: JH cavri" meta; pavntwn uJmw`n. The 

rhetorical function of this blessing is to encourage them as recipients of divine 

favour (Tolmie, 2005:223-224). The blessing represents the final appearance 

of the key word, cavri", used first in the salutation and scattered throughout 

the letter. The blessing concludes this letter in a positive tone and brings 

together the opening and conclusion of the letter. 

Conclusion 

The dominant rhetorical objective of this section is to reinforce the notion of 

legitimate teaching. This is accomplished through the use of a list of workers 


164

that are representative of sound doctrine. The legitimacy of their ministry 

stems from the apostolic mandate or affirmation thereof. Titus is also affirmed, 

on the basis of the value the apostle attaches to his company. The list of 

workers furthermore demonstrates the apostolic concern and care for the 

congregation. Through honorific referencing, the congregation is referred to in 

different ways such as “our people”, those who are “in faith” and “those who 

love us”. The legitimacy of the teaching will be evident by their readiness to 

perform good deeds to meet urgent needs. This is a point raised by way of 

reminder. There is also the regular use of repetition and paranomasia. The 

particular repetition of key words from the introductory portions of this letter 

adds to the feeling of an argument that has gone full circle. The final rhetorical 

technique is the concluding blessing, which functions as an encouragement to 

all the saints with the emphatic employment of the adjective pav~. 


165

SECTION 3 

CONCLUSION 

In Section 1, the research hypothesis on which this study was based was 

outlined as follows: A thorough text-centred rhetorical approach to the Letter 

of Titus (i.e. without relating it to the other two Pastoral Letters or approaching 

it in terms of the authenticity/inauthenticity debate) will yield new insights for 

its interpretation. 

Guided by this research hypothesis, this rhetorical analysis of the Letter to 

Titus was, accordingly, an endeavour to firstly, investigate the uniqueness of 

this letter based upon the assumption that it stands independently from the 

Timothean correspondence. Secondly, it involved an attempt at analysing 

Paul’s rhetorical strategy from the letter itself. The methodology employed to 

achieve this was a minimal theoretical framework methodology for rhetorical 

analysis, which was developed by Tolmie (2005) for a text-centred rhetorical 

analysis by which the persuasive strategy in a text can be identified and 

described. 

The important question to be asked now is: “Did this study indeed yield new 

insights, as foreseen in Chapter 1?” To begin, it should be pointed out that this 

study is the only comprehensive, as well as the only text-centred, rhetorical 

analysis of the Letter to Titus currently existing – in itself a contribution to New 

Testament scholarship. As I have indicated in Chapter 1, the rhetorical 

interest in the Pastorals is generally rare and in the case of Titus it is virtually 

non-existent. With regard to Titus, this it has been suggested that this is 

attributable, firstly, to the relative novelty of the rhetorical critical approach 

and, secondly, to the brevity of the letter in comparison to the other two 

letters. Titus often appears to be treated as a footnote within the greater 

discussion of the Timothean corpus. The only recent work that focuses 

exclusively upon the rhetoric of the Letter to Titus is that of Joachim Classen. 


166

While having much to commend, the work unfortunately has several 

shortcomings: It does not really investigate persuasion in the letter; it is 

exegetical rather than rhetorically oriented; and it does not provide a 

comprehensive rhetorical treatment of the letter. Compared to that of Classen, 

this study focuses specifically on the issue of persuasion, is much more 

comprehensive, and is, furthermore, based on a totally different rhetorical 

approach. Of course, these claims are open for evaluation by other scholars. 

Furthermore, I trust that the detailed rhetorical analysis presented in Section 

2, also provided new insights with regard to the details of the rhetorical 

strategy in particular sections in the Letter to Titus, both in terms of the way in 

which the dominant rhetorical strategy of a particular section could be 

described, as well as the discussion of the detailed issues relating to this. 

These will not be repeated here. Instead, the focus will now fall on the overall 

rhetorical strategy in the letter. This can be approached from different angles: 

On the one hand, the step-by-step development of the overall argument 

should be summarised. Based on the analysis provided in Section 2, the 

broad persuasive strategy in the letter (in terms of the changes in dominant 

rhetorical strategy) can now be outlined as follows: 

1. Titus 1:1-4: Adapting the salutation to emphasise the divine basis of 

legitimate ministry 

2: Titus 1:5-9: Outlining the criteria for legitimate local leadership 

3: Titus 1:10-16: Discrediting the illegitimate teachers 

4: Titus 2:1: Distinguishing Titus as a minister of sound doctrine on the 

basis of apostolic authorisation 

5: Titus 2:2-10: Persuading the Cretans that personal conduct 

compliant with sound doctrine is compulsory and should characterise 

all believers 

6: Titus 2:11-15: Emphasising the divine basis of obedience to sound 

doctrine 


167

7: Titus 3:1-2: Persuading the Cretans of the compulsory treatment of 

all unbelievers in a manner consistent with sound doctrine 

8: Titus 3:3: Evoking disgust with past sinful behaviour in order to 

reinforce behaviour in the present that complies with sound doctrine 

9: Titus 3:4-7: Persuading the Cretans that displaying good works to 


example 

10: Titus 3:8-11: Reinforcing the differences between sound and 

illegitimate doctrine in order to encourage compliance to the former and 

rejection of the latter 

11: Titus 3:12-15: Adapting the conclusion to reemphasise the notion of 


The above outline evinces certain thematic repetitions or emphases. For 

example, the opening and closing units both emphasise legitimate teaching. 

Units 5 and 7 raise the issue of compliant behaviour while units 1, 6 and 9 

evince a distinctly theological character. It raises the question, whether these 

apparent thematic commonalities are deliberate creations, part of the author's 

overall rhetorical strategy or whether they are incidental, a random expression 

of unrelated ideas. More importantly, is the question whether any coherent 

pattern suggestive of an overall rhetorical strategy is discernible from these 

summaries. In response to the latter question, I suggest that a deliberate 

overall rhetorical strategy can be indicated in the letter. The three theological 

sections (Units 1, 6 and 9), each made up of one long sentence, are 

complimented by three sections, that describe or relate to certain behaviour. 

The complimentary sections include 1:5-16, 2:1-10 and 3:1-3 respectively. 

Within their respective contexts, the three theological sections are 

programmatic for identifying a step-by-step development of Paul's overall 

rhetorical strategy in the letter. 

Let us first consider the overall rhetorical objective. The apostle opens the 

letter giving a very clear indication of his mandate as a servant and an apostle 

(1:1), namely that he serves in this capacity kata; pivstin ejklektw`n qeou` kai; 


168

ejpivgnwsin ajlhqeiva" th`" katÆ eujsevbeian. The objectives of his ministry relate 

to the divinely elect ones who are characterised by very particular behaviour. 

This initial emphasis therefore, is suggestive of the problem that the Cretans 

were being confronted with, namely the threat of compromising the high 

standard of living in the present life, katÆ eujsevbeian. Thus, in 1:16 the key 

characteristic of the agitators is their paradoxical profession of God and their 

denial of Him by their deeds or works, qeo;n oJmologou`sin eijdevnai, toi`" de; 

e[rgoi" ajrnou`ntai. The objective of the apostle therefore, relates to the 

maintenance or restoration of the following balance: deeds that affirm and 

correspond to the testimony of faith in God. Behaviour, however, does not 

happen in a vacuum but is influenced, if not determined by doctrine. In the 

letter, we have two groups of teachers with opposing doctrines competing for 

the same audience. Paul, in 1:1, informs the audience that he is a minister “for 

the knowledge of the truth”, ejpivgnwsin ajlhqeiva". The overall rhetorical 

objective is thus related to the notion of doctrinal quality. The congregation 

must be persuaded to embrace healthy doctrine, while rejecting unhealthy 

doctrine based upon the submission of convincing evidence. In the light of 

these considerations, I submit that the following three-stage overall rhetorical 

strategy underlies the letter. 

