Paul's Epistle to Titus, Part 1: Purity Spiraling in Apostolic Christianity

Here we are going to make a presentation of Paul’s epistle to Titus, and we are nearing the completion of a commentary on the apostle Paul which we had begun with the epistle to the Romans on March 28th of 2014, nearly three years ago. We have decided to put Titus in order here before Timothy not only because this epistle was written before either of the epistles to Timothy, but also because we find it appropriate to present 2 Timothy last in our presentation of Paul’s epistles.

The term “purity spiraling” began amongst denominational Christians to describe an extreme manifestation of virtue signalling, which we associate with the wayward and hypocritical form of self-righteousness that often affects Christians of all sorts. I am better than you because I don’t do this or say that, etc. etc. But recently the alt-Right has latched onto it and used it to describe the attitudes of racial purists. This evening we are going to take it back for Christians, but we are going to apply it in the way that the alt-Right uses it, to describe a need for the promotion of racial purity amongst Whites everywhere. So to the secularist Jew-lovers of the alt-Right, the term has a negative connotation. But to us it is a positive idea, because as we all know, purity is next to Godliness.

Paul's Epistle to Titus, Part 1: Purity Spiraling in Apostolic Christianity

The early manuscript evidence for the epistle to Titus is found in the papyrus designated P32, which is esteemed to date from around 200 AD; the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus (א); the 5th century Codices Alexandrinus (A), Ephraemi Syri (C) and Vaticanus 2061 (048); and the 6th century Codices Claromontanus (D) and 088, which is an unnamed manuscript that may be a little older than that, and in which survive only a few fragments, parts of the first 13 verses of this epistle as well as parts of the final chapters of 1 Corinthians. Additionally, Paul’s epistle to Titus is cited or mentioned in the epistles of Ignatius, which date to around the very beginning of the 2nd century, and also by Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria, who are both of the late 2nd century, and by Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian, all of whom wrote in the early half of the 3rd century. However none of these early sources add anything to our knowledge of Titus himself or his work in the ministry of Christ.

For the historical background on Titus, we must also include a brief discussion of Paul’s travels in relation to the epistles which he had written to the Corinthians and the Galatians, as Titus is mentioned in both of them. The first surviving epistle to the Corinthians was written during the time that Paul stayed in Ephesus (1 Corinthians 16:8, 19), as it is described in Acts chapter 19. After spending approximately three years in Ephesus, Paul departed from the city in 56 AD. His departure may be reckoned by counting backwards from the time of his detention in Caesareia which is given by Luke in the final chapters of the Book of Acts, by comparing the times of the terms of office of the Roman procurators Festus and Felix which are known from history. The primary witness for this in Luke's writing is at Acts 24:26-27 where he says of Felix “But after two years Porcius Festus came into Felix' room: and Felix, willing to shew the Jews a pleasure, left Paul bound.” Many historians debate whether it was 58 AD or 59AD, but the one-year difference is close enough for us. We cannot be absolutely certain, but for various historical reasons we are confident that the year was 59, and we can count back through the Book of Acts to this point in 56 AD. That is also the year in which we believe this epistle to Titus was written, in the Summer of 56 AD, or perhaps the Spring of that year if Paul had to leave Ephesus before the Pentecost which he had planned on spending there (1 Corinthians 16:8).

The epistle to Titus was written after Paul departed from Ephesus and journeyed to Makedonia through the Troad, and the second epistle to the Corinthians was written as Paul was about to journey from Makedonia to visit Corinth in Achaia for the last time. The first epistle to Timothy was written from either Makedonia or from Nicopolis in Greece shortly after this epistle to Titus was written, as the circumstances indicate along with Paul's own comments in 1 Timothy 1:3. At the end of this epistle to Titus, Paul explains that he had decided to winter in Nicopolis, where it is evident that this letter was written as he departed from the Troad en route to Makedonia. Paul’s travels at this time were briefly described at the beginning of Acts chapter 20.

For some unknown reason, as Paul departed from Ephesus, where he had left Timothy, he had hoped to find Titus in the Troad. This Paul explained later, when he wrote 2 Corinthians from Nicopolis, and he said in chapter 2 of that epistle that “12 Furthermore, when I came to Troas to preach Christ's gospel, and a door was opened unto me of the Lord, 13 I had no rest in my spirit, because I found not Titus my brother: but taking my leave of them, I went from thence into Macedonia.” So when Paul failed to find Titus in the Troad he sent for him with this epistle, which is evident at the end of the epistle to Titus and later on in 2 Corinthians, where in chapter 7 Paul says “5 For, when we were come into Macedonia, our flesh had no rest, but we were troubled on every side; without were fightings, within were fears. 6 Nevertheless God, that comforteth those that are cast down, comforted us by the coming of Titus”.

It is evident that when Paul did not find Titus in the Troad, that someone whom Paul knew there must have known where Titus was and was able to inform Paul of his whereabouts. When Paul wrote this epistle, before he even decided who he was going to ask to bring the epistle to Titus, he said in chapter 3: “12 When I shall send Artemas unto thee, or Tychicus, be diligent to come unto me to Nicopolis: for I have determined there to winter.” Before leaving Ephesus for the Troad, Paul had planned on wintering in Corinth (1 Corinthians 16:6). But somewhere along the way and before he wrote Titus from the Troad, he decided to winter in Nicopolis instead (Titus 3:12). For this Paul gave his reasons in 2 Corinthians chapters 1 and 2, and we do not have the benefit of seeing the letter which Paul must have received from the Corinthians – an answer to 1 Corinthians which was written shortly beforetime – which had caused him to make this decision.

