How should a pastor respond to false teaching in his church? With no shortage of heresy, the pages of church history have shown a myriad of examples of how the church has responded to false teachers in the past. From excommunication to execution, Christendom has always, though often imperfectly, fought to defend the faith once for all delivered to the saints. Today, however, there is a great deal of pressure for pastors to remain open-minded and tolerant of different views within and without the church– a sharp contrast from the heavy-handed, doctrinal scrutiny of yesteryear. But what do the pages of Scripture have to say? In this paper I will not argue that Scripture commands the leaders of the church to oppose false-teaching, but will assume it.[1] Rather, I will examine the polemical passages of false teachers being rebuked or mocked within the Pastoral Epistles (PE) and compare it with the seemingly contradictory commands for gentleness and patience. Therefore, while I will make Titus 1:10−16 my primary focus, I will not limit myself to Titus alone but will examine 1 and 2 Timothy as well. In doing this I will focus on Paul’s instruction to his apostolic delegates on how they, and subsequent leaders in the church, should oppose false teaching.
HISTORICAL-CULTURAL CONTEXT
The epistle of Titus is a letter written by the apostle Paul to one of his apostolic delegates and co-laborers, Titus (1:4), a Greek follower of Christ (Gal 2:3) who had previously worked with Paul and had earned his trust (2 Cor 7:6; 8:23). Paul had left him in Crete to provide leadership to the young church (1:5). Many commentators have speculated whether any of the PE are truly written by Paul or are pseudonymously written by a Pauline admirer later in the 2nd century. Since the purpose of this paper is to examine the tone of pastoral rebukes in the PE, I will not be making an argument on authorship, but will simply assume Pauline authorship.[2]
The little island of Crete, the province Titus was laboring on, was an infamous place in the Mediterranean. Crete was renown as a hub of piracy, violence, avarice, sexual perversion, and deceit.[3] Polybius, referring to the immorality of the Cretans, writes, “So much in fact do sordid love of gain and lust for wealth prevail among them, that the Cretans are the only people in the world in whose eyes no gain is disgraceful.”[4] The Cretans reputation for immorality was so commonplace that the verb “to Cretanize” (Κρῆτίζειν) meant “to lie.”[5] Paul himself, quoting the Greek writer Epimenides, affirms this judgment and refers to Cretans in a scornful manner (1:12-13).[6] Despite this moral perversion, the island of Crete did have a well-attested Jewish presence that goes back to the 2nd century B.C., which is represented as an influence on the false teaching in the letter (1:10, 14).[7]
LITERARY CONTEXT
The main theme of the letter centers on the connection between doctrine and living—good doctrine leads to godliness, and bad doctrine leads to ungodliness. Paul opens the letter announcing this theme with describing himself as, “an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the sake of the faith of God’s elect and their knowledge of the truth, which accords with godliness,” (1:1). From 1:5-9 Paul highlights the need to install elders who are “above reproach” (1:6) and who “hold firm to the trustworthy word” (1:9). He then contrasts the elder’s doctrinal and moral quality with the doctrinal and moral bankruptcy of the false teachers in 1:10-16; because they “turn away from the truth” (1:14) they are “detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work” (1:16). Again, making a sharp contrast with the false teachers in 2:1-15, Paul exhorts Titus, “But as for you, teach what accords with sound doctrine,” (2:1) and then goes on to list a series of virtues for the church to pursue, because God has made us a people “zealous for good works” (2:14). Paul continues with more ethical commands in 3:1-2, then delves into the sound doctrine he has been referring to in 3:3-7, only to return again to a command to “insist on these things” so that the church may “devote themselves to good works” (3:8). Paul makes his final contrast with the false teachers in 3:9-11 who give themselves to “foolish controversies” that are “unprofitable” (3:9)—presumably labeling their doctrine as “foolish” because it is worthless for producing good works. Paul then ends his letter in 3:12-15 with a typical salutation and a final charge for the people to “devote themselves to good works” (3:14).