First stage: 1:1-16: Convince the audience of the transcendent character of 

the origin of legitimate teaching and of those who teach it 

This stage in the overall rhetorical strategy underlies the first three units 

identified in the rhetorical analysis: 

1. Titus 1:1-4: Adapting the salutation to emphasise the divine basis of 


2: Titus 1:5-9: Outlining the criteria for legitimate local leadership 

3: Titus 1:10-16: Discrediting the illegitimate teachers 

The first thing the apostle needs to do is to persuade the Cretans to 

distinguish between “doctrine” and “doctrine”, as well as between “teachers” 

and “teachers”. Legitimate teaching is “the truth” (1:1), it comes from God 

through designated office bearers that includes apostles, delegates of the 


169

apostles and lay leaders appointed by the apostolic delegate (1:1-9). The 

conduct of the lay leaders combined with a thorough commitment to the 

“faithful word” (1:9) is what sets them apart from the illegitimate teachers who 

are vilified and ultimately shown to have no relationship with God (1:16). In 

other words, the false teachers are shown to be illegitimate by their conduct 

as well as by the absence of divine legitimisation of their persons. In this way, 

the transcendent character of legitimate teaching is emphasised and attempts 

to counter an attitude that seems to reason that teaching is teaching and 

teachers are teachers. This transcendence relates to the origin of the teaching 

and the authorisation of the teachers. A relationship is set up between 

legitimate teaching and the theological origin thereof. Thus, this section 

attempts to show that sound doctrine is legitimate. It is transcendent, because 

its origin is divine. Those who are authorised to teach sound doctrine, derive 

their authorisation from its transcendent source, namely God. Conversely, 

teaching and teachers that are not divinely authorised or theologically 

justifiable are invalid and of no benefit to the church. Where that transcendent 

source or divine link between the teaching and the teachers is absent, both 

must be rejected. 

Second stage: 2:1-15: Convince the audience of the transcendent character of 

behaviour accompanying legitimate teaching 

This stage in the overall rhetorical objective underlies units 4-6 identified in the 

rhetorical analysis of the letter: 

4: Titus 2:1: Distinguishing Titus as a minister of sound doctrine on the 

basis of apostolic authorisation 

5: Titus 2:2-10: Persuading the Cretans that personal conduct 

compliant with sound doctrine is compulsory and should characterise 

all believers 

6: Titus 2:11-15: Emphasising the divine basis of obedience to sound 

doctrine 

This stage begins with the authorisation of Titus’ ministry in unit 4 (2:1), which 

really distinguishes it from what was said of the illegitimate teachers (1:10-16). 


170

Unit 5 (2:2-10) contains descriptions of behaviour by various categories of 

believers that constitute manifestations of compliance to sound doctrine. The 

next unit (2:11-15) explains the specified conduct in theological terms. This 

has the effect of elevating the behaviour to a divine level, which highlights the 

transcendent character of the behaviour. At one level, the required behaviour 

is what society in general would commend. However, the conduct of believers 

becomes a manifestation of a divine reality, namely the appearance of grace 

in the life of believers. If believers were asked to explain their conduct, they 

would respond something like this: “Our teacher is grace who teaches us to 

conduct ourselves in this manner. In other words, believers are not merely 

manifesting behaviour that society deems good.” The behaviour of believers is 

thus motivated by a transcendent cause or motive, namely the appearance of 

grace and the complete transformation that they have experienced (2:11-15). 

They are behaving like God’s people, living in anticipation of the appearing of 

Jesus Christ (2:12), a redeemed people, a cleansed people, zealous for good 

works (2:13). Thus, the believers are not simply practising good manners, 

instead their behaviour is explicable by theological reasons; there is a 

theological basis to explain why believers conduct themselves the way they 

do. Thus, there is nothing “ordinary” about the way Christians ought to 

behave. 

Third stage: 3:1-7: Convince the audience of the transcendent character of 

their relationships with secular society 

This stage in the rhetorical strategy underlies units 7-9 identified in the 

rhetorical analysis: 

7: Titus 3:1-2: Persuading the Cretans of the compulsory treatment of 

all unbelievers in a manner consistent with sound doctrine 

8: Titus 3:3: Evoking disgust with past sinful behaviour in order to 

reinforce behaviour in the present that complies with sound doctrine 

9: Titus 3:4-7: Persuading the Cretans that displaying good works to 


example 


171

In unit 7 (3:1-2), the relationship of believers to their secular environment 

comes under the spotlight. It appears as if the false teaching encouraged a 

withdrawal from or even hostility towards secular society. Based upon the 

existence of prior knowledge, Paul argues that the Cretans already know how 

to conduct themselves towards secular authorities. In unit 8 (3:3), the apostle 

uses the rhetorical technique of self-vilification to inspire disgust in order to 

persuade the Cretans to behave properly towards secular society. The 

transcendent motivation for their behaviour is provided in unit 9 (3:4-7). God 

acted kindly towards the Cretans when they were least deserving of it. Their 

attitude towards secular society is therefore, more than just decent citizenship; 

it follows the transcendent example of God. 

3:8-15: Concluding phase 

In units 10 and 11 the concluding stage in the rhetorical strategy follows. This 

comprises units 10 and 11: 

10: Titus 3:8-11: Reinforcing the differences between sound and 

illegitimate doctrine in order to encourage compliance to the former and 

rejection of the latter 

11: Titus 3:12-15: Adapting the conclusion to reemphasise the notion of 


In summary: The overall rhetorical objective relates to the use of theological 

motivations for the adoption of sound doctrine and the practice of sound 

behaviour by the Cretans. Sound doctrine and corresponding behaviour are 

inseparably connected to a theological basis, namely the manifestation of 

“God’s word” (1:3), “God’s grace” (2:11), and “God’s kindness and love for 

mankind” (3:4). Thus, the doctrine is portrayed as transcendent, because it 

comes from God; the required behaviour is motivated transcendentally, 

because it is taught by God; the manifestation of kindness to non-Christians is 

motivated transcendentally, because God first demonstrated his kindness 

towards the Cretans when they were unsaved. There is therefore, nothing 

“ordinary” about what is required from the Cretan believers. On the contrary, 


172

the false teaching encourages behaviour that makes no real distinction 

between believers and unbelievers. 

The overall rhetorical strategy may also be approached from another angle, 

not in terms of the chronological development of the argument as outlined 

above, but in terms of the commonalities between the dominant rhetorical 

objectives. In terms of this approach, four different (but related) rhetorical 

objectives can be identified: 

Paul’s first objective is to persuade the Cretans of the need to recognise 

legitimate ministry. This he does in units 1 (1:1-4), 2 (1:5-9), 4 (2:1) and 11 

(3:12-15). He begins by trying to convince the audience of the legitimacy of 

teachers and their teaching. In unit 1 (1:1-4), he presents himself as a 

legitimate teacher by arguing on the basis of divine authorisation. To this end 

he adapts the salutation to emphasise the divine basis of legitimate ministry, 

which includes the legitimisation both of the doctrine and the teacher. The 

same unit also includes apostolic authorisation of the ministry of Titus. Unit 2 

(1:1-4) sees the delegation of authority to Titus who is authorised to appoint 

local leaders. The dominant rhetorical objective of this unit is to specify the 

criteria for legitimate local leadership. In unit 4 (2:1), the dominant rhetorical 

objective is to distinguish Titus on the basis of apostolic authorisation, as a 

minister of sound doctrine from the illegitimate teachers of unit 3 (1:10-16). In 

unit 11 (3:12-15), Paul adapts the conclusion to reemphasise the notion of 

legitimate ministry by the introduction of Tychicus, Artemis, Zenas and Apollos 

who are examples of apostolically authorised ministers of the church. Thus, in 

these four units we have three levels of authorisation of legitimate ministry: of 

Paul by God; of Titus, Artemis or Tychicus, Zenas and Apollos by Paul and of 

the elder-overseers by Titus. These units, collectively, convey the notion that 

the teaching ministry in the church is not for any ambitious Tom, Dick and 

Harry: There are clear guidelines that must be satisfied with respect to those 

who teach as well as regards the content of their teaching. 