So rather than meet Paul in Nicopolis in Greece, which is in the district of Epirus in the west, it is evident that Titus caught up with him in Makedonia, which Paul later stated in 2 Corinthians chapter 7, whereafter they may have travelled to Nicopolis together. But many commentators claim that Paul wintered in Nicopolis in Macedonia. There was another city named Nicopolis in Thrace, which was close to Macedonia, but it was not in Macedonia. The Nicopolis which was in Thrace is not in Greece, and if Paul wintered there, then it is not likely that he could have travelled to Greece after the end of the winter, and then spend three months in Greece as Luke attests in Acts chapter 20, and then make it back through Macedonia to the Troad and on to Miletus and Judaea to arrive in Jerusalem before the following Pentecost, as it is recorded that he was resolved to do in Acts 20:16. The entire space from the end of winter, which is traditionally the end of February, unto the Pentecost would be less than 5 months in the year 57 AD.

This map of the empire in the time of Augustus shows Nicopolis in Thrace to the north, and Nicopolis in Greece, in Epirus, on the coast opposite the tip of Italy. Click here for higher resolution.

If Paul stayed the winter in Nicopolis in Thrace and then spent three months in Greece, all this would have been impossible to do since there were not even three full months between the vernal equinox [I mistakenly said “end of winter” again in the podcast, thinking of the actual end of winter] and the date of the Pentecost. Rather, there were a few days short of three months, since the Pentecost that year was evidently in the last week of May. By the traditional Hebrew calendar [which starts at the vernal equinox], from which the Judaeans had departed, the Pentecost was in the third week of May. The only way that Paul could have wintered in Nicopolis and spent three months in Greece before travelling the long route to Jerusalem and arriving in time for the Pentecost is if that three months included the winter which was spent at Nicopolis in Greece, which was in Epirus, located just northwest of Achaia and Corinth.

Later, after he had met him in Makedonia, Titus remained in the company of Paul as he wintered in Nicopolis, which is where the second of the surviving epistles to the Corinthians was written, and Titus delivered that epistle to the assembly in Corinth ahead of Paul’s last visit there (2 Corinthians 13:14). But Timothy was also with Paul when that letter was written, and therefore he must have travelled to Nicopolis from Ephesus to be with him some time after receiving Paul’s letter which is now known to us as 1 Timothy. In that letter, Paul had told Timothy that he would come to him, but somehow Timothy had instead come to Paul. From this time it is apparent that Timothy stayed with Paul, and was arrested with him in Jerusalem. Ostensibly, Titus did not accompany Paul from Corinth back to the Troad and on to Jerusalem, since he is not mentioned again in Acts or in any of Paul’s later epistles with the exception of 2 Timothy where it is said that he went to Dalmatia, so it is apparent that later on Titus did visit with Paul in Rome. Aside from this epistle to Titus and the mention of Titus in 2 Corinthians, that mention in 2 Timothy is the last that we ever know of him from Scripture or from history.

Knowing when this epistle was written, therefore where Paul said to Titus in chapter 1 of this epistle that “5 For this cause left I thee in Crete”, we may understand that Paul must have left Titus in Crete at an earlier time than the end of his own three-year stay in Ephesus. One possible opportunity seems to have been after he had spent a year-and-a-half in Corinth, during the voyage which he had made to Syria and Judaea which is mentioned in Acts chapter 18. There, after Paul departs from Corinth, we read a very concise account of his travels, where Luke wrote: “18 And Paul after this tarried there [at Corinth] yet a good while, and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila; having shorn his head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow.” Cenchrea is a seaport east of Corinth, from which sailing east would be the likely port of departure. Where Luke says “sailed thence into Syria” he is only describing Paul’s intention for departing Corinth, which he executes as he is departing from Cenchrea.

Then as the account in Acts continues it says: “19 And he came to Ephesus [which would be en route to Syria], and left them there [referring to Priscilla and Aquila]: but he himself entered into the synagogue, and reasoned with the Judaeans. 20 When they desired him to tarry longer time with them, he consented not; 21 But bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem: but I will return again unto you, if God will. And he sailed from Ephesus. 22 And when he had landed at Caesarea, and gone up, and saluted the church, he went down to Antioch. 23 And after he had spent some time there, he departed, and went over all the country of Galatia and Phrygia in order, strengthening all the disciples.” Ephesus was a logical stopping point for the voyage from Cenchrea to Caesareia, so we see that Paul stopped there during his trip, and promised to return when he completed it, which he did as it is recorded at the opening of Acts chapter 19.

But Titus was with Paul in Antioch when Paul had arrived there at this very time, which we see that Paul himself had attested in Galatians chapter 2. The epistle to the Galatians was written after Paul’s disputes with the other apostles in Antioch, and before Paul visited the Galatians, as in it he expresses an anticipation of visiting them (Galatians 4:18, 20). So Titus may have been left in Crete after Paul’s last visit to Antioch and before he returned to Ephesus, unless there was a later and unrecorded occasion for his being in Crete. Since Paul seems to have travelled from Antioch and on to Galatia and Ephesus exclusively on foot, there may well have been another occasion which is not recorded. The island of Crete is only a short distance, perhaps 200 miles, by sea from the port of Ephesus in southwest Anatolia. The voyage was typically made in less than two days (see Speed Under Sail of Ancient Ships, by Lionel Casson).