Titus 1:10-16 functions as the negative contrast to the section that precedes it (1:5-9) and the section that follows (2:1ff). Paul stresses the vital need to install elders in the church who have not only the moral integrity required (1:5-8), but also the teaching ability needed to “rebuke those who contradict [the trustworthy word]” they hold firm to (1:9). The Σὺ δὲ in 2:1 is a paraenetic device used in the PE explicitly for contrasting godly character with the false teachers (1 Tim. 6:11; 2 Tim. 3:10; 3:14; 4:5).[8] Therefore, the false teachers and the outcome of their teaching recorded in 1:10-16 is the exact opposite of the positive example modeled in the previous and following sections. Notice that the teaching of the false teachers is described as “what ought not be” (1:11) and Jewish μύθοις (“myths”) and “commandments of men” (1:14), and the outcome of is described as leading to “whole households [being] overturned” (1:11) and “turning away from the truth” (1:14). This teaching leads to devastating consequences. The final, and strongest, contrast given is the scathing description of the character of the false teachers themselves; they are “unruly, empty talkers, and deceivers” (1:10), motivated by “shameful gain” (1:11), compared to the Cretan stereotype (“always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons”) (1:12), “defiled and unbelieving” (1:15), hypocritically professing to know God but “denying him by their deeds” (1:16a), and “abominable, disobedient, unfit for any good work” (1:16). One should note that a number of the vices listed specifically have to do with verbal sins, “empty talkers and deceivers” (1:10), and “always liars” (1:12), thus making the connection between what they teach and their immorality even stronger.
The result is overwhelming: the false teachers are the farthest thing possible from the servant of the Lord who is ἀνέγκλητος (“beyond reproach”) (1:6). The conclusion is that 1:10-16 fits in perfectly with the flow of the rest of the letter, looming over every other command as a foil to the godly teachers, and a warning of the consequence of abandoning the “knowledge of the truth, which accords with godliness” (1:1).
CONTENT
Below I will look at four passages of Scripture in particular to examine the apparent discrepancy between Paul’s commands and example of sharply rebuking and mocking false teachers (1 Tim 4:7a and Titus 1:10-16), and his command to exhibit patience, gentleness, and dignity of speech (Titus 2:7-8 and 2 Tim 2:24-25). I will attempt to answer this by examining each passage on its own, subdivided into “Severe” and “Gentle” categories, and then seek to harmonize the apparent contradiction into a succinct conclusion.
SEVERE TEXTS
1 Timothy 4:7a
“Have nothing to do with irreverent, silly myths.”
Similar to the polemical style of the book of Titus, 1Timothy 4 is a comparison between the true and false teachers in the church. The chapter begins with addressing the false teaching (“of demons” 1 Tim 4:1) that was infiltrating the church through “the insincerity of liars” (1 Tim. 4:2) and then gradually transitions to describing the alternative traits of a “good servant of Christ Jesus” (4:6). 1 Tim 4:7a is the final contrast with false teaching before Paul lists only positive qualities, and in it Paul makes a stinging jab at the teaching of the opponents, τοὺς δὲ βεβήλους καὶ γραώδεις μύθους παραιτοῦ. While the adjective βεβήλος, the strong imperative verb παραιτοῦ, and the noun μύθος[9] convey a negative connotation, the most offensive element of this passage lies behind the difficult to translate adjective “γραώδης.” Translated as “silly” by the ESV and CSB, “fit only for old women” by the NASB, and “old-wives tales” by the NIV, NLT, and KJV, this hapax legomenon roughly translates to “characteristic of an elderly woman.”[10] Kelly notes it as, “a sarcastic epithet which was frequent in philosophical polemic and conveys the idea of limitless credulity.”[11] This term can be found in the works of Plato, Epictetus, Strabo, and Lucian, and was always used in a derogatory sense, often paired with μύθος.[12] Knight attempts to soften the term by saying that it does not carry “any negative overtones about either age or sex (cf., e.g., 5:1 for Paul’s own insistence that there be no negative attitudes relating to these matters)”.[13] But in responding to this thought, Mounce pushes back against Knight, “One wonders, however, whether Paul would have had the same sensitivity as a modern editor to this particular issue.”[14] Describing the offensive nature of the term, Mounce concludes that this word is “perhaps the harshest description of the opponents’ theology,”[15] and Fairbairn sees it as designating the opponents as “frivolous, [and] foolish.”[16] Quinn and Wacker further agree and claim that γραώδης is a “term which conveys a sophisticated, literate contempt for that which cannot be taken seriously.”[17] In a time where women were often less-educated and viewed as inferior citizens to men, it is hard to deny the offensive barb that lay behind this term. It seems that Paul intentionally used a culturally derisive word, usually reserved for philosophical debates, in order to describe the opponent’s theology not only as incorrect, but as ridiculous and dismissible. Calvin, a man not bound by our cultural sensitivities, sees this verse as a hammer in the hand of Paul used to “beat down the vain jangling” of “block heads…not worthy to be compared to fools.”[18]
Titus 1:11-13
“They must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach. One of the Cretans, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith.”