173

The second objective is to highlight God’s central role as the Author of sound 

doctrine, the Teacher of sound doctrine and the Model of good deeds. Three 

key units express this objective, namely units 1 (1:1-4), 6 (2:11-15) and 9 (3:4- 

7). Each of these units consists of a single sentence and each one focuses 

almost exclusively on the role of God. In unit 1 (1:1-4), the dominant rhetorical 

objective involved adapting the salutation to emphasise the divine basis of 

legitimate ministry. At one level, the unit introduces the notion of the 

legitimisation of ministry. At another level, it also introduces the notion of the 

divine authorship of sound doctrine which is presented as the manifestation of 

“His word”, ejfanevrwsen …. to;n lovgon aujtou' (1:3). In this way, Paul 

establishes from the outset the following notion: “What I’m presenting to you is 

God’s word. Titus, the elder-overseers and other legitimate teachers will do 

the same. Sound doctrine is sound, because sound doctrine is God’s word”. In 

Unit 6 (2:11-15), the dominant rhetorical objective was described as 

emphasising the divine basis of obedience to sound doctrine. It communicates 

the following notion: “When you adjust your behaviour, so that it complies with 

sound doctrine, you are really showing your obedience to God rather than to 

man, because God is the real teacher of sound doctrine”. The dominant 

rhetorical objective of Unit 9 (3:4-7) is to persuade the Cretans that displaying 

good works to those considered to be undeserving demonstrates conformity 

to the example of God. It communicates the following notion: “What are you 

doing? Don’t you understand you are most like God when you practise good 

deeds to those whom you do not consider worthy? Then you are following his 

example. Decide whose example you want to follow!” 

The third objective is to alienate the Cretans from any apparent or potential 

allegiance to unhealthy doctrine and its propagators. This is addressed in 

units 3 (1:10-16) and 10 (3:8-11). In the prior unit, the dominant rhetorical 

objective is to discredit the illegitimate teachers through the rhetorical 

technique of vilification. It communicates the notion that illegitimate teachers 

must be avoided since they are neither divinely nor apostolically authorised to 

minister to the church. Unit 10 (3:8-11) reemphasises the notion of illegitimate 

teaching by contrasting it with sound doctrine. The dominant rhetorical 


174

objective can be summarised as reinforcing the differences between sound 

and illegitimate doctrine in order to encourage compliance to the former and 

rejection of the latter. The rhetorical technique of vilification is utilised again, 

but this time the emphasis is upon the vilification of both the unsound doctrine 

as well as the promoter thereof. 

The fourth objective is to emphasise the relationship between sound doctrine 

and behaviour consequential to the doctrine. This happens in units 5 (2:2-10), 

7 (3:1-2), 8 (3:3) and 10 (3:8-11). In unit 5 (2:2-10), the dominant rhetorical 

objective is to persuade the Cretans that personal conduct compliant with 

sound doctrine is compulsory and should characterise all believers. The 

notion the apostle seems to communicate can be summarised as follows: 

“Sound doctrine from sound teachers should manifest as sound behaviour 

among all believers”. This unit follows the description of the illegitimate 

teachers who “profess to know God but deny Him by their deeds” (1:16). Unit 

7 (3:1-2) expresses the following dominant rhetorical objective, namely to 

persuade the Cretans of the compulsory treatment of all unbelievers in a 

manner consistent with sound doctrine. It conveys the following notion: 

“Sound doctrine ought to make model citizens of you. Even the rest of society 

expects this from you”. In unit 8 (3:3), the dominant rhetorical objective was 

summarised as follows: evoking disgust with past sinful behaviour in order to 

reinforce behaviour in the present that complies with sound doctrine. The 

notion it conveys can be summarised as follows: “Expecting you to behave in 

a civil manner towards those whom you consider unworthy is not 

unreasonable. In fact, it is but another opportunity to manifest the doctrine we 

believe. Don’t forget, we were all once undeserving brutes”. In unit 10 (3:8- 

11), the dominant rhetorical objective is described as reinforcing the 

differences between sound and illegitimate doctrine in order to encourage 

compliance to the former and rejection of the latter. It conveys the following 

notion: “This doctrine is proven. I, Paul confirm this to be true and if you obey 

it you can only benefit. It will prove that you really believe in God”. 


175

These four objectives may be summarised as follows: 

First objective: Convince the audience of the need to recognise legitimate 

forms of ministry – units 1 (1:1-4), 2 (1:1-4), 4 (2:1) and 11 (3:12-15). 

Second objective: Convince the audience of God’s central role as the Author 

of sound doctrine, the Teacher of sound doctrine and the Model of good 

deeds –units 1 (1:1-4), 6 (2:11-15) and 9 (3:4-7). 

Third objective: Convince the audience to alienate themselves from any 

apparent or potential allegiance to unhealthy doctrine and its propagators – 

units 3 (1:10-16) and 10 (3:8-11). 

Fourth objective: Convince the audience of the relationship between sound 

doctrine and behaviour consequential to the doctrine – units 5 (2:2-10), 7 (3:1- 

2), 8 (3:3) and 10 (3:8-11). 

The discussion above shows how this study contributes a unique and distinct 

description of the overall rhetorical strategy of the Letter to Titus. It differs from 

other studies of this letter by presenting a comprehensive analysis of the 

letter, utilising a text-centred rhetorical approach. This approach presupposes 

the existence of rhetorical strategies within the text and seeks to identify and 

describe the author’s rhetorical strategy from the text itself, not only section by 

section, but also in terms of overall strategy and recurrent objectives. There is, 

to my knowledge, no other study of this nature that utilises this methodology 

and applies it in particular to the Letter to Titus. This study therefore, presents 

an opportunity for other scholars to scrutinise this contribution and to agree or 

disagree with the findings contained therein. 

A further benefit of the approach followed in this rhetorical analysis is that it 

allows one to identify the type of arguments employed in the letter. In this 

regard, the following can be identified: 

o Arguments based on the notion of divine authorisation 

Arguments based on the notion of divine authorisation are 

foundational for the apostle’s rhetorical strategy in this letter. It is 

by far the most frequently used type of argument in this letter 

(followed by arguments based on shared knowledge – see next 


176

section). In a letter of this nature that deals with issues of 

legitimacy and the challenge of illegitimacy, it is important to 

establish the basis of legitimacy. It is, therefore, significant that 

the apostle’s first objective is to convince the Cretans of the 

divine basis of legitimate ministry. Since the church is God’s 

elect, ejklektoiv qeou', He has a right to prescribe who may or 

may not minister to them. Equally important, is the second 

dominant rhetorical objective, which sets out to convince the 

Cretans of God’s central role as the Author of sound doctrine, 

the Teacher of sound doctrine and the Model of good deeds. 

Related to this, is the concept that God expects a particular 

behaviour from those who profess to believe in Him. Hence, any 

failure to behave in a manner compliant to sound doctrine is 

presented as tantamount to a denial of God (1:16). Also, in 2:2- 

10, the negligent behaviour of believers can either be a cause 

for God’s word to be maligned, or God’s doctrine can be 

adorned by sound conduct. Similarly, the reference to Cretans 

as “those who believe in God”, oiJ pepisteukovte" qew`/, is another 

variation of this kind of argument that God expects a particular 

behaviour from those who believe in Him. Following on from this, 

is a further variation of the divine authorisation argument, 

namely the divine prerogative or the right of the divine. This 

argument is closely related to the argument of the divine 

expectation of a particular behaviour. According to 2:11-15, God 

has a right over those whom He has redeemed (lutroovmai) and 

cleansed (kaqarivzw) from all lawlessness (ajpo; pavsh" ajnomiva"). 