In any case, if Paul left Titus in Crete after he departed from Corinth and before the end of his three years in Ephesus, and since there is no Titus associated with Paul before he was in Corinth, then the circumstances support the association of this Titus with the Justus of Acts chapter 18 who lived next to the synagogue of the Judaeans in Corinth. Some manuscripts of Acts call him either Titos Ioustus (Sinaiticus and the Laudianus) or Titios Ioustus (Vaticanus), and by the name Justus he is only mentioned in Scripture in Acts 18:7. In spite of the location of his house, from the context of the account in Acts chapter 18 up to verse 7, Justus, or Titus Justus, seems to have been a Greek, or perhaps a Roman, and was not a Judaean as the Judaeans at Corinth had initially rejected Paul. The events at this point in Paul's ministry are very sparsely recorded, and we see people, such as Zenas and Artemas, who are mentioned in the epistle to Titus are not mentioned anywhere else. However it is not until Paul is in Corinth and stays at the house of Titus Justus that the apostle Titus appears in the records, and thus we are confident with the association.

To summarize our conclusions, Paul met Titus in Corinth around 49 or 50 AD, and Titus remained with Paul at least as far as Paul’s trip to Antioch in late 51 or early 52 AD. Titus may have accompanied Paul as far as Ephesus, but Titus is not mentioned again until Paul writes this epistle beckoning him to come to him in Nicopolis in 56 AD, and in the interim, at some point Paul had left Titus in Crete to organize the Christian assembly there. When Titus receives this epistle, he meets Paul in Makedonia and stays with him for his winter in Nicopolis, during which at some point Timothy also joins them. When the second epistle to the Corinthians is written, Titus then leaves Nicopolis ahead of Paul to deliver it, and he is not seen again. After Paul’s brief visit to Corinth he makes his final voyage to Judaea where he is arrested in 58 AD and eventually sent to Rome. Titus is only mentioned on one further occasion, when Paul wrote 2 Timothy, which was probably in 61 AD, where it is described that he went to Dalmatia. So Titus must have visited with Paul in Rome at some point before 2 Timothy was written.

During these final ten years of Paul’s ministry, Titus seems to have been a significant figure. But he was not as important to Paul as was Timothy. While both men were with Paul when the second epistle to the Corinthians was written, that epistle was declared in its opening verse to have been from “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth”. So Timothy was honored as a co-author of the epistle whereas Titus was only chosen to deliver the epistle. Ostensibly however, the only real difference between the men appears to be that this seems to be the way in which Paul designated Timothy as the heir apparent to his ministry, and by no means does it diminish the value of Titus or the others of Paul’s companions. Furthermore, understanding that Titus is the Titus Justus of the manuscripts in Acts, who was originally from Corinth, explains why Paul chose him to deliver 2 Corinthians, and why Paul chose to extol Titus to the Corinthians in the text of that epistle, where he is mentioned eight times. So this also helps to substantiate our association of Titus with that Titus Justus of Acts 18:7.

Before we commence, it may be fitting to add one further perspective. At least some readers may wonder, if Paul intended to see Titus, or if he intended to see Timothy even as he was writing to them, why he would include so many exhortations and instructions in his letters. To us the answer is obvious, in that Paul understood the opposition to his message which he encountered practically everywhere he went. He was beaten and stoned or had to flee from places on many more occasions than we have surviving records, and he understood that he could be killed at any given point in his travels or his preaching. So each epistle that he wrote to his fellow-workers was written as if it were the last epistle that he would write to them. It is also evident to us that he probably wrote many more pastoral epistles than the three which did survive to us, but from the earliest times these are the only three which are known to have survived. And not only that, but no other such epistles are mentioned by the earliest Christian writers.

It is also evident to us, that there are barely any connections between the earliest apostles and the Christian writers of the subsequent centuries because the persecutions of early Christians was so severe that it practically obliterated the works of all of the early apostles. All of the early accounts of the lives of the apostles, or the manner in which their lives ended, are apocryphal. We are fortunate to possess the twenty-one authentic apostolic epistles which did survive. The critics are still trying to obliterate them.

With this, we shall commence with our commentary on the content of the epistle to Titus, and Titus chapter 1:

1 Paul servant of Yahweh, and ambassador of Yahshua Christ concerning the faith of the elect of Yahweh and true knowledge of that which concerns piety 2 in hope of eternal life, which ever-truthful Yahweh has promised before the times of the ages, 3 and in the proper time made known His word by proclamation, which I am entrusted according to a commandment of Yahweh our Savior,

The occurrences of the name Yahweh in this epistle are all from the Greek word for god, which is θεός. As Christians, we have no intellectual problem translating θεός as Yahweh in the Biblical context, because Yahweh is God, or θεός, and there is no other. Doing this, we also make the constant profession and recognition that Yahweh, the God represented by the Tetragrammaton in the inscriptions and manuscripts of the Old Testament, is one and the same with the God who expressed Himself in the form of Yahshua Christ in the New Testament. So to us, this is a direct challenge not only to the Jews who are His eternal enemies, but also to denominational Christians who must eventually make the same realization.

But oddly, the word κύριος, which is usually Lord in the King James Version in reference to both God and Christ, does not appear at all in the epistle to Titus, although it is so frequent in Paul’s other letters. Both this circumstance and the absence of some of the flowery particles which Paul’s other epistles often contain have caused contentions over the authenticity of this epistle. We do not think such contentions have merit, as we have shown first that this epistle in both its content and context fits rather perfectly into the circumstances of Paul’s ministry at this time, and now we shall state that for the purposes for which it was written the rather concise nature of its text is not extraordinary. Furthermore, Paul had many different men in his company and most, if not all, of his epistles were written by one of his companions. Luke is not with him at this time, which is apparent in the account at Acts chapter 20, and this may easily explain the differences in the writing style. For that reason, style cannot be used with any fairness to judge the authenticity of Paul’s writings.