As laid out earlier, the polemic nature of Titus is a dominant theme throughout the epistle,[19] but nowhere is this more clearly seen than in 1:10-16. Since an overview of this section has been provided above, I will focus primarily on the severe nature of 1:11-13. It appears to be Paul’s intention to equate the false teachers in Crete with the stereotype of Crete in vs. 11-12, which then provides the justification for the command of a sharp rebuke in vs. 13.
In 1:11 Paul uses an indefinite reference to describe the false teachers doctrine (ἃ μὴ δεῖ), much like in 1 Tim. 1:7, which Marshall sees as pejorative, particularly in light of the vivid “descriptions of the apostolic teaching as τοῦ κατὰ τὴν διδαχὴν πιστοῦ λόγου and τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ in v. 9.”[20] This also aligns with the rest of the PE’s tendency to be sparse with details about the heresy – seemingly because it was so foolish that it didn’t deserve Timothy or Titus’ attention.[21] Further, the explanation that the false teachers are motivated by αἰσχροῦ κέρδους not only serves as a strong contrast with the godly teacher in v. 7 who is μὴ αἰσχροκερδῆ, but also associates the false teachers with the Cretan stereotype of being driven by an extreme greediness.[22] In light of these greedy false teachers overturning whole households, Paul declares that they must be ἐπιστομίζειν, another hapax that roughly translates “to silence”, but could be translated as “to put something in/on the mouth” (cf. στόμα, “mouth”).[23] Kelly notes that this word is used as a metaphor that means “to put a muzzle, not simply a bridle, on an animal’s mouth.”[24] Nonetheless, it is not a verb that connotes respect.
In 1:12 Paul references a famous saying from Epimenides (a Cretan himself) who makes a blanket condemnation of Cretans, Κρῆτες ἀεὶ ψεῦσται, κακὰ θηρία, γαστέρες ἀργαί (“Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons”).[25] But first Paul introduces this saying with an interesting statement, εἶπέν τις ἐξ αὐτῶν, ἴδιος αὐτῶν προφήτης (“A certain prophet of them, one of their own, said”). To understand the sentence one must figure out who the referents of both the pronouns αὐτῶν are. Grammatically, it seems clear that the antecedent would be the false teachers in v.10-11 (οἱ ἐκ τῆς περιτομῆς), but the proverbial statement that follows is clearly not made by the false teachers, but by the Cretan, Epimenides, who lived in the 6th or 7th century B.C. This ambiguity seems to be intentional on Paul’s part. It serves as a rhetorical device to make it appear that the false teachers are the same group of people Epimenides was referring to hundreds of years before. Towner concludes that, “The obvious conclusion that the readers/hearers will draw is that the Cretan celebrity’s [Epimenides] influential self-testimony is finding fulfillment in the teaching and behavior of the opponents.”[26] The first line of the phrase, “Cretans are always liars,” was originally made referring to lies that the Cretans had made about the gods: that Zeus was buried on their island. So Paul’s comparison of the false teachers with this quote not only makes it an attack on their character (as the other two phrases of the quote does), but also shows that the false teachers are lying about God.[27]
