In answering this question, I’m going to reverse the question so that those who would affirm that Titus 1:12 permits racial stereotypes and generalizations have their position described in the three objections. These objections will be followed by a contrary consideration. I will then provide my own understanding of Titus 1:12 and a reply to the three initial objections.

Are ethnic stereotypes or generalizations impermissible for Christians?

Objection 1:  Paul affirms that the saying, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons” is true testimony (Titus 1:12-13).

Objection 2: The statement that Paul asserts as true is an ethnic stereotype.

Objection 3: If Paul is willing to affirm an ethnic stereotype or generalization as true, Christians should be willing to make true ethnic stereotypes or generalizations.

On the Contrary, Proverbs 17:5 says, “Whoever mocks the poor insults his Maker.” Applying the principle in this proverb to race/ethnicity, Christians should beware that racial stereotypes and generalizations of people dishonor God who made people of every race or ethnicity (cf. Hays, NSBT, 50-51).

I Answer That, Since there is an absurdity in a Cretan giving true testimony that Cretans are always liars—meaning that either the Cretan is lying or there is an exception to the always—Paul was making use of the liar’s paradox as a humorous way to make a serious point (Köstenberger, EBTC, 319-22; cf. Yarbrough, PNTC, 496). By invoking the liar’s paradox, Paul is explicitly acknowledging exceptions to the statement—namely the Cretan prophet who uttered the statement (Ngewa 2009: 348). In addition, the Cretan Christians would have recognized that they were delivered from the sins enumerated (Marshall, ICC, 202).

The saying does seem to have picked up on widely acknowledged vices that characterized Crete (Mounce, WBC, 398; Marshall ICC, 201-2; Towner, NICNT, 700-2), though Paul seems to be targeting the “opponents” to his work in Crete rather than all Cretans (Mounce, WBC, 404). Paul’s statement in verse 13 may not be saying that Epimenides’s statement was true of all Cretans but that it was true of his opponents. By recognizing that this critique comes from a respected Cretan himself, Paul avoids the charge that he has a foreigner’s bias against Crete (Marshall, ICC, 203). In addition, Paul is critiquing those who are attempting to Judaize Cretan Christians by linking the Judaizers with characteristic Cretan sins that they would think they had transcended (Towner, NICNT, 703).

Reply to Objection 1: The original context for the statement that all Cretans are liars is due to an objection to the Cretan claim that Zeus had died and that his grave was in Crete. “If then this testimony is true, observe what a difficulty! For if the poet is true who said that they spoke falsely, in asserting that Jupiter could die, as the apostle says, it is a fearful thing! Attend, beloved, with much exactness. The poet said that the Cretans were liars for saying that Jupiter was dead. The apostle confirmed his testimony: so, according to the apostle, Jupiter is immortal: For he says, ‘this witness is true’! What shall we say then? Or rather how shall we solve this?” (Chrysostom, NPNF¹ 13:528). Thus, Paul was not endorsing the truthfulness of the larger argument against the Cretan claim that Zeus had died but making a more general statement about the truthfulness of the assessment as it relates to his opponents in Crete (cf. Mounce 2000: 404).

Reply to Objection 2: A stereotype is “A preconceived and oversimplified idea of the characteristics which typify a person, situation, etc.; an attitude based on such a preconception” (OED, s.v. stereotype, 3.b.).  Paul’s statement is not an example of stereotyping since, Paul was likely aware of the liar’s paradox involved in his statement (cf. Thiselton, Collected Essays, 217; Köstenberger, EBTC, 322, n. 84) and since he was affirming its truth as it applied to his opponents rather than universally of all Cretans (Mounce, WBC, 404; Towner, NICNT, 703).

Reply to Objection 3:  Paul, in this epistle, requires believers to avoid slander (1:3), be kind (1:5), to utter only “sound speech that cannot be condemned,” (2:8), “to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people” (3:2), to “avoid foolish controversies, [and]… dissentions” (3:9). If Titus 1:12 is an ethnic stereotype, Paul contradicts the teaching of the rest of the epistle (Thiselton, Collected Essays, 222). Thus Titus 1:12 does not permit stereotypes. Generalizations, when defined as “an excessively broad or general statement based on limited or inadequate evidence” (OED, s.v. generalization, 1.b.), are also impermissible. Whatever generalizations (in the sense, “the action or process of forming or expressing a general concept or proposition on the basis of inference from particular instances,” OED, s.v. generalization, 1.a.) a Christian makes about a group of people must not be slander (1:3), must be uttered in a spirit of kindness (1:5), must be sound and above refutation (2:8), must be done with gentleness and courtesy and not with an intent to malign anyone (3:2), and must be made in such a way that they do not promote foolish controversies or inflame dissensions (3:9).