Setting aside the artificial division which we see between verses 1 and 2 in our modern translations, it is evident that Paul is informing us through Titus that both “the faith of the elect of Yahweh” and the “true knowledge of that which concerns piety”, or godliness, is the “hope of eternal life” which the ever-truthful Yahweh has promised “before the world began”, as the King James Version reads that last clause of verse 2. If eternal life was promised to the Adamic man before “the world began”, and if Yahweh God is indeed ever-truthful, then each and every Adamic man must partake in that eternal life. Paul did not say that the hope is that each man has an opportunity for such life, if perhaps he does one thing or another or does not do one thing or another. Rather, Paul says that each man among the elect of God has that hope even before he was born, without exception and according to God Himself, who cannot lie.

One other place where we see this same concept expressed is in chapter 2 of the Wisdom of Solomon, where we read “23 For God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity. 24 Nevertheless through envy of the devil came death into the world: and they that do hold of his side do find it.” We see in the Genesis account that Yahweh God told the man he would die only if he ate from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. So man found death when Eve envied the devil, and Adam joined her in that sin. If it was through envy of the devil that death came into the world, and the original promise to the Adamic race is eternal life, then if “For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil”, as the apostle John wrote in chapter 3 of his first epistle, then the primary focus of the purpose of God and the struggle in this world is the battle between Yahweh God and His enemies, whereas the struggle between man and his own sin is secondary to that primary focus. As Paul had said in his epistle to the Galatians that the law, which came 430 years after the promise to Abraham, cannot disannul the promises to Abraham, we can say that the law, which came over 4,000 years after the sin in the garden, cannot disannul the original purpose of God and the promise of eternal life made to the collective Adamic race before the world began.

For the greater reason of the eventual triumph of Yahweh God over the devil, Paul said in 1 Corinthians chapter 15 “22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” If all are not made alive, then Christ cannot destroy the works of the devil which caused man to sin and to find death in the first place. So Paul further explained, in his epistle to the Romans in chapter 5: “12 For this reason, just as by one man sin entered into the Society, and by that sin death, and in that manner death has passed to all men, on account that all have sinned: 13 (for until the law sin was in the Society; but sin was not accounted, there not being law; 14 but death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not committed a sin resembling the transgression of Adam, who is [not who was] an image of the future. 15 But should not, as was the transgression, in that manner also be the favor? Indeed if in the transgression of one many die [all the descendants of Adam], much greater is the favor of Yahweh, and the gift in favor, which is of the one man Yahshua Christ, in which many [all the descendants of Adam] have great advantage. 16 And not then by one having committed sin is the gift? Indeed the fact is that judgment of a single one is for condemnation [as Christ was condemned on our behalf], but the favor is from many transgressions into a judgment of acquittal. 17 For if in the transgression of one, death has taken reign through that one, much more is the advantage of the favor, and the gift of justice they are receiving, in life they will reign through the one, Yahshua Christ.) 18 So then, as that one transgression is for all men for a sentence of condemnation, in this manner then through one decision of judgment for all men is for a judgment of life [the decision by which God chose to die on behalf of men]. 19 Therefore even as through the disobedience of one man the many were set down as wrongdoers, in this manner then through the obedience of One the many will be established as righteous. 20 Moreover, law entered in addition, that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, favor exceeded beyond measure, 21 that just as sin reigned in death, so then favor shall reign through justice for life eternal, through Yahshua Christ our Prince.”

Whether we as individuals like it or not, the purpose of Yahweh God when He created the Adamic man was for that man to have eternal life, and God cannot fail. So Yahweh further purposed to demonstrate His will for man through the history of His relationship with the children of Israel. The other branches of our Adamic family are blessed through Yahweh’s relationship with Israel, and the first promise of restoration through the Tree of Life is found in Genesis 3:22. So Peter portrays Christ as having preached the Gospel not only to Israel, but to the spirits of those in prison, referring to the dead who perished in the flood of Noah, and they are pre-eminent among the sinners of ancient history. So if they can hear the Gospel and be reconciled to God, we should not exclude that possibility for any of the sons of Adam. As Paul had written in Romans chapter 11, comparing the Israelites of the dispersions with the Israelites in Judaea, “30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief: 31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. 32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.”

Paul also said in that chapter that “29 ... the gifts and calling of God are without repentance”, meaning that when God purposes to do something, He cannot change from His purpose. The Adamic man was made to have eternal life, and God cannot fail in one instance. So as Paul wrote in another place, in Romans chapter 14, “11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.” Eventually every last Adamic man is going to do just that.

But we must not think that sin has no consequences for the sinner. This is a childish charge made against these Scriptures by certain Judaized detractors, who refuse to acknowledge the transcendental truths of Scripture which are expressed in the greater purposes of Yahweh our God. Daniel clearly says in chapter 12 of his prophecy “2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. 3 And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.” In this same regard Paul of Tarsus explained in 1 Corinthians chapter 3 that “13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. 14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.” In that respect, even the fornicator of 1 Corinthians chapter 5 would suffer in the flesh, and live in the Spirit, as Paul commanded that assembly to “5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.”