However, the all-encompassing nature of the comment (all Cretans) is surprising to be found being used in a letter directed to a church filled with Cretans. Does Paul intend to mean that all Cretans – including the Cretans in Titus’ church – are liars, beasts, and gluttons? Certainly not. If all Cretans were as morally corrupt as the generalization of the quote, then there would be no one in Titus’ church to appoint as an elder![28] Additionally, Marshall proposes that the members of the church would have seen themselves as delivered from the “sins of their race, and that the attack is on those who were never converted or have fallen away.”[29] Knight takes it a step further and claims, “Paul is not making an ethnic slur, but is merely accurately observing, as the Cretans themselves and others did, how the sin that affects the whole human race comes to a particular expression in this group.”[30] This is a fair evaluation, but Witherington accurately stresses, “One needs to know that this claim was polemical, meant to be a shaming device and offensive to Greek ears.”[31] Thus we see that Paul feels comfortable using a derisive stereotypical generalization, without intending it to be absolute or all encompassing, when it comes to attacking his opponents.[32]
In light of the destruction to the church, and the character and teaching of these false teachers, in v. 13 Paul commands Titus to “rebuke them sharply.” The adverb ἀποτόμως is used one other time by Paul, in 2 Cor 13:10, “For this reason I write these things while I am away from you, that when I come I may not have to be severe (ἀποτόμως) in my use of the authority that the Lord has given me for building up and not for tearing down.” From this two points should be noted: 1) Paul, at least with the Corinthians, would prefer not to be severe, 2) Paul, counter intuitively, sees a severe response to be used for “building up and not for tearing down.” The adverb carries an “extremely strong” force,[33] but it seems that Paul is not always eager to use this kind of response. Therefore we can safely deduce that the false teaching present in Crete had reached such a critical point of severity that Paul saw it not only as permissible, but necessary for a “sharp” rebuke. But, like in 2 Cor 13:10, the purpose of this kind of severe rebuke is, “that (ἵνα) they may be sound in the faith,” (1:13). Elsewhere, Paul sees handing someone over to Satan—a severe response—to be a means of redemption (cf. 1 Tim 1:20; 1 Cor 5:5). Though it may appear perplexing to modern readers, Paul’s desire for these false teachers he is mocking is not only to protect the church from further destruction, but also that they (and presumably their followers) would be delivered from their own deceitfulness (cf. 2 Tim 3:13). Chrysostom explains, “Give them, he says, a stroke the cuts deep…He does not here have recourse to exhortation. For as he who treats with harshness the meek and ingenious, may destroy them; so he who flatters one that requires severity, causes him to perish, and does not suffer him to be reclaimed.”[34]
GENTLE
2 Timothy 2:24-25a
“And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness.”
In 2 Timothy 2 Paul employs a similar polemic by listing out the positive traits of the Lord’s servant (2:1-13; 15; 19; 22; 24-26), negative traits of false teaching (2:16-18), and commands to avoid the false teaching (2:14; 16; 19-21; 23). While Paul uses critical language of the false teachers (2:17 “gangrene”; 3:1-9), he makes a surprising command for Timothy to be gentle in his opposition. In 2:24-25a Paul explains that the Lord’s servant must “not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness.” Building off of the previous verse (v. 23) that heresy breeds μάχας, Paul explains in v. 24 that the Lord’s servants must not be quarrelsome, using the cognate verb μάχεσθαι (cf. Acts 7:26; Jas 4:2; John 6:52). This explains that the nature of being “quarrelsome” pertains to the kinds of pointless arguments that the “foolish, ignorant controversies” of the false teachers creates. If οὐ δεῖ μάχεσθαι here meant “never disagreeing with anyone,” then the following commands for the Lord’s servant to correct his opponents would be self-contradictory. Rather, Paul views the Lord’s servant as one who engages in arguments, but does so with a distinctly Christian demeanor.
