John Calvin Commentary Titus 1

A servant of God This extended and detailed commendation of his apostleship shows that Paul had in view the whole Church, and not Titus alone; for his apostleship was not disputed by Titus, and Paul is in the habit of proclaiming the titles of his calling in order to maintain his authority. Accordingly, just as he perceives those to whom he writes to be disposed, he deals largely or sparingly in those ornaments. Here his design was to bring into subjection those who had haughtily rebelled; and for this reason he extols his apostleship in lofty terms. He therefore writes this Epistle, not that it may be read in solitude by Titus in his private room, but that it may be openly published.

An Apostle of Jesus Christ First, he calls himself “a servant of God,” and next adds the particular kind of his ministry, namely, that he is “an Apostle of Christ;” for there are various ranks among the servants of God. Thus he descends from the general description to the particular class. We should also remember what I have said elsewhere, that the word servant means something else than ordinary subjection (on account of which all believers are called “servants of God”), and denotes a minister who has received a particular office. In this sense the prophets were formerly distinguished by this title, and Christ himself is the chief of the prophets:

Behold my servant, I have chosen him (Isaiah 42:1).

Thus David, with a view to his royal dignity, calls himself “a servant of God.” Perhaps, also, it is on account of the Jews that he designates himself “a servant of God,” for they were accustomed to lower his authority by alleging the law against him. He therefore wishes to be considered an Apostle of Christ in such a manner that he may likewise glory in being a servant of the eternal God. Thus he shows not only that those two titles are quite consistent with each other, but that they are joined by a bond which cannot be dissolved.

According to the faith of the elect of God If anyone doubts about his apostleship, he establishes its credibility by a very strong reason, connecting it with the salvation “of the elect of God.” It is as if he had said, “There is a mutual agreement between my apostleship and the faith of the elect of God; and, therefore, it will not be rejected by anyone who is not a reprobate and opposed to the true faith.”

By “the elect” he means not only those who were alive at that time, but all who had existed from the beginning of the world; for he declares that he teaches no doctrine which does not agree with the faith of Abraham and of all the fathers. So, then, if anyone today wishes to be considered a successor of Paul, he must prove that he is the minister of the same doctrine.

But these words also contain an implied contrast, so that the gospel may suffer no damage from the unbelief and obstinacy of many. For at that time, as well as today, weak minds were greatly disturbed by this scandal: that the majority of those who boasted of the title of the Church rejected the pure doctrine of Christ. For this reason Paul shows that, though all indiscriminately boast of the name of God, there are many of that multitude who are reprobates; as he affirms elsewhere (Romans 9:7), that not all who are descended from Abraham according to the flesh are the lawful children of Abraham.

And the knowledge of that truth I consider the copulative and to be here equivalent to that is; so that the passage might run thus: “according to the faith of the elect of God, that is, the knowledge of that truth which is according to godliness.” This clause explains what is the nature of that “faith” which he has mentioned, though it is not a full definition of it, but a description framed to apply to the present context. For the purpose of maintaining that his apostleship is free from all imposture and error, he solemnly declares that it contains nothing but known and ascertained truth, by which men are instructed in the pure worship of God. But as every word has its own weight, it is highly proper to enter into a detailed explanation.

First, when “faith” is called “knowledge,” it is distinguished not only from opinion, but from that shapeless faith which the Papists have contrived; for they have forged an implicit faith destitute of all light of the understanding. But when Paul describes it to be a quality which essentially belongs to faith—to know the truth—he plainly shows that there is no faith without knowledge.

The word truth expresses still more clearly the certainty which is demanded by the nature of faith; for faith is not satisfied with probable arguments, but holds what is true. Besides, he does not speak of every kind of truth, but of the heavenly doctrine, which is contrasted with the vanity of the human understanding. As God has revealed Himself to us by means of that truth, so it alone is worthy of the honor of being called “the truth”—a name which is bestowed on it in many parts of Scripture.

And the Spirit will lead you into all truth (John 16:13).