As Yahweh promised eternal life to the Adamic race, all of Israel shall be saved, as Paul stated elsewhere in Romans, and as it is stated in Isaiah chapter 45, “25 In the LORD shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory.” But evidently, at least some of the children of Adam shall be resurrected to everlasting contempt, a state which nonetheless infers a continued and permanent existence.

We believe that it is important to properly understand these fundamental Scriptural concepts because it is in this that we realize the basis for true Christian communion. We attempted to explain this at length in a presentation we did a few years ago titled Unity and Divisions. Christians should not care for one another so that they can somehow attain eternal life, as if they earn it by their own works. Man cannot earn eternal life, it is a gift from God and it is given freely. Rather, Christians should care for one another because they have eternal life and because they are destined to spend an eternity together, so as Paul describes in 1 Corinthians chapter 3, having no good works in the end one may indeed expect an eternity spent in the misery of everlasting contempt.

To commence with the address of Paul’s epistle:

4 to Titos, a purely bred child according to common belief, favor and peace [A and the MT have “favor, mercy, peace”; the text follows א, C, D, and 088] from Father Yahweh, even Yahshua Christ our Savior.

The King James Version reads this verse to read, in part, “To Titus, mine own son after the common faith...” but there is no pronoun for my or mine, and the Greek word which they render merely as own has a much greater meaning that this translation does not reveal. The translators presumed that Paul was speaking of his own relationship with Titus, and they wrote that presumption into their translation, typically having to add one or more words of their own. However the presumption is certainly not correct.

First we will briefly discuss the phrase common faith, or as we have it, common belief. The word κοινός (Strong’s # 2838) is common. It is also the root of the Greek word which is typically translated as communion, which properly describes something which is shared in common. The original gospels and letters of the New Testament are said to have been written in Koine Greek, the word Koine being akin to this word κοινός, so the phrase designates a form of the Greek language which was common to the wider Greco-Roman world, rather than a peculiar dialect such as Attic Greek or Aeolic or Doric Greek.

The word πίστις (Strong’s # 4102) is primarily belief, and it is often translated faith; but it is not always used to refer to a particular faith. The word is merely “trust...faith or belief...persuasion of a thing, confidence, assurance...” (Liddell & Scott) and by no means may its meaning be restricted to the faith, referring to the faith of Abraham or a faith in God and Christ. Sometimes when it appears in the Bible, it refers to a belief in other things.

Now to address the phrase purely bred child, for which the King James Version has “mine own son”. The word which we express as purely bred is γνήσιος (Strong’s # 1103), which is defined by Liddell & Scott to mean “of or belonging to the race, i.e. lawfully begotten, legitimate, opposed to νόθος...”. The word γνήσιος is a derivative from the word γένος, which is primarily a “race, stock or family”, according to that same source. We may imagine a context whereby γνήσιος may mean own in relation to a particular race, or of children descending from a common parentage, such as “one of my own children” to mean “one of my actual descendants”, but this is not the case here since there is no pronoun which would be necessary to set such a context.

In ancient times, especially amongst the Israelites, but later even among the Greeks and Romans, there were strict laws governing marriage between people of different nations, and the Romans imposed such laws on the people of the provinces over which they ruled. The ancients were opposed to race-mixing, and their concepts of racial preservation may not have always been perfect according to our own standards or to the standards of even older societies, but they were indeed established in the meanings of the words in their own languages. Elsewhere in the writings of Paul, the word νόθος appears in Hebrews 12:8 opposed to the word υἱος, which is the common word for son. In that passage Paul wrote that one is either a bastard (νόθος) or a son (υἱος), and a proper translation of both words is found even in the King James Version of that passage.

Therefore, because the word γνήσιος means “belonging to the race”, what race depending upon the context in which the word is used, and because it is the antonym of νόθος, and furthermore because it is an adjective which modifies the word for child, in order to convey the full meaning of the term it is translated as purely bred here at Titus 1:4, and also in this same context at 1 Timothy 1:2, since only by using such a phrase can the full meaning of the word be transmitted. That γνήσιος is an adjective modifying the noun τέκνον (Strong’s # 5043) here is clear in the grammar of the passage, as it immediately precedes τέκνον and both words appear in the Dative Case in all manuscripts. In other contexts, where the word is not used to describe people, it may be rendered simply as legitimate or genuine (see 2 Corinthians 8:8, Philippians 4:3, and the adverb γνησίως at Philippians 2:20). But to be a genuine or legitimate child of the faith in Christ, one must be a genuine seed from the loins of Abraham, as Paul also explained in Romans chapter 4, in Galatians chapter 3 and elsewhere.

So now we must reflect on the obvious question, which is why Paul would address both Titus and Timothy as “purely bred” children, where he used the same exact phrase for each of them in epistles which were written at roughly the same time in his ministry, if they were not written at the very same time, which is also possible as we have described the writing of these epistles here.

In Acts chapter 16, where Timothy is first mentioned, we read that he was “a son of a faithful Judaean woman, but of a Greek father”. For that reason alone many of the ancients, and especially the Judaeans, may have considered Timothy to be a bastard. Likewise, Titus seems to have been a Greek as well. If, as we assert, he is the Titus Justus of Acts 18:8, we read this account: “4 And he [Paul] argued in the assembly hall during each Sabbath and persuaded Judaeans and Greeks. 5 And as both Silas and Timotheos came down from Makedonia, Paul was impelled by the Word, affirming to the Judaeans Yahshua to be the Christ. 6 But upon their opposition and blaspheming, shaking off the garments he said to them ‘Your blood is upon your heads! I now, clean of this, shall go to the people!’ 7 And removing from there he went into a house of someone named Titios Ioustos, a worshipper of Yahweh whose house was abutting the assembly hall.” While later in the chapter it is described that at least some of the Judaeans had turned to Christ, it is evident that if the Judaean leaders whom Paul addressed had rejected Paul and his message, and he turned to the people, then Titos Ioustos, whom we believe is the Titus of Paul’s epistles, may indeed have been a Greek. Paul’s use of the phrase γνήσιος τέκνον in reference to both Timothy and to Titus certainly indicates that Titus was a Greek, Timothy had a Greek father, and that is why Paul said these things to both men.