This demeanor is then given by the strong contrast ἀλλὰ and the positive description of ἤπιον εἶναι πρὸς πάντας, διδακτικόν, ἀνεξίκακον. 1 Thess 2:7 is the only other place in the NT that we see ἤπιον (transl. “kind”) used, and it is helpful in illumining its meaning, “But we were gentle (ἤπιον) among you, like a nursing mother taking care of her own children.” This gentleness is to be applied to all (esp. opponents, v. 25) and made manifest in his teaching and his patient endurance of evil.[35] In v. 25 the main verb is the participle παιδεύοντα, from the verb παιδεύω, which has a semantic range of “to discipline, educate, chastise” or even “to inflict corporal punishment,” but the prepositional phrase ἐν πραΰτητι controls the meaning and renders it as “correcting with gentleness”.[36] The noun πραΰτητι is similar to ἤπιον, but used much more frequently[37] and also connotes “humility, courtesy, and meekness.”[38] The two phrases together create a “firm, corrective, wholesome” teaching “yet conducted with a meek and forbearing spirit.”[39]
The contrast with the quarrelsome false teachers is clear; while Timothy is commanded not to sink to their level and bicker with them, he is permitted to teach them and humbly correct them. Timothy ought to conduct himself this way because, “God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will,” (v.25b-26). Interestingly, this parallels Tit 1:11-13 in the correction of false teachers with the hope that they may be saved, but while Timothy is exhorted to “correct with gentleness”, Titus is to “rebuke them sharply.”
Titus 2:7-8
“Show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity, and sound speech that cannot be condemned, so that an opponent may be put to shame, having nothing evil to say about us.”
Shortly after Paul’s attack on the false teachers in 1:10-16, he turns to describing the positive alternative of genuine Christian behavior in 2:1ff. After explaining that young men ought to be self-controlled (v. 6), Paul is reminded of the specific young man he is writing to and adds a personal exhortation for Titus himself in vv. 7-8 addressing his character and his teaching. In the activity of Titus’ teaching he ought to show “integrity” and “dignity,” and “sound speech that cannot be condemned” – which is to say, sound doctrine that accord with Paul’s gospel.[40] In his teaching Titus is to show ἀφθορίαν (“integrity, purity”), a NT hapax, which refers to Titus’ own personal integrity that does not—as the false teachers do (Titus 1:16)—hypocritically contradict with his teaching. And Titus is to show σεμνότητα (“dignity, gravity, seriousness”) in the manner of his teaching (cf. 1 Tim. 3:4; 2:2). This blend of purity, manner, and content of speech, Paul explains, will lead not only to Titus’ enemies being put to shame (presumably by the vivid contrast between their hypocrisy and Titus’ integrity), but will result in them “having nothing evil to say about us” (cf. 1 Tim 3:7; 1 Pet 3:16). Knight explains that, “This does not mean that Titus’s speech or preaching should never be reproached or condemned by anyone, but that there should be no proper basis for such reproach.”[41]
CONCLUSION
How is one to reconcile these seeming contradictions? In 1 Tim 4:7a and Titus 1:10-16 Paul uses strong, offensive language to denigrate and mock his opponents and their teaching, then in 2 Tim 2:24-25 and Titus 2:7-8 Paul exhorts Timothy to correct his opponents with gentleness, and Titus to have such integrity and dignity in his speech that no one would have anything evil to say about him. Does mocking count as correcting with gentleness? After using an offensive stereotype would no one have anything evil to say about it? This problem pervades the entire NT where we are commanded to not let any corrupting talk come out of our mouths (Eph 4:29; 5:4; Col 3:8; Jas 3:1-12), and then we see the apostles and Christ himself use offensive, strong language (Gal 5:12; Phil 3:2; Matt 23; 1 Cor 4:8ff). Karris, examining the polemical nature of the PE, bluntly states that, “One of [Paul’s] key weapons against the opponents is name-calling.”[42]