Thy word is the truth (John 17:17).

Who hath bewitched you that ye should not obey the truth? (Galatians 3:1).

Having heard the word of the truth, the gospel of the Son of God (Colossians 1:5).

He wisheth all to come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Timothy 2:4).

The Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15).

In a word, that truth is the right and sincere knowledge of God, which frees us from all error and falsehood. So much the more ought it to be valued by us, since nothing is more wretched than to wander like cattle during our whole life.

Which is according to godliness. This clause especially limits “the truth” of which he had spoken, but at the same time commends Paul's doctrine from its fruit and end, because it has no other object than that God should be worshipped in a right manner and that pure religion should flourish among men. In this manner he defends his doctrine from every suspicion of vain curiosity, as he did before Felix (Acts 24:10) and afterwards before Agrippa (Acts 26:1).

For since all questions that do not tend to edification should justly be suspected and even hated by good men, the only lawful commendation of doctrine is this: that it instructs us to fear God and to bow before him with reverence. And from this we are also informed that the more progress anyone has made in godliness, the better a disciple of Christ he is; and that he who edifies consciences in the fear of God ought to be considered a true theologian.

In the hope (or, on account of the hope) of eternal life. This undoubtedly denotes the cause, for that is the force of the Greek preposition ἐπί; and therefore it may be translated, “On account of the hope,” or “On the hope.”

True religion and the practice of godliness begin with meditation on the heavenly life. Similarly, when Paul (Colossians 1:5) praises the faith and love of the Colossians, he makes their cause and foundation to be the hope laid up in heaven.

The Sadducees and all who confine our hope to this world, whatever they may pretend, can do nothing but produce contempt for God, as they reduce people to the condition of cattle. Accordingly, it should always be the aim of a good teacher to turn people’s eyes away from the world, so that they may look up to heaven.

I readily acknowledge that we should value the glory of God more highly than our salvation, but we are not now discussing which of these two should be first in order. All I am saying is that people never seek God in the right way until they have the confidence to approach Him; and, therefore, we never apply our minds to godliness until we have been instructed about the hope of the heavenly life.

Which God promised before the times of ages. As Augustine translated the words Πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων to mean not “the times of ages” but “eternal times,” he struggles greatly with “the eternity of times,” until he finally explains “eternal times” as denoting those which go beyond all antiquity.

Regarding the meaning, he and Jerome and other commentators agree that God determined, before the creation of the world, to give that salvation which He has now manifested by the gospel. Thus, Paul would have used the word promise incorrectly instead of decree, for before people existed, there was no one to whom He could promise.

For this reason, while I do not reject this explanation, yet when I take a close survey of the whole matter, I feel compelled to adopt a different interpretation: that eternal life was promised to people many ages ago, and not only to those who lived at that time, but also for our own age. It was not for the benefit of Abraham alone, but with a view to all who would live after him, that God said, In your seed shall all nations be blessed (Genesis 22:18).

Nor is this inconsistent with what he says, in another sense (2 Timothy 1:9), that salvation was given to people before the times of ages. The meaning of the word is still the same in both passages. For, since the Greek word αἰών denotes an uninterrupted succession of time from the beginning to the end of the world, Paul declares in that passage that salvation was given or decreed for the elect of God before times began to flow. But because in this passage he treats of the promise, he does not include all ages, so as to lead us back beyond the creation of the world, but shows that many ages have elapsed since salvation was promised.

If anyone prefers to view “the times of ages” as a concise expression for the ages themselves, they are free to do so. But because salvation was given by the eternal election of God before it was promised, the act of giving salvation is placed in that passage (2 Timothy 1:9) before all ages, and therefore we must supply the word all. Here, however, it means nothing more than that the promise is more ancient than a long course of ages, because it began immediately after the creation of the world.

In the same sense, he shows that the gospel, which was to be proclaimed when Christ rose from the dead, had been promised in the Scriptures by the prophets. For there is a wide difference between the promise which was formerly given to the fathers and the present manifestation of grace.