Throughout his ministry Paul had correctly taught that many of the Greeks actually descended from the ancient Israelites of Scripture. In all of his epistles, Paul’s expressed purpose was to reconcile the scattered people of ancient Israel to Yahweh their God in Christ, which accords with both the Old Testament prophets and the Gospel of Christ. So Paul, confident in that understanding, was giving both Titus and Timothy assurances of their own legitimacy, and therefore of their respective shares in the covenants which Yahweh had made exclusively with the children of Israel. The long-dispersed Israelites, which included the tribes of the Romans, the Greek tribes of the Dorians and Danaans, the Saxons, the Kelts or Galatae, the Parthians, and others, had no longer kept the genealogical records which were so important to their Hebrew forefathers. Nevertheless here we are informed that Titos was a pure Adamic child “according to common belief”, or in other words, that he should be considered one of the seed of Abraham according to his nation of origin, the ancient history of that nation as being of the seed of Abraham, as well as by his character and his appearance, all of which things are expressed in one or more places throughout the Book of Acts and in Paul’s epistles. Esteeming that Titus was of one of the nations descended from Abraham, he could be considered a “purely bred child according to common belief”, referring to the fact that apparently Titus was descended from the seed of Abraham. The authority by which that is apparent is found in history and in the words of the prophets.

The word νόθος, or derivatives of it, also appear several times in the Septuagint in the same context as Paul had used it in Hebrews, describing someone who is not of the pure race. For instance, in chapter 14 of the Wisdom of Solomon we read the following from the King James Apocrypha where it speaks of the sins of the children of Israel: “24 They kept neither lives nor marriages any longer undefiled: but either one slew another traitorously, or grieved him by adultery.” There in that passage the word translated adultery is a participle form of the related verb νοθεύω, which means to corrupt or adulterate. So it is evident that the source of the νόθος, or bastard, is found when one corrupts one’s race in the marriage bed. Likewise, in chapter 4 of the Wisdom of Solomon we read: “3 But the multiplying brood of the ungodly shall not thrive, nor take deep rooting from bastard slips, nor lay any fast foundation.” These ungodly are compared to the virtuous who are better off having no children, “striving for undefiled rewards.”

But the common term for adultery used in the New Testament is μοιχεία (Strong’s # 3430), and it may refer to a sexual relationship with the wife or husband of another as well as to race-mixing. It is our opinion that the Greeks used this word in either case, because either case mixed, or confused, the substance of a race or family, of a man’s progeny, with that of another. Here we will establish that further.

In a paper which we wrote in July, 2010 titled Adultery and Fornication, which was presented in a podcast that same month and which badly needs to be updated, we said the following:

Strabo clearly uses μοιχός twice of race mixers in his Geography, at 16.4.25, where he states of certain tribes that the penalty for an adulterer is death, but among them only the person of the other race is considered the adulterer.

From that passage in Strabo and not much more, I have long asserted that the noun μοιχεία, which is adultery, the noun μοιχός, which is an adulterer, and the related verb μοιχεύω, to commit adultery, were all related to the Greek word μίγνυμι, a verb which means to mix. But now we have further evidence to substantiate our assertion.

For this we are indebted to a friend and correspondent in Greece who follows our work, finding it first from our historical essays on the ancient Greeks, and who writes from time to time lending items of interest or valued assistance to our understanding of Greek and ancient Greece. There is at least one letter from him in the Letters section at Christogenea, and we hope to find the time to publish the others. Publishing some of the worthy letters we receive is one task in which we are probably the furthest behind.

Anyway, our friend recently brought to our attention a passage in Aristotle’s Animalia, or The History of Animals, which reads τα γαρ αλλα γενη [since the other races, or species] μεμικται [are mixed] και μεμοιχευται [and diluted] υπ ' αλληλων [by one another, or by each other]. This passage is found 5 lines from the bottom of page 442 of Book 10 of Aristotle’s History of Animals in Greek and Latin (Aristotelis de Animalibus historiae libri X, graece et latine), evidently compiled by French naturalist Georges Cuvier, edited by Iohannes Schneider, and published in 1811 in Lyon, France.

An 1878 translation of this book of Aristotle by Richard Creswell at St John’s College at Oxford has this same passage to read: “for the other kinds are mixed and crossed with each other”, and even there we see that μοιχευω, the common word in the Greek Scriptures for adultery, refers to the cross-breeding of species. So that we can show the context, we will read the entire paragraph from Creswell’s translation:

3. There is another kind of eagle called sea eagle, which has a long and thick neck, curved wings, and a wide rump. It inhabits the sea and the coast. When they have seized their prey, and cannot carry it away, they are borne down into the sea. There is, again, another kind of eagle, called true eagle. They say that these alone of all other birds are true, for the other kinds are mixed and crossed with each other, both eagles, hawks, and other smaller kinds. This is the largest of all the eagles, greater than the phene; one and a half times as large as other eagles, and of a red colour: it is seldom seen, like that called cymindis.