The answer to this dilemma is less complicated than it appears at first. As stated above, the qualification that an opponent would “having nothing evil to say” about Titus’ speech does not mean that Titus’ speech is then limited to whatever the culture around him decides is evil (how would the gospel ever be preached in hostile lands if that were so?), rather it means that the opponents should have nothing truly evil (by God’s standards) to say about Titus’ speech. Also, as stated above, the gentleness which Paul commends in 2 Tim 2:24-25 is not a gentleness which never enters into debate, but is a gentleness that refuses to enter into the squabbles of empty doctrine.[43] But the terms of “gentleness” and “patience” still control the demeanor of the debate, and cannot be dismissed. But, like all other virtues, “gentleness” and “patience” are not totalizing over other Christian virtues, like “honesty,” “courage,” or “faithfulness.” Rather, Christian virtues are interdependent and never contradict one another. Jonathan Edwards explains, “All the graces of Christianity always go together. They so go together, that where there is one, there are all, and where one is wanting, all are wanting…There is not only a connection…but there is mutual dependence between them, so that one cannot be without the others.”[44] Therefore, Christian gentleness is defined and exemplified in unison with all other Christian virtues.
It does seem that Paul’s most severe jabs at false teaching seem to be reserved for those who are most entrenched in the false teaching and are not only being deceived themselves, but are deceiving others (as those in 1 Tim 4:1-7 and Titus 1:10-16).[45] It also is safe to assume that the false teaching in Titus’ church was so far advanced that it not only warranted, but required a strong rebuke (Titus 1:11, 16). It must also be noted that the purpose of the critical language is never motivated by personal animus; Paul only uses insults that have to do with the false teacher’s heresy. Rather, Paul’s desire is that the church and the gospel would be protected, and felt compelled to speak about the heresy and heretics in such a polemical fashion in order to puncture their arrogant pretensions, keep further Christians from being deceived, and hopefully save the false teachers themselves.[46] Spicq notes that the effect of mocking and name-calling false teachers had at its purpose, “to lower his estimation and to evoke moral repulsion among those who regard him highly and are sympathetic to him.”[47] But, this polemical language was not an exaggeration or deceitful representation of the character and teaching of his opponents.[48] It was the exact opposite—Paul’s sharp language was used not because he was distorting the heretic’s views, but because he was describing them accurately. Their theology was devoid of truth because it rejected the gospel, so it was pointless, foolish, man-made, and destructive.
Lastly, the passive infinitive μάχεσθαι and indefinite δοῦλον…κυρίου in 2 Tim. 2:24 and the generic, non-specific application of the command shows that Paul intends the scope of this phrase to be applied as a standard to all Christian teachers, not just Timothy (cf. 1 Tim 6:11; 2 Tim 3:17).[49] Whereas in the command for Titus to ἔλεγχε αὐτοὺς ἀποτόμως (“rebuke them sharply”), ἔλεγχε is a second-person singular imperative (“you [Titus] rebuke…”) and αὐτοὺς is a third-person plural demonstrative pronoun (“…them [the Cretans/false teachers]”). This shows Titus’ command is clearly directed at him and his unique situation, whereas Timothy’s is a standard rule. This doesn’t mean all person/circumstance specific commands in Scripture are inapplicable to Christians today, but shows that their application is limited to unique and special circumstances. Therefore, it is safe to assume that the regular expectation of corrective rebukes should be done in a patient, kind manner, but when circumstances become dire—as they did for Titus—a strong rebuke may be needed (cf. 2 Cor 13:10).
APPLICATION
Knowing when to employ sharp rebukes or strong language requires great wisdom and discernment. Much like knowing when we should answer a fool and when we shouldn’t (Prov 26:4-5). And the numerous passages warning about the danger of how we use our words should incite great prudence and careful thought before hastily attacking others.[50] As a general rule, our language should always reflect the humble disposition of a sinner saved by grace who is superior to no one else in terms of self-made righteousness. The most offensive word Paul uses in all his writing (σκύβαλον) is not used in attacking an opponent, but in reference to his own self-righteousness (Phil. 3:8).