Since God is the one who purchased and cleansed the Cretan 

believers, they belong to Him; hence the prerogative to prescribe 

the appropriate behaviour belongs to Him. 

Furthermore, this line of argumentation is foundational for the 

past-present-future momentum characteristic of this letter. There 

is a hope, ejlpiv~, but only those who behave in the divinely 


177

expected manner can look forward to it. Negatively, this implies 

that those who deviate from the expected behaviour can 

anticipate the opposite of what the obedient ones are expecting. 

o Arguments based on shared knowledge 

Arguments based on shared knowledge employ accepted 

societal norms regarding proper and acceptable behaviour as a 

legitimate yardstick of behaviour. The virtue and vice lists 

pertaining to elder-overseers and illegitimate teachers 

respectively (1:5-9, 10-16) are examples of this kind of 

argument. It is also used in 2:2-10 with regard to the conduct of 

believers as well as in 3:1-3. Paul uses these arguments to 

convince the Cretans of the necessity to behave in a manner 

compliant with sound doctrine, which will reflect behaviour 

considered admirable by society. Negatively, this kind of 

argument serves to present the false teachers in a bad light by 

highlighting the extent to which their conduct contradicts the 

positive behaviour that society in general upholds. This line of 

argumentation makes it very difficult for the Cretans not to 

conduct themselves in a manner compliant with the sound 

doctrine. Its persuasive power also lies in the fact that the 

commendable conduct is obvious and known to all. 

o Arguments based on the existence of prior knowledge or based 

on the appeal to memory 

Paul uses an argument based on the appeal to the memory or 

prior knowledge of his audience in 3:1-3. This kind of 

argumentation presents the audience with an opportunity for a 

subjective evaluation of the information presented to them. They 

can evaluate the consistency of the doctrine because they are 

not expected to comprehend new information. They are called to 

act in ways they have known to be consistent with sound 

doctrine. On the negative side, a refusal to act consistent with 


178

what they have known to be true would amount to a moral 

paradox, thus making this line of argumentation very persuasive. 

o Arguments based on the notion of irreconcilable conduct 

The salutation lays the groundwork for this line of argumentation 

when the church is referred to as ejklektoiv qeou`, whose faith and 

knowledge of the truth must be for the goal of conforming to 

godliness, eujsevbeia. Thus, godliness will characterise the 

ejklektoiv qeou'. An ungodly ejklektov~ qeou' would be unthinkable 

or irreconcilable. 

In 2:11-14, Paul describes the Cretans as God's own 

possession, zealous for good works, … eJautw`/ lao;n periouvsion, 

zhlwth;n kalw`n e[rgwn. The argument is as follows: Those who 

belong to God are zealous for good works, Cretans believers 

belong to God, and therefore the Cretans believers are zealous 

for good works. Negatively, this argument contends that the 

absence of a zeal for good works is tantamount to not belonging 

to God. It is thus a form of irreconcilable conduct to belong to 

God and not to be zealous for good works. 

The reference to the believers in 3:8 as frontivzwsin kalw`n 

e[rgwn proivŸstasqai oiJ pepisteukovte" qew`/ is another instance of 

this line of argumentation. To believe in God, and not engage in 

good deeds would also constitute irreconcilable conduct. 

e. Arguments based upon identification with the audience 

In 3:3, the apostle argues on the basis of identification with his 

audience in order to achieve his objective of engendering a 

compliant attitude. This technique provides the apostle with a 

platform from which to address his audience, effectively 

reinforcing his authority over or right to speak to them with great 

liberty and confidence. 


179

f. Arguments based on the use of vilification of the opposition 

Vilification is a technique that Paul uses very effectively to 

influence the perception of his audience regarding the 

opposition. In units 3 (1:10-16) and 10 (3:8-11), he sets out to 

persuade his audience concerning the illegitimacy of the 

doctrine of the opposition. The intention is to get the audience to 

change their minds about the false teachers and their teaching 

by raising doubts concerning their character and their teaching. 

For example, he refers to their teaching as “things”, a} (1:11) 

while the quote in 1:12 is used to cast doubt upon the character 

of the false teachers, being yeu`stai, kaka; qhriva, gastevre" 

ajrgaiv. 

Lastly, attention should be focused on the wide range of rhetorical techniques 

employed in the Letter to Titus. Most of these techniques are well known and 

are listed here for reference purposes. (In the rhetorical analysis in Chapter 2 

their function has already been discussed.) Furthermore, four additional 

techniques have been pointed out in this study, which seem not to have been 

identified by scholars thus far. They will be highlighted briefly in the second 

half of this review. 

1. Rhetorical techniques used most often in the letter, include: 

a. Paranomasia: for example kosmika;" (2:12) and kosmw`sin (2:10). 

b. Implicit contrasting: 

An example of this technique occurs in chapter 1 with the 

positive description of the elder-overseers (5-9) followed by a 

description of the false teachers (10-16). The contrast between 

the two groups is implicit rather than explicit since, there are no 

indications of a simile being drawn. A more subtle example is 

the comparison between the character of God and that of the 

false teachers in 1:2 and 1:12 respectively. God is described as 


180

eing “unlying”, ajyeudh;", while the false teachers are called 

“always liars”, ajei; yeu`stai. 

c. Personification: For example, in 2:12 grace is said to instruct the 

believers, paideuvousa hJma`". 

d. Asyndeton: For example, in 3:1-2 a variety of nouns and 

infinitives are paired without the use of conjunctions: ajrcai`" 

ejxousivai" uJpotavssesqai, peiqarcei`n, pro;" pa`n e[rgon ajgaqo;n 

eJtoivmou" ei\nai, mhdevna blasfhmei`n, ajmavcou" ei\nai, ejpieikei`", 

pa`san ejndeiknumevnou" prau?thta pro;" pavnta" ajnqrwvpou". 

e. Syndeton: For example, in 3:4: hJ crhstovth" kai; hJ filanqrwpiva. 

f. Polysyndeton: For example, in 3:9, mwra;" de; zhthvsei" kai; 

genealogiva" kai; e[rei" kai; mavca" nomika;". 

g. Repetitions: For example, in 1:9 one finds th`/ didaskaliva/ th`/ 

uJgiainouvsh/, and 2:1 th`/ uJgiainouvsh/ didaskaliva. 

h. Metaphor: For example, in 1:4 Titus is called Paul’s “true child”, a 

metaphorical reference to family life. In 3:14 we find an 

agricultural reference to fruitlessness, a[karpoi. 

i. Inclusive language: For example, 3:3, \Hmen gavr pote kai; hJmei`". 

j. Synonyms: For example, in 1:16 we encounter e[rgon ajgaqo;n. In 

2:7 we find kalw`n e[rgwn. 

k. Antonyms: For example, in 1:2, ajyeudhv" and in 1:12, yeu`stai. 

l. Them-us language: For example, 1:12, tiv" ejx aujtw`n i[dio" aujtw`n 

profhvth". 


181

m. Example. For example, in 3:4-7 God is presented as an example 

of one who shows kindness to those who do not deserve it. 

According to 1:2, God does not lie. Paul, as a servant of God 

(1:1), is also an example to others, who are in master-servant 

relationships (2:9). 

n. Chiasm: For example in 1:3-4 we find the following references to 

God and Jesus Christ: 


Cristou` jIhsou` tou` swth`ro" hJmw`n (1:4) 

In 3:4 and 3:6 we find the same: 

tou` swth`ro" hJmw`n qeou` (3:4) 

jIhsou` Cristou` tou` swth`ro" hJmw`n (3:6) 

In 1:15 we find another example: 

pavnta kaqara; toi`" kaqaroi`" 

toi`" de; memiammevnoi" kai; ajpivstoi" oujde;n kaqarovn 

o. Transitional devices: For example, section 1:5-9 deals with the 

elder-overseers, but in verse 9 which describes the responsibility 

of the elder-overseers the false teachers are introduced as tou;" 

ajntilevgonta", just before the next section (1:10-16) in which 

they are fully dealt with. This small word, in 1:9, thus functions 

as a transitional device that introduces the next section. 

p. Anaphora: For example, in 1:8 filovxenon and filavgaqon, and in 

2:4 filavndrou" … filotevknou". 

q. Assonance: For example, in 2:11 the rhyming and repetition of 

the w~- sound in swfrovnw" kai; dikaivw" kai; eujsebw`". 