Who cannot lie. This expression, ἀψευδής, is added for glorifying God and, still more, for confirming our faith. And indeed, whenever our salvation is the subject, we should remember that it is founded on the word of Him who can neither deceive nor lie. Moreover, the only proof of all religion is the unchangeable truth of God.

But hath manifested. There was indeed some manifestation of this kind when God in ancient times spoke by his prophets; but because Christ, by his coming, publicly displayed those things which they had obscurely predicted, and the Gentiles were afterwards admitted into the fellowship of the covenant, in this sense Paul says that what had previously been exhibited in part “hath now been manifested.”

In his own times. This has the same meaning as the fullness of times (Galatians 4:4). He reminds us that the time when it pleased the Lord to do this must have been the most seasonable time for doing it. He mentions this for the purpose of meeting the rashness of men, who always have the audacity to inquire why it was not sooner, or why it is today rather than tomorrow. Therefore, so that our curiosity may not exceed proper bounds, he shows that the “times” are placed in the hand and at the disposal of God, in such a manner that we ought to think that he does everything in the proper order and at the most seasonable time.

His word. Or, by his word; for it is not uncommon for Greek writers to supply the preposition by. Or, he calls Christ the Word, if it is not thought preferable to supply something to complete the sentence. Were it not that the second interpretation is a little forced, I would otherwise give it preference. Thus John says,

What we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what our hands have handled of the Word of life; and the life was manifested (1 John 1:1, 2).

I therefore prefer what is a simple meaning: that God has manifested the word concerning life by the preaching of the gospel.

The preaching, of which he speaks, is the gospel proclaimed, as the chief thing which we hear in it is — that Christ is given to us, and that in him there is life.

Which hath been committed to me. Because not all are suitable for so important an office, and no one should thrust himself into it, he asserts his calling, as is his custom. Here we should learn—what we have often remarked on other occasions—that honor is not due to anyone until he has proved that God has ordained him; for even the ministers of Satan proudly boast that God has called them, but there is no truth in their words. Now Paul states nothing but what is known and proved when he mentions his calling.

Besides, from this passage we learn for what purpose they were made apostles. It was for the sake of publishing the gospel, as he says elsewhere,

Woe to me if I preach not the gospel, for a dispensation is committed unto me (1 Corinthians 9:16, 17).

Accordingly, those who engage in meaningless displays, in the midst of idleness and luxury, are excessively shameless in boasting that they are the successors of the apostles.

Of God our Savior. He applies the same epithet to the Father and to Christ, so that each of them is our Savior, but for a different reason. For the Father is called our Savior because he redeemed us by the death of his Son, that he might make us heirs of eternal life; and the Son, because he shed his blood as the pledge and the price of our salvation. Thus the Son has brought salvation to us from the Father, and the Father has bestowed it through the Son.

To Titus, my own son, according to the common faith. Therefore, it is clear in what sense a minister of the Word is said to spiritually beget those whom he brings to the obedience of Christ; that is, in such a way that he himself is also begotten. Paul declares himself to be the father of Titus regarding his faith, but immediately adds that this faith is common to both, so that both of them equally have the same Father in heaven.

Thus, God does not diminish His own prerogative when He declares certain individuals to be spiritual fathers alongside Himself, through whose ministry He regenerates whomever He chooses; for by themselves they do nothing, but only by the efficacy of the Spirit. As for the rest of the verse, its explanation will be found in the Commentaries on the former Epistles, and especially on the First Epistle to Timothy.

For this reason I left you in Crete. This preface clearly proves that Titus is not so much admonished on his own account as recommended to others, so that no one may hinder him. Paul testifies that he has appointed him in his own place; and on that account, all should acknowledge and receive him with reverence as the Apostle’s deputy.

The apostles had no fixed place assigned to them but were charged to spread the gospel throughout the whole world. For this reason, when they left one city or district to go to another, they were accustomed to place suitable men as their substitutes to complete the work they had begun. Thus Paul affirms that he founded the church of the Corinthians, but that there were other workmen who must build on his foundation — that is, carry forward the building.