This means that we must speak the truth with humble hearts, and strive to not let one of those characteristics overpower the other. If the desire to be gentle leads to being dishonest, talking about something wicked as if it is good, or refusing to correct false teaching, it is not biblical gentleness. It is cowardice, approval seeking, and unloving (1 Cor 13:6; Rom 12:9). Similarly, if the desire to defend the truth leads to picking fights over little things, relishing in winning arguments more than converts to Christ, or using inappropriate language that does not accurately depict the opponent’s belief, it is not biblical faithfulness or courage. It is a pugnaciousness that defines the false teachers of the PE, not the pastors (1 Tim 6:4-5; Titus 3:9-11). Our world may define “gentleness” and “humility” in such a way that it excludes any possibility of critical language, but we should never allow current cultural norms to dictate what godly virtues should look like. The Word of God, not the spirit of the age, binds our consciences.
This means that we should be precise with our choice of words and the tone in which they are conveyed. We should use bad words to describe bad things, and good words to describe good things. When we use good words (“lifestyle choice”) to describe bad things (“sin”), we confuse our hearers, hinder their repentance, and misrepresent God. And when someone is not only being deceived, but is now deceiving others with atrocious sin—then powerful words that clarify, not obfuscate, that describe, not soften, are needed. Luther, famous for his cutting words, reminds us, “What good does salt do if it does not bite? What good does the edge of the sword do if it does not cut?”[51]
We should also be aware that there is a time when we must shake the dust off our sandals, and stop arguing with someone, as Paul explains in Titus 3:9-11. Ultimately, it is not our responsibility to change people’s minds—it is the Lord’s (2 Tim 2:24-26). So, we must testify to truth, be humble, seek to love the church and those outside of the church, and leave the rest in the Lord’s hands.
[1]Acts 20:28−31; 1 Tim 1:3−7; 2 Tim 2:25; Tit 1:13
[2]For an extensive defense of Pauline authorship of the PE see Köstenberger, Andreas J., and Terry L. Wilder. Entrusted with the Gospel (Nashville: B & H Publishing Group, 2014), 1-8; 28-51.
[3]Towner, Philip H. The Letters to Timothy and Titus (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2006), 701; Mounce, William D. Pastoral Epistles (Nashville, Tenn: Thomas Nelson, 2000), 398.
[4]Quoted in Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 397.
[5]Fairbairn, Patrick. Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1956), 266.
[6]Marshall, Ian Howard. Pastoral Epistles (New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 200-201.
[7]Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 192, see fn. 106.
[8]Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 237.
[9]μύθος is particularly negative within the PE (1 Tim 1:4; 2 Tim 4:4; Titus 1:14)
[10]Bauer, Walter, and Frederick W. Danker. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BDAG) 3rd ed. (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 2000), 207.
[11]Kelly, J. N. D. A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles: Timothy I & II, and Titus (New York: Harper & Row, 1963), 99.
[12]Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 550, fn. 71; Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 251; Johnson, Luke Timothy. The First and Second Letters to Timothy: a New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 163; Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 305, fn. 12.
[13]Knight, George W. Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 1992), 195.
[14]Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 251.
[15]Ibid.
[16]Fairbarn, Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, 179.
[17]Quinn, Jerome D., and William C. Wacker. The First and Second Letters to Timothy: A New Translation with Notes and Commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000), 374; referencing Stählin, they note the presence of the article τοὺς with μύθους further “conveys scorn and contempt.”
[18]Calvin, John. Sermons on the Epistles to Timothy & Titus (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1983), 385
[19]See especially Lappenga, Benjamin J., “‘Zealots for good works’: the Polemical Repercussions of the Word ζηλωτής in Titus 2:14,” The Catholic Bible Quarterly, 75 no 4 Oct. 2013, 704-718.