182

. Thematic progression: For example, the theme of servanthood is 

developed starting with Paul as a servant of and obedient to 

God, while slaves must submit to their own masters (2:9). 

Related to this is the theme of submission to authority: wives to 

their husbands (2:5); servants to their masters (2:9) and 

believers to secular authorities (3:1). Thus, starting in the home, 

then to the place of employment and finally within secular 

society. 

s. Alliteration and rhyme: For example, in 3:3 douleuvonte" … 

diavgonte". 

t. Anthropopathism: For example, in 3:4-7 the reference to God’s 

crhstovth" kai; filanqrwpiva (4) and e[leo" (5). 

u. Unusually long sentences: For example, 1:1-4, 2:11-14, and 3:4- 

7. 

v. Synecdoche: For example, in 3:10 the reference to the opposition 

in the singular as aiJretikov~ a[nqrwpo~. 

2. New rhetorical techniques that have been identified are: 

Emphatic clustering 

This technique is used in several places in the letter. There are 

variations of the technique namely asyndetic (1:12; 2:2) and 

polysyndetic clustering (1:16; 2:12, 15). 

It involves the grouping together or clustering of related concepts 

or words in groups of three. Clustering serves an emphatic 

purpose. In chapter 1, it is employed as part of the apostle’s 

vilification campaign in 1:10, 12 and 16 highlighting the “badness” 

of the false teachers. In 2:2, it is used to emphasise the sound 


183

ehaviour expected of older men. In 2:7, it is used to impress 

upon Titus what is required from him as an example to the 

believers. In 2:12, the conduct of those who are instructed by 

grace is emphasised by the words, swfrovnw" kai; dikaivw" kai; 

eujsebw`". In 2:15, it is used to impress upon Titus the urgency 

with which he must approach his ministry, lavlei kai; parakavlei 

kai; e[legce. A final instance of this technique appears in 3:11, 

which constitutes a final instance of vilification. 

Self-vilification 

This rhetorical technique is used in 3:3 with reference to the pre- 

salvific conduct of the believers. The list of vices is used to instil 

disgust. Here, it is not the opponents that are being vilified, but 

Paul and the believers, by Paul. It highlights the odiousness of 

their past life and is used to enforce compliance to behaviour that 

corresponds to sound doctrine. 

Honorific referencing or classification 

This technique is the opposite of vilification or more specifically, 

self-vilification. Paul refers to believers in ways that emphasise 

their privileged status, thus bestowing honour upon them. This 

strategy is utilised to build relationships. Thus, believers are 

called ejklektoiv qeou' (1:1), oiJ pepisteukovte" qew`/ (3:8), oiJ 

hJmevteroi (3:13), and tou;" filou`nta" hJma`" ejn pivstei (3:15). 

Networks created by the repetition of associated concepts 

In the analysis section, it has been pointed out how various 

related words or concepts are repeated in different units and in 

different contexts. This technique makes several processes 

possible. One of these is implicit contrasting, which is facilitated 

merely through the repetition of a cognate word within a different 

context. This technique also facilitates the remarkable coherency 

that is evident within the letter. An outstanding example is the 


184

instance of paranomasia associated with the following words: 

ajnupovtakta (Christian children of elder-overseers); ajnupovtaktoi 

(false teachers); uJpotassomevna" (Christian young women); 

uJpotavssesqai (Christian slaves).The word uJpotassw and its 

cognates contrast the opposing groups within the letter and 

establish a network of positive behaviour shared by those who 

are associated with sound doctrine. 

This study has led me to a new appreciation for the rhetorical genius of the 

apostle Paul. Furthermore, it offers, almost serendipitously so, fresh 

perspectives beneficial for the authenticity debate. The implications of the 

cumulative-complimentary reading principle certainly have potential for further 

investigtion. In terms of practical theology, the homiletical benefit of rhetorical 

critical analysis is another area that holds rich dividends for further study. 

Indeed, anything that will help the church with the persausive proclamation of 

the gospel warrants our attention. 

The message of this letter to Titus may not be unique, but the way in which it 

is communicated certainly is. Indeed, this little letter does not need to stand in 

the shadow of the Timothean correspondence. 


185

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Aageson, J. W. (1997). "2 Timothy and its Theology: In Search of a 

Theological Pattern." Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 36: 

692-714. 

Achtemeier, P. J., J. B. Green, et al. (2001). Introducing the New Testament: 

Its Literature and Theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan, William B 

Eerdmans Company. 

Bailey, M. L. (1994). A Theology of Paul's Pastoral Epistles. A Biblical 

Theology of the New Testament. R. B. Zuck. Chicago, Moody Press: 

333-367. 

Barrett, C. (1963). The Pastoral Epistles. Oxford, Clarendon Press. 

Bauckham, R. (1988). "Pseudo-Apostolic Letters." Journal of Biblical 

Literature 107: 469-494. 

Bauer, F. C. (1835). Die Sogennanten Pastoralbriefe des Apostels Paulus. 

Stuttgart and Tübingen, J G Gottaschen Verlagshandlung. 

Beker, D. J. C. (1991). Heirs or Paul: Paul's Legacy in the New Testament 

and in the Church Today. Minneapolis, Fortress. 

Bernard, J. H. (1980 [1899]). The Pastoral Epistles. Grand Rapids, Michigan, 

Baker Book House 

Bitzer, L. (1968). "The Rhetorical Situation." Philosophy and Rhetoric 1: 1-14. 

Botha, P. J. J. (1993). The Verbal Art of the Pauline Letters:Rhetoric, 

Performance and Presence. Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays 

from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference. S. E. Porter and T. H. Olbricht. 

Sheffield 90: 409-428. 

Brox, N. (1989). Die Pastoralbriefe. Regensburg, Pustet Verlag. 

Carson, D. A. and D. Moo (2005). An Introduction to the New Testament 

Leichester, England, Apollos. 

Carson, D. A., D. J. Moo, et al. (1992). An Introduction to the New Testament 

Leichester, England, Apollos. 

Childs, B. S. (1984). The New Testament as Canon: An Introduction. 

Philadelphia, Fortress Press. 


186

Clark, D. (2002). "Discourse structure in Titus." Bible Translator 53(1): 101- 

117. 

Classen, C. (2002). Rhetorical Criticism of the New Testament. Boston, Bril 

Academic Publishers, INC 

Collins, R. F. (2000). "The Theology of the Epistle to Titus." Ephemerides 

Theologicae Lovanienses Tomus LXXVI (76): 56-72. 

Collins, R. F. (2002). 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus: A Commentary. Louisville, 

Westminster John Knox Press. 

Credner, K. A. (1836). Einleitung in das Neue Testament Halle, Waisenhaus. 

Demarest, G. (1984). 1, 2 Thessalonians, 1, 2 Timothy, Titus. . Waco, Texas, 

Word Books. 

Dibelius, M. and H. Conzelmann (1972). The Pastoral Epistles: A 

Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles Philadelphia, Fortress Press. 

Donelson, L. R. (1986). Pseudipigraphy and ethical argument in the Pastoral 

Epistles Hermeneutische Untersuchungen zur Theologie. Tübingen, 

Mohr Siebeck. 22: viii-221. 

Dunn, J. D. G. (2000). The First and Second Letters to Timothy and the Letter 

to Titus. Nashville, Abingdon Press. 

Du Toit, A. B. (1994). "Vilification as a Pragmatic Device in Early Christian 

Epistolography." Biblica 75(3): 403-412. 

Eichorn, J. G. (1812 ). Einleitung in das Neuen Testament. Leipzig, 

Weidemannischen Buchhandlung. 