This, indeed, belongs to all pastors, for the churches will always stand in need of increase and progress as long as the world endures. But in addition to the ordinary office of pastors, the care of organizing the church was committed to Titus. Pastors were not usually appointed over churches until they had been organized and brought to some order. Titus, however, held an additional charge, which consisted in giving a form to churches that had not yet been properly arranged, and in appointing a fixed kind of government accompanied by discipline. Having laid the foundation, Paul departed; and then it became the duty of Titus to carry the work higher, so that the building might have fair proportions.

This is what he calls correcting those things which are still lacking. The building of the Church is not a work so easy that it can be brought all at once to perfection. How long Paul was in Crete — is uncertain; but he had spent some time there and had faithfully devoted his labors to erect the kingdom of Christ. He did not lack the most consummate skill that can be found in man; he was unwearied in toil; and yet he acknowledged that he left the work rough and incomplete. Hence we see the difficulty; indeed, we find by experience in the present day that it is not the labor of one or two years to restore fallen churches to a tolerable condition. Accordingly, those who have made diligent progress for many years — must still be attentive to correct many things.

Here it is highly proper to observe the modesty of Paul, who willingly permits another person to complete the work which he had begun. And indeed, although Titus is greatly inferior to him, he does not refuse to have him for ἐπανορθωτήν, a corrector, to give the finishing hand to his work. Such should be the dispositions of godly teachers: not that everyone should labor to make everything bend to his own ambitious views, but that they should strive to assist each other, and that when anyone has labored more successfully, he should be congratulated and not envied by all the rest.

And yet we must not imagine that Paul intended that Titus should correct those things which he had left undone — either through ignorance, forgetfulness, or carelessness — but rather those things which he could not finish on account of the shortness of the time. In short, he enjoined Titus to make that correction which he himself would have made if he had remained longer in Crete; not by varying — not by changing anything — but by adding what was lacking, because the difficulty of such a work does not allow every part of it to be done in a single day.

And appoint presbyters in each city. In the spiritual building, this nearly comes next to doctrine: that pastors be ordained to take charge of governing the Church. Therefore, Paul mentions it here in preference to everything else. It is a point which ought to be carefully observed, that churches cannot safely remain without the ministry of pastors, and consequently, wherever there is a considerable body of people, a pastor should be appointed over it. And yet he does not say that each town will have a pastor, so that no place will have more than one; but he means that no towns should be destitute of pastors.

Presbyters or elders. It is well known that it was not on account of age that they received this appellation, for sometimes those who were still young — such as Timothy — were admitted to this rank. But in all languages, it has been customary to apply this honorable designation to all rulers. Although we may conclude from 1 Timothy 5:17 that there were two classes of presbyters, the context will immediately show that here none other than teachers are meant — that is, those who were ordained to teach; for immediately afterwards, he will call the same persons bishops.

But it may be thought that he gives too much power to Titus when he instructs him to appoint ministers for all the churches. That would be almost royal power. Besides, this method takes away from each church the right of choosing, and from the College of Pastors the power of judging; thus, the sacred administration of the Church would be almost wholly profaned.

The answer is easy. He does not give permission to Titus to do everything alone in this matter, or to place over the churches those whom he thinks fit to appoint as bishops; but only instructs him to preside as moderator at the elections, which is quite necessary.

This mode of expression is very common. In the same manner, a consul, regent, or dictator is said to have created consuls, on account of having presided over the public assembly in electing them. Thus also Luke relates that Paul and Barnabas ordained elders in every church (Acts 14:23). Not that they alone, in an authoritative manner, appointed pastors whom the churches had neither approved nor known; but that they ordained suitable men who had been chosen or desired by the people.

From this passage we do indeed learn that at that time there was not complete equality among the ministers of Christ; instead, some individuals held authority and a deliberative voice above others. However, this has nothing to do with the tyrannical and profane custom which prevails in Popery regarding Collations. The apostles had a widely different mode of procedure.