[20]Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 197.
[21]1 Tim. 1:6-7; 4:7; 6:3-5; 6:20; 2 Tim. 2:14, 16; 2:23; Titus 3:9
[22]Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 698-699; Towner also suggests the negative “sophist” stereotype that hung around teachers who were primarily motivated by money might be employed here. See also Karris, Robert J. “The Background and Significance of the Polemic of the Pastoral Epistles.” Journal of Biblical Literature 92, no. 4 (December 1, 1973): 549-64, who sees the comparison to sophistry as undeniable.
[23]Bauer and Danker, BDAG, 382.
[24]Kelly, A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles: Timothy I & II, and Titus, 234; Mounce agrees with Kelly and employs it in his translation, “It is necessary to muzzle those who are upsetting entire households,” (396).
[25]For historical background into the saying, see Fairbairn, Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, 266, and Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 398.
[26]Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 700.
[27]Witherington, Ben. Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians Vol. I (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006),123.
[28]Additionally, Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 398, makes the point that if the statement that “Cretans are always liars” is absolutely true of every Cretan, then the statement would technically be false since it is made by a Cretan (Epimenides). “Sweeping generalizations by nature do not always claim to be true in every situation; they are generally true.”
[29]Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 202; Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, 703. Towner supports Marshall’s conclusion.
[30]Knight, Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, 299.
[31]Witherington, Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, 123.
[32]It should also be noted that the opposition likely had some sort of Jewish identity (1:10; 14) and therefore probably saw themselves as culturally and morally superior to the Gentile Cretan culture. So, Paul’s comparison of these false teachers to the stereotype of pagan Cretans would have been humiliating.
[33]Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 204.
[34]Quoted in Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 400.
[35]Kelly, A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles: Timothy I & II, and Titus, 190.
[36]Marshall, Pastoral Epistles, 766.
[37]See esp. Tit. 3:2; 1 Cor. 4:21; 2 Cor. 10:1; Jas. 3:13; a fruit of the Spirit in Gal. 5:23)
[38]Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 536.
[39]Fairbairn, Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, 358.
[40]λόγον ὑγιῆ (“sound speech”), is commonly used in the PE to refer to the apostolic gospel (cf. 1 Tim 1:10; 2 Tim 1:13; Titus 1:13)
[41]Knight, Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, 312.
[42]Karris, “The Background and Significance of the Polemic of the Pastoral Epistles,” 549.
[43]Which Paul exemplifies in the PE with how little he debates the false teacher’s doctrines. See also the connection between “gentleness” and μάχας in 1 Tim. 3:3.
[44]Edwards, Jonathan. Charity and Its Fruits (New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1854), 389-390. Note also the singular “fruit”, but the multiple characteristics listed in Gal. 5:22-23.
[45]This is likewise modeled by Christ himself, who reserved his most severe verbal attacks for the haughty religious leaders who led many away from true worship of God; see Matt. 23; 12:34; Luke 11:37-52.
[46]See Paul’s concern about “wolves” attacking the church in Acts 20:29-30.
[47]Quoted in Karris, “The Background and Significance of the Polemic of the Pastoral Epistles,” 549.
[48]Contra Karris, “The Background and Significance of the Polemic of the Pastoral Epistles,” 557-562. Karris does not see the attacks on false teachers as accurately describing their moral character, but as a “stock” polemical device used when a teacher wants to disparage other teachers as illegitimate. If this were so, then we would have be forced to accept that Paul felt comfortable with saying cruel things about others that were not true—this is hard to believe (cf. “not double-tongued” in 1 Tim 3:8).
[49]Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 534−535.
[50]Jas 1:19-21; 3:1-12; Matt 5:22; Prov 10:19; Eph 4:29
[51]Luther, Martin, and Ewald M. Plass. What Luther Says: A Practical In-Home Anthology for the Active Christian (Saint Louis: Concordia Pub. House, 2006), 1057.
Marc Sims 
Thank you. 🙏