Ellis, E. E. (1979). Paul and his recent interpreters. Grand Rapids, Michigan, 

William B Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

Eusebius, P. (1955). The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus: 

Bishop of Cesarea, in Palestine. Translated from the original with an 

introduction by Christian Fredierick Cruse and an Historical View of the 

Council of Nice. Twin Brooks Series. I. Boyle. Grand Rapids, Michigan, 

Bake Book House. 

Evanson, E. (1805). The Dissonance of the four generally received 

Evangelists, and the evidence of their respective Authenticity 

examined; with that of some other scriptures deemed canonical 

Gloucester, D. Walker for J. Johnson. 


187

Everts, J. M. (1993). Hope Dictionary of Paul and his Letters. G. F. 

Hawthorne, R. P. Reid and D. G. Martin. Leichester, England, Inter 

Varsity Press: 415-417. 

Faber, R. (2005). "Evil Beasts Lazy Gluttons. A Neglected Theme in the 

Epistle to Titus." Westminster Journal of Theology 67: 135-45. 

Fee, G. D. (1988). 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus. Massachusetts, Hendrickson 

Publishers. 

Fiore, B. (1986). The Function of Personal Example in the Socratic and 

Pastoral Epistles. Italy, Rome Biblical Institute Press. 

Fitzmeyer, J. A. (2004). "The Structured Ministry of the Church in the Pastoral 

Epistles." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 66 (4): 582-596. 

Goulder, M. D. (1996). "The Pastor's Wolves: Jewish Christian Visionaries 

behind the Pastoral Epistles." Novum Testamentum 38 (JI): 242-256. 

Guthrie, D. (1957). The Pastoral Epistles: An Introduction and Commentary. 

London, The Tyndale Press. 

Guthrie, D. (1990). The New Testament Introduction. Leichester, England, 

Apollos. 

Hagner, D. A. (1998). Titus as a Pauline Letter. Society of Biblical Literature 

1998 Seminar Papers Part Two. Atlanta, Georgia, Scholars Press. 37: 

546-558. 

Hanson, A. T. (1968). Studies in the Pastoral Epistles. London, SPCK. 

Hanson, A. T. (1982). The Pastoral Epistles: Based on the Revised Standard 

Version. Grand Rapids, WM.B. Eerdmans Publishers. 

Harding, M. (1998). Tradition and Rhetoric in the Pastoral Epistles. New York, 

Peter Lang Publishing. 

Harris, M. J. (1980). Titus 2:13 and the Deity of Christ. Pauline Studies: 

Essays Presented to Professor F F Bruce on his 70th Birthday. D. A. 

Hagner and M. J. Harris. Grand Rapids, William B Eerdmans 

Publishing Company: 263-273. 

Harrison, P. N. (1921). The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles London, Oxford 

University Press. 

Harvey, J. D. (1998). Listening to the Text: Oral Patterning in Paul's Letters. 

Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Books. 


188

Hendriksen, W. (1957). 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus. London, Banner of Truth 

Trust. 

Hiebert, D. E. (1978). Titus and Philemon. Chicago, Moody Press. 

Holtzmann, J. (1880). Die Pastoralbriefe. Leipzig, Wilhelm Engelmann. 

Houlden, J. (1976 ). The Pastoral Epistles Middlesex, England, Penquin 

Books. 

Hultgren, A. J. (1984). I-II Timothy, Titus, II Thessalonians. Minneapolis, 

Minnesota, Augsburg Publishing House. 

Jeremias, J. (1963). Die Briefe an Timotheus und Titus. Gottingen, 

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 

Johnson, L. T. (1996). Letters to Paul's Delegates: 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, 

Titus. Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, Trinity Press International. 

Karris, R. J. (1979). The Pastoral Epistles. Wilmington, Delaware, Michael 

Glazier, Incorporated. 

Karris, R. J. (1996). A Symphony of New Testament Hymns. Commentary on 

Phillipians 2:5-11, Colossians 1:15-20, Ephesian 2:14-16, 1Timothy 

3:16, Titus 3:4-7, 1Peter 3:18-22, and 2Timothy 2:11-13. Collegeville, 

Minnesota, The Liturgical Press. 

Kelly, J. N. D. (1960). A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles I Timothy, II 

Timothy, Titus. London, A&C Black. 

Kennedy, G. A. (1984). New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical 

Criticism Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press. 

Kidd, R. M. (1999). "Titus as Apologia: Grace for Liars Beasts and Bellies." 

Horisons in Biblical Theology 21(2): 185-209. 

Knight (III), G. W. (1979). The Faithful Sayings in the Pastorals. Grand 

Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House. 

Knight (III), G. W. (1992). The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek 

Text. . Grand Rapids, Michigan, W B Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

Köstenberger, A. J. (2003). " Hermeneutical and Exegetical Challenges in 

Interpreting the Pastoral Epistles." The Southern Baptist Journal of 

Theology 7 (3): 4-17. 

Lambrecht, J. (1994). Pauline Studies: Collected Essays. Bibliotheca 

Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium. CXV: x-xi. 


189

Lea, D. and H. P. Griffin (1992). 1, 2 Timothy Titus. Nashville Tennessee, 

Broadman Press. 

Lenski, R. C. H. (1961). The Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistles to the 

Colossians, to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus and Philemon. 

Minneapolis, Minnesota, Augsburg Publishing House. 

Lightfoot, J. B. (1893). The Date of the Pastoral Epistles. Biblical Essays. 

London, Macmillan: 397-410. 

Lock, W. (1924). A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral 

Epistles (1 & 2 Timothy and Titus).Edinburgh T & T Clark. 

Luther, M. (1960). Preface to the Epistle of St.Paul to Titus. Luther's Works: 

Word and Sacrament I. E. T. Bachmann. Philadelphia, Fortress Press. 

35. 

Mappes, D. A. (2003). "Moral Virtues Associated with Eldership." Bibliotheca 

Sacra 160(April-June): 202-218. 

Marshall, I. H. (2006). "Some Recent Commentaries on the Pastoral Epistles." 

The Expository Times 117(4): 140-143. 

Marshall, I. H., S. Travis, et al. (2002). Exploring the New Testament: A Guide 

to the Letters and Revelation. Downers Grove, Ilinois, InterVarsity 

Press. 

McArthur (Jr), J. (1996). Titus. Chicago, Moody Press. 

McKnight, S. and G. R. Osborne (2004). The Face of New Testament Studies: 

A survey of recent research Grand Rapids, Michigan Baker Academic. 

McRay, J. (2003). Paul: His Life and Teaching. Grand Rapids, Michigan, 

Baker Academic. 

Meynet, R. (1998). Rhetorical Analysis: An Introduction to Biblical Rhetoric 

Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press. 

Miller, J. D. (1997). The Pastoral Letters as Composite Documents Society for 

New Testament Studies: Monograph Series. R. Bauckham. Cambridge, 

Cambridge University Press. 

Moule, C. F. D. (1965). "The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles: A Reappraisal." 

Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 47: 430-452. 

Mounce, W. D. (2000). Pastoral Epistles. Nashville, Thomas Nelson 

Publishers. 


190

Oden, T. C. (1989). First and Second Timothy and Titus. Louisville, John Knox 

Press. 

Porter, S. and T. H. Olbricht, Eds. (1996). Rhetoric, Scripture, and Theology: 

Essays from the 1994 Pretoria Conference. Journal for the Study of 

New Testament Supplent Series. London, Sheffield Academic Press. 

Porter, S. and D. L. Stamps, Eds. (2002). Rhetorical Criticism and the Bible. 

Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series. 

London, Sheffield Academic Press. 

Porter, S. and L. Stamps, Eds. (1999). The Rhetorical Interpretation of 

Scripture: Essays from the 1996 Malibu Conference. Journal for the 

Study of the New Testament Supplement Series. London, Sheffield 

Academic Press. 