We are not going to argue with Aristotle regarding his view on birds, or whether they really interbreed. Rather we only care for the words which he used here and the manner in which he used them. This passage contains a perfect form of the verbs μίγνυμι (μεμικται) and μοιχευω (μεμοιχευται), which we must translate as “since the other species are mixed and diluted by one another”, and our Greek friend agreed that in this instance, μοιχευω in a passive tense here in this context would have to mean "to be adulterated" because of the mixing. If it bears that sense in the Passive Voice, then in the Active it must mean to adulterate in the sense of race-mixing. So we see that the Greek word μοιχεία can refer to adultery as in having sexual relations with the spouse of another, but it can also refer to the sort of adultery which results from race-mixing.

But neither Titus or Timothy were race-mixed, as they were descended from Greeks and Israelites, and therefore they were of the race of the seed of Abraham and purely bred children according to common belief, the belief which Paul transmitted through both ancient history and the words of the Old Testament prophets, which is found throughout all of his epistles. Paul only made this assurance to them for one reason: because Christ came “but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel”, because the promise of the New Covenant is exclusive to the “house of Israel” and the “house of Judah”, and because “a bastard shall not enter the congregation of Yahweh”. Therefore purity spiraling is a necessary practice amongst the true disciples of Christ.

With this we shall proceed to verse 5 of the first chapter of this epistle to Titus:

5 For this reason I have left you in Krete: that you would set in order the things which are wanting, and establish elders by city, as I have instructed you.

It is commonly written that Titus was ordained by Paul to be the bishop of Crete. This is a fable, and it is not at all true. Titus did not even remain in Crete, as he is later expected to be in the Troad, and he was found in Nicopolis, Rome, and then in Dalmatia. So Titus was not committed to remain in any particular place. Rather, Paul is saying that he left him in Crete so that the Christian assemblies there could be organized, and so that elders, or bishops, could be appointed by Titus or under the supervision of Titus. We will see this in further detail throughout the balance of this chapter.

Ostensibly, at some point between their departure together from Corinth in late 51 or early 52 BC, their voyage to Antioch, as Paul wrote in Galatians that Titus was with him in Antioch, and the end of Paul’s long stay in Ephesus from late 53 or 54 to early 56 AD, Paul had left Titus in Crete in order to organize the Christians there. Since there is no record of any ministry in Crete on the part of Paul, we do not really know exactly when this may have been, or even who it was that evangelized the first Christians in Crete, but it was most likely during the years from 52 to 55 AD that Titus had done these things.

One thing which we did not mention in our introduction, is that because Paul had expected to see Titus in the Troad when he departed from Ephesus, it is evident that the two must have been in contact through letters during this period, or Paul could not have had such an expectation. With this it is also evident that Titus’ ministry in Crete was expected to be temporary, as Paul expected Titus to be in the Troad in 56 AD, and later, some time during Paul’s house arrest in Rome, we see Titus visited Paul in Rome and had gone off to Dalmatia.

But something further becomes apparent as we read this epistle, and not only do we learn that Paul had left Titus in Crete to organize the assembly there at some point in the past, but now Paul begins advising Titus on how to deal with the Cretans for the present, which is as he writes this epistle. So ostensibly, Titus is not in the Troad where Paul expected him to be because he had an urgent reason to go to Crete once again, and Paul is reminding him of the things necessary for the proper organization of that assembly. Perhaps there were problems among the Christians of Crete for which reason Titus was compelled to depart from the Troad and return there, before Paul had arrived in the Troad, so Paul is writing not only to summon Titus to meet him in Nicopolis, but also to remind Titus and encourage him to bring the assembly at Crete to a proper order. There must have been problems in Crete which merited the unplanned return of Titus to the island, as Paul’s words here are quite harsh in regard to the Cretans, where he even cites the famous paradox of Epimenides, that the Cretans are always liars. We will also discuss that further when we get to the appropriate place in our commentary.

We have written about Crete often in our essays and other articles at Christogenea. For instance, there are connections from Crete to the Trojans and the Dorian Greeks in the earliest times. We are persuaded that Crete was a staging area for the migrations of the people from the Levant to Greece and other points in the Aegean Sea. Early Greek historians also inform us that colonies in Italy and beyond were founded from Crete.

After our program last week, where we defended our cause against many of our critics, the same friend who informed us of the use of the word for adultery in the text of Aristotle also sent us a link to an article on Crete found at the website for the BBC. The article is titled DNA reveals origin of Greece's ancient Minoan culture, and while the conclusions it makes are in line with our own expectations, it is of good use to further rebuke the claims of our critics.

We do not care for DNA science and many of the conclusions of the scientists, as they are generally ignorant of history and produce many errors for that reason and others. But we will nevertheless cite the article here:

Europe's first advanced civilisation was local in origin and not imported from elsewhere, a study says.

Analysis of DNA from ancient remains on the Greek island of Crete suggests the Minoans were indigenous Europeans, shedding new light on a debate over the provenance of this ancient culture.

Scholars have variously argued the Bronze Age civilisation arrived from Africa, Anatolia or the Middle East.

The concept of the Minoan civilisation was first developed by Sir Arthur Evans, the British archaeologist who unearthed the Bronze Age palace of Knossos on Crete.

Evans named the people who built these cities after the legendary King Minos who, according to tradition, ordered the construction of a labyrinth on Crete to hold the mythical half-man, half-bull creature known as the minotaur.