Quinn, J. D. (1990). The Letter to Titus: A New Translation with Notes and 

Commentary and an Introduction to Titus, 1 Timothy, and the Pastoral 

Epistles. . New York, Doubleday. 

Richards, E. R. (1991). The secretary in the letters of Paul Tübingen Möhr. 

Roller, O. (1933). Das Formular der Paulinischen Briefe. Stuttgart, 

Köhlhammer. 

Roloff, J. (1988). Der erste Brief an Timotheus. Zurich, Benziger Verlag. 

Schleiermacher, F. E. D. (1897). Über den ersten Brief Pauli an Timotheus. 

Braunschweig/Leipzig, Gerhard Reuter. 

Schmidt, J. E. C. (1804). Historical Critical Introduction to the New Testament. 

Simpson, E. K. (1954). The Pastoral Epistles. The Greek Text with 

Introduction and Commentary. London. 

Stamps, D. L. (1993). Rethinking the Rhetorical Situation: The Entextualising 

of the Situation in New Testament Epistles. Rhetoric and the New 

Testament: Essays from the 1992 Helderberg Conference. S. E. Porter 

and T. H. Olbricht. England, Sheffield Publishers: 193-210. 

Stott, J. R. W. (1997). The Message of Timothy and Titus. Leicester, England, 

Inter-Varsity Press. 

Strobel, A. (1968). "Screiben des Lukas? Zum sprachlichen Problem der 

Pastoralbriefe." New Testament Studies 15: 191-210. 


191

Sumney, J. L. (1996). “A Reading of the Theology of 1 Timothy without 

Authorial Presuppositions” (paper presented to the Theology of the 

Disputed Paulines Group at the annual meeting of the Society of 

Biblical Literature, New Orleans, November). 

Tertullian (1919). Tertullian's Treatises concerning Prayer, concerning 

Baptism. Translations of Christian Literature: Latin Texts. London, 

Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. 

Thurston, B. B. (1999). "The Theology of Titus." Horisons in Biblical Theology 

21 (2): 171-184. 

Tolmie, D. F. (2005). Persuading the Galatians. A Text-Centred Rhetorical 

Analysis of a Pauline Letter. Tübingen, Möhr Siebeck. 

Towner, P. H. (1989). The Goal of our Instruction: The Structure of Theology 

and Ethics in the Pastoral Epistles. Sheffield, England Shefield 

Academic Press. 

Towner, P. H. (1994). 1-2 Timothy and Titus. Leichester, England Intervarsity 

Press. 

Van Neste (2002). "Structure and Cohesion in Titus: Problems and Method." 

The Bible Translator 53(1): 118-133. 

Van Neste, R. (2003). "The Message of Titus: An overview.” The Southern 

Baptist Journal of Theology 7 (3): 18-30. 

Verner, D. C. (1983). The Household of God: The social world of the Pastoral 

Epistles. Chicago, California, Scholars Press 

Wallace, D. B. (1997). Crisis of the Word or A Message to Pastors and Would- 

Be Pastors (2Timothy 2:15). Dallas Seminary. Biblical Studies Press. 

Wendland, E. R. (1999). Let no one disregard you! (Titus 2:15): Church 

Discipline and the construction of Discourse in a Personal, 'Pastoral' 

Epistle. Discourse Analysis and the New Testament: Approaches and 

Results S. E. Porter and J. T. Reed. Sheffield, Sheffield Academic 

Press: 334-351. 

Wolter, M. (1988). Die Pastoralbriefe als Paulustradition. Göttingen, 

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 

Wuellner, W. (1987). "Where is rhetorical criticism taking us?" Catholic Biblical 

Quarterly 49: 448-463. 


192

Wuellner, W. (1991). The Rhetorical Genre or Jesus's Sermon in Luke 12.1- 

13.9 Persuasive Artistry: Studies in New Testament Rhetoric in Honor 

of George A. Kennedy D. Watson. Sheffield, JSOT Press: 93-118. 

Young, F. (1995). The Pastoral Epistles and the Ethics of Reading. The 

Pauline Writings. S. Porter and C. A. Evans. Sheffield Sheffield 

Academic Press. The Biblical Seminar 34: 268-282. 

Zahn, T. (1953). Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan, 

Kregel. 

Zodhiates, S. (1992). The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament. 

Chattanooga, Tennessee, AMG Publishers. 


193

ABSTRACT 

This study has been conducted upon the presupposition that the Letter to 

Titus still has to benefit from a thorough rhetorical critical analysis that will 

demonstrate its uniqueness as a coherent, comprehensive portion of New 

Testament literature that can be interpreted independently from the two letters 

to Timothy. Accordingly, a review of existing scholarship on the Pastorals 

generally and Titus specifically was conducted (Section1) followed by a 

comprehensive text-centred rhetorical analysis of the Letter to Titus (Section 

2). Finally, a summary of the results of this study was presented (Section 3). 

In Section 1, the review of existing scholarship on the authorship, theology, 

structure and coherency, and rhetorical approaches to Titus revealed how, 

due to the pervasiveness of the authenticity or authorship debate about the 

Pastorals, the Letter to Titus has been marginalised and interpreted in the 

light of the Timothean correspondence. In all the above categories, the 

individuality and uniqueness of Titus have been compromised. The 

authenticity of the Pastoral Letters went unchallenged until the turn of the 

nineteenth century when German scholars expressed their doubts about the 

alleged Pauline authorship of this corpus. The key dispute issues related to 

theological, ecclesiological, stylistic and historical inconsistencies that New 

Testament scholars observed in their analysis of the three letters. In response 

to these apparent inconsistencies, various theories were developed to 

account for the origin of the three letters. The first was the pseudonymous or 

fiction hypothesis according to which it is argued that the Pastorals were 

authored by someone other than Paul, but who used his name, probably 

some time after his death. Scholars who defend Pauline authorship of the 

Pastorals have challenged pseudonymity on the basis of ethics, history, 

hermeneutics, and apostolic objections. The origin of the letters have also 

been explained by the following theories: fragment hypothesis, secretary or 

amanuensis hypothesis and the allonymity or allepigraphy hypothesis. 

Theology, Christology, pneumatology and soteriology are central emphases in 


194

the theology of Titus, but tend to be interpreted in relationship with the other 

two letters. Structurally, the Letter to Titus, when compared to the other 

Pastorals, has been described as not having any structure, being incoherent. 

This position has been proposed by James Miller. In defence, Ray van Neste 

has argued for the coherence of the letter. Rhetorical studies devoted 

exclusively to Titus have been found to be severely lacking. The exception 

has been the work by Joachim Classen entitled “A rhetorical reading of the 

Epistle to Titus”. While having much to commend it, the article has been 

shown to have several serious shortcomings: although the article deals with 

what is there, it does not address the issue of persuasion; in other words, it 

does not evaluate why the author says things in the way he does; it is more 

exegetical than rhetorical; it is not a comprehensive treatment of the whole 

letter; it is silent about the obvious theological emphases in the letter. There 

have been increasing calls for an appreciation of the three letters individually. 

This study attempted to respond to that call on the basis of the following 

hypothesis: A thorough text-centred rhetorical approach to the Letter of Titus 

(i.e. without relating it to the other two Pastoral Letters or approaching it in 

terms of the authenticity/inauthenticity debate) will yield new insights for its 

interpretation. 

In Section 2 the rhetorical situation was presented followed by a 

comprehensive rhetorical analysis of the letter, using a text-centred, minimal 

theory framework approach, formulated by D.F. Tolmie (2005). The objective 

was to investigate and analyse the rhetorical strategy of the author from the 

text, which was divided into 11 rhetorical units. Each unit was demarcated and 

described in terms of the dominant rhetorical objective of the author. This was 

done based on a verse-by-verse analysis of the text. This approach yielded 

much insight into the unique rhetorical structure of the letter as a whole and 

provided rich insights into the coherence of the letter. A variety of rhetorical 

techniques revealed the intricate rhetorical structure that characterise this 

short letter. Some techniques have been observed that may not yet have 

been categorised by scholars to date. 


195

In Section 3 the results of the study have been summarised. It sets out the 

rhetorical objective of the text in terms of the chronological development of the 

author’s argument as it develops from unit to unit. A second way to describe 

the rhetorical strategy of the author has been described in terms of the 

overlap between the various units which revealed several controlling rhetorical 

objectives. Furthermore, the rhetorical techniques used in the letter have been 

summarised in this section. New techniques have also been defined and listed 

in the concluding section. The study concludes with the conviction that the 

Letter to Titus can stand independently from the rest of the Pastorals and 

makes a significant contribution in our understanding and appreciation of 

Paul’s use of rhetoric. 


196

OPSOMMING 

Hierdie studie is gebaseer op die voorveronderstelling dat die Brief aan Titus 

nog moet baat vind by ’n deurdagte, retories-kritiese analise, wat die 

uniekheid daarvan as ‘n samehangende, gehele deel van Nuwe 

Testamentiese literatuur, wat onafhankilik van die briewe aan Timotheus 

geinterpreteer kan word, sal demonstreer. Gevolglik is ’n oorsig van 

bestaande navorsing oor die Pastorale Briewe in die algemeen, en Titus 

spesifiek onderneem (Deel 1) gevolg deur ‘n volledige teks-gesentreerde, 

retoriese analise van die Brief aan Titus (Deel 2). Laastens is ’n opsomming 

van die resultate van hierdie studie gemaak (Deel 3). 

In Deel 1 het ’n oorsig van bestaande navorsing oor die outeurskap, teologie, 

struktuur en samehangendheid en retoriese benaderings tot Titus blootgelê 

hoe, te wyte aan die deurdringendheid van die egtheidkwessie of die debat 

rakende die outeurskap van die Pastorale, die Brief aan Titus gemarginaliseer 

en in die lig van die Timotheus korrespondensie geinterpreteer word. In al 

bogenoemde kategorieë is die uitsonderlikheid en oorspronklikheid van Titus 

misken. Die egtheid van die Pastorale Briewe is nooit bevraagteken voor die 

negentiende eeu nie, totdat Duitse akademici die Pauliniese outeurskap van 

hierdie werke in twyfel begin trek het. Die sleutelkwessies waaroor die dispuut 

gehandel het is verwant aan teologiese, ekklesiologiese, stilistiese and 

historiese ongerymdhede wat Nuwe-Testamentiese navorsers, in hul analise 

van die drie briewe bevraagteken het. In reaksie op hierdie oënskynlike 

ongerymdhede, het verskeie teorieë die lig gesien om vir die oorsprong van 

die drie briewe verantwoording te doen. Eerstens was daar die vervalsing- of 

fiksiehipotese waarvolgens daar aangevoer word dat die Pastorale deur 

iemand anders, in die naam van Paulus geskryf is, waarskynlik ná sy dood. 

Navorsers wat die Pauliniese outeurskap van die Pastorale verdedig, het die 

vervalsing- of fiksiehipotese bevraagteken op grond van etiese, historiese, 

hermeneutiese en apostoliese oorwegings. Die oorsprong van die briewe is 

ook verklaar deur die volgende teorieë: die fragmenthipotese, sekretaris- of 


197

amanuensishipotese en die allonieme- of allepigrafiesehipotese. Teologie, 

Christologie, pneumatologie en soteriologie is sentrale aspekte in die teologie 

van Titus, maar skyn geinterpreteer te word in verhouding met die ander twee 

briewe. In terme van die struktuur is die Brief aan Titus, in vergelyking met die 

ander Pastorale, beskryf as ontbrekend aan enige struktuur, en 

onsamehangend. Dit is die argument soos aangevoer deur James Miller. Ter 

verdediging, het Ray van Neste geargumenteer vir die samehangendheid van 

Titus. Geen retoriese studies wat eklusief toegewy is aan Titus is gevind nie. 

’n Uitsondering was die artikel van Joachim Classen getiteld “A rhetorical 

reading of the Letter to Titus”. Alhoewel dit ’n bydrae lewer, is die volgende 

tekortkominge uitgewys: die studie behandel die teks in terme van wat daar is 

sonder om die oorreding aan te spreek, met ander woorde dit behandel nie 

waarom die outeur sy inligting op ‘n spesifieke manier organiseer nie; dit is 

meer eksegeties as retories; dit in nie ‘n volledige behandeling van die hele 

brief nie; dit behandel ook nie die duidelik teologiese aspekte van die brief nie. 

Daar was toenemende oproepe vir ’n waardering van die drie briewe op ’n 

indiwiduele grondslag. Hierdie studie het gepoog om te reageer op daardie 

oproep op grond van die volgende hipotese: ‘n Deeglike teks-gesentreerde 

retoriese benadering tot die Brief aan Titus (d.w.s. sonder om dit in 

verwantskap te bring met die ander twee Pastorale Briewe of dit te benader in 

terme van die egtheid/onegtheid-debat) sal nuwe insigte vir die interpretasie 

van die brief bydra. 

In Deel 2 is die retoriese situasie behandel gevolg deur ’n volledige retoriese 

analise van die brief, deur gebruik te maak van ’n teks-gesentreerde, 

minimale teoretiese raamwerk, wat deur D.F. Tolmie (2005) geformuleer is. 

Die doel was om die skrywer se retoriese strategie uit die teks self, wat 

opverdeel is in 11 retoriese eenhede, te ondersoek en te analiseer. Elke 

eenheid is afgebaken en beskryf in terme van die skrywer se oorkoepelende 

retoriese doelstelling. Dit is gedoen volgens ’n vers-vir-vers analise van die 

teks. Hierdie benadering het veel bygedra tot insigte in die unieke retoriese 

struktuur van die brief as ’n geheel en het ook bygedra tot ryk insigte in die 

samehangendheid van die brief. Verskeie retoriese tegnieke het die 


198

geïntegreerde retoriese struktuur, wat hierdie brief kenmerk, blootgelê. Sekere 

tegnieke is waargneem wat nog nie tot op die hede deur navorsers 

geidentifiseer was nie. 

In Deel 3 is die resultate van hierdie studie opgesom. Dit bevat ’n 

uiteensetting van die retoriese doelstelling van die teks in terme van die 

kronologiese ontwikkeling van die skrywer se argument soos dit van eenheid 

tot eenheid op bou. ’n Tweede manier om die skrywer se retoriese strategie te 

beskryf, was om dit te sien in terme van die oorvleueling wat bestaan tussen 

die verskeie eenhede wat weer op sy beurt verskillende retoriese objektiewe 

blootgelê het. Die retoriese tegnieke wat in die brief gebruik word, is in Deel 3 

opgesom. Nuwe retoriese tegnieke is ook in die laaste gedeelte 

gekategoriseer en opgesom. Die studie is afgesluit met die oortuiging dat die 

Brief aan Titus onafhanklik kan staan van die res van die Pastorale en dat die 

brief ’n aansienlike bydrae lewer tot ons insig en waardering vir Paulus se 

gebruik van retoriek. 


199

KEY TERMS 

1. Pastoral Letters 

2. Rhetorical criticism 

3. Rhetorical strategy 

4. Pauline 

5. Titus 

6. Dominant rhetorical objective 

7. New Testament 

8. Rhetoric 

9. Rhetorical technique 

10. Persuasion 

11. Vilification 

12. Sound doctrine 


200

TREF WOORDE 

1. Pastorale Briewe 

2. Retoriese kritiek 

3. Retoriese strategie 

4. Paulinies 

5. Titus 

6. Dominante retoriese doelstelling 

7. Nuwe Testament 

8. Retoriek 

9. Retoriese tegniek 

10. Oorreding 

11. Vilifikasie 

12. Gesonde leer 


201

A Text centred rhetorical analysis of Paul's Letter to Titus

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?