Evans was of the opinion that the real-life Bronze Age culture on Crete must have its origins elsewhere.

And so, he suggested that the Minoans were refugees from Egypt's Nile delta, fleeing the region's conquest by a southern king some 5,000 years ago.

Of course, Evans’ story is conjecture, but the only people recorded to have fled the Nile Delta region in that manner were the Israelites of the Old Testament, whom the Greeks had said not only went with Moses to Judaea, but also settled places in Greece and “certain other regions”. Strangely, Evans could not have been imagined that the Cretans came from the Levant, but all of the evidence of the ancient histories attests that the original Cretans were Phoenicians, and by them the mainland of Europe was settled. Strabo and Diodorus both say such things rather explicitly. Our article continues:

Surprisingly advanced

"He was surprised to find this advanced civilisation on Crete," said co-author George Stamatoyannopoulos, from the University of Washington in Seattle, US.

The evidence for this idea included apparent similarities between Egyptian and Minoan art and resemblances between circular tombs built by the early inhabitants of southern Crete and those built by ancient Libyans.

But other archaeologists have argued for origins in Palestine, Syria, or Anatolia.

The ancient historians attest that the Cretans were Phoenicians who founded Miletus and assisted in the settling in Anatolia of the Carians, Leleges and other tribes from the islands of the sea. Again, our article continues:

In this study, Prof Stamatoyannopoulos and colleagues analysed the DNA of 37 individuals buried in a cave on the Lassithi plateau in the island's east. The majority of the burials are thought to date to the middle of the Minoan period - around 3,700 years ago.

This would be the earliest part of what we would consider the first migrations to Europe of the children of Israel, which probably began around 1550 to 1500 BC. Others may have crossed the Mediterranean sooner in service to the Egyptians, and no doubt Syrians and others from the Levant were also moving among the islands of the Mediterranean. To continue with our article:

The analysis focused on mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) extracted from the teeth of the skeletons, This type of DNA is stored in the cell's "batteries" and is passed down, more or less unchanged, from mother to child.

They then compared the frequencies of distinct mtDNA lineages, known as "haplogroups", in this ancient Minoan set with similar data for 135 other populations, including ancient samples from Europe and Anatolia as well as modern peoples.

The comparison seemed to rule out an origin for the Minoans in North Africa: the ancient Cretans showed little genetic similarity to Libyans, Egyptians or the Sudanese. They were also genetically distant from populations in the Arabian Peninsula, including Saudis, and Yemenis.

All of these areas were at one time predominantly White, except for Sudan [ancient Nubia], but the original populations have been replaced with bastards, a process that has been ongoing for 3,000 years, but which accelerated greatly under the Islamic conquests of the Middle Ages. Continuing with our article:

Locally sourced

The ancient Minoan DNA was most similar to populations from western and northern Europe. The population showed particular genetic affinities with Bronze Age populations from Sardinia and Iberia and Neolithic samples from Scandinavia and France.

It can be proven etymologically that Sardinia received its name from the Hebrew words Sha’ar Daniy, which means remnant of Dan. There is inscriptional evidence which supports that assertion. Likewise, the name Iberia comes from the Hebrew word eber, or iber, which can mean to cross over and is the word from which the very term Hebrew is derived. The word “neolithic” does not bother us here, since it extends to as late as 2,000 BC in northern Europe, and peoples related to the Hebrews had certainly begun exploring Europe by that time, wherever they could stand the cold. That does not mean that those early explorers are the founders of European civilization. But the Bible itself puts people related to the Hebrews from other branches of the Adamic race in Europe as early as 3200 BC, and leaves open the possibility of even much earlier exploration. Continuing with our article:

They also resembled people who live on the Lassithi Plateau today, a population that has previously attracted attention from geneticists.

The authors therefore conclude that the Minoan civilisation was a local development, originated by inhabitants who probably reached the island around 9,000 years ago, in Neolithic times.

The Neolithic period ends in the Levant and the Mediterranean basin earlier than it does in northern Europe, as the dates are subjective to presumed signs of development in any given region. However here there is pure conjecture that people arrived in Crete att hat early time, and that they arrived from Europe. Continuing with our article:

"There has been all this controversy over the years. We have shown how the analysis of DNA can help archaeologists and historians put things straight," Prof Stamatoyannopoulos told BBC News.

"The Minoans are Europeans and are also related to present-day Cretans - on the maternal side."

He added: "It's obvious that there was very important local development. But it is clear that, for example, in the art, there were influences from other peoples. So we need to see the Mediterranean as a pool, not as a group of isolated nations."

"There is evidence of cultural influence from Egypt to the Minoans and going the other way."

Even though we presented a separate scientific genetic study here last week which shows that the Levant was at one time populated by people very much similar to modern Europeans, this study is evidently ignorant of that one, which is always a problem among academics who have not read one another’s work. We ourselves are not surprised that Crete was populated by Europeans, because the Israelite Phoenicians who settled there were among the first Europeans. As we have said before, the truth is summarized in the Greek myth that Phoenix was the father of Europa.

Genetic science cannot correct history. History must be used to correct genetic science. The Mediterranean was a pool, and through the Classical histories as well as our Christian Bible we can trace all of its inhabitants back 5,000 years in a clear historical line. However large parts of the Mediterranean basin, the Levant, Anatolia, North Africa and Mesopotamia, the first homes of our White race, having been overrun by Jews and Arabs and Negroes for so long, we must be careful to recognize all those who are purely bred children of God according to the common belief, and we see that purity spiraling is recommended for Christians by the apostle Paul himself.