The parable is set up by the lawyer’s question, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” (10:25). This is a question about salvation. It can be understood as equivalent to “What must I do to share in the resurrection of the righteous at the end?” (cf. Dan. 12:2). Or, How can I obtain “the eschatological blessings of the righteous as opposed to the rejection of the unrighteous”? (Bock, 1023).

Jesus directed the lawyer to the Law: “What is written in the Law? How do you read it?” (10:26). The lawyer responded by conflating Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18. Deuteronomy 6:5 requires the love of God with one’s complete being. Leviticus 19:18 requires loving one’s neighbor as if he were one’s self (Snodgrass, 350; cf. Jones, 50). These commands summarize the law, and Jesus echoes Leviticus 18:5 in affirming this to be the right answer: “do this, and you will live” (Crowe, Perfect Life, 81). In context, Jesus is speaking of eternal life.

However, the way Jesus phrased this affirmation implied that the lawyer was not yet fulfilling the law and thus still lacked eternal life (Garland, 438-39).

The lawyer, who begin with the intent of testing Jesus (10:25), now finds himself on the defensive, so he asks a question to justify himself. (Bilkes notes, “he wished to scrutinize Christ’s words, all the while shielding himself from any scrutiny. Isn’t that a picture of our natural tendency as well, especially as religious people? Instead of justifying God and putting ourselves to the test, we are prone to do the exact opposite” [83].) He seeks to limit the definition of neighbor to manageable proportions. If “neighbor” is properly restricted, he “can then proudly announce, ‘All of these I have fully loved from my youth'” (Garland, 439).

Jesus, however, replied with a parable that reversed the question and removed all limits on the definition of neighbor. The setting is a man on the road from Jerusalem to Jericho who is beaten, robbed, and left for dead (10:30). Two men, a priest and a Levite, then pass him by without helping (10:31-32). The reasons for their neglect are not given (though some suggest that they wished to maintain ritual purity, Jewish law required them to seek to save a life, or even take care of a corpse, rather than maintain ritual purity; Edwards, 321, n. 114). The point is that the most law-observant and religious classes among the Jews failed to act as neighbors (Bock, 1031).

It was common at this time to refer to “priests, Levites, and all the people.” The expectation of the story is thus that a Jewish layperson will be the neighbor, in contrast to the corrupt religious establishment (Garland, 442; cf. Bock, 1031). However, Jesus subverts these expectations by having the Samaritan act as the neighbor (10:31). The Samaritan has compassion and shows love at significant cost to himself (10:33-35).

Jesus’s question at the conclusion of the parable shows that he has transformed the question from “Who is my neighbor?” to “Am I being a neighbor?” This transformation removes the limits that the lawyer was seeking to impose (Bock, 1019, 1034; Garland, 445).

The lawyer knows the right answer to the question: “The one who showed him mercy” (10:37), but notice that he was not willing to say “the Samaritan.” His prejudice remains (Garland , 446). So Jesus commands him, “You go, and do likewise” (10:37).

Christians do not typically respond to questions about how to obtain eternal life with the answer, do the Law and you will live. This was just as true in the early church (cf. Acts 16:30-31) as today (Snodgrass, 356). However, the answers “do this and live” and “believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ” are both true answers to the question of how to obtain eternal life. If one kept the law perfectly, he would obtain eternal life (Crowe, Perfect Life, 82-83). “The reason why God justifies us freely is, not that the Law does not point out perfect righteousness, but because we fail in keeping it, and the reason why it is declared to be impossible for us to obtain life by it is, that it is weak through our flesh, (Rom. 8:3)” (Calvin, 60). This parable demonstrates that it is impossible to keep the law well enough to obtain eternal life by it. The man sought to justify himself, and he failed (Horton, 92). Only Jesus perfectly kept the law (Crowe Last Adam, 180), and his “resurrection proved that he was able to ‘do this and live'” (Crowe Perfect Life, 83). Blessedly, because he is perfectly merciful and compassionate eternal life is found in him.

This does not undermine the applicability of Jesus’s “go, and do likewise.” Jesus’s obedience is to be imitated by his followers. True faith manifests itself in works. Thus, Christians love their neighbor as themselves by being neighbors to all. In particular, they should be aware of those in their culture who due to race or ethnicity or social class, etc. are shunned and not shown love. Love must transcend these distinctions (Hays 2003: 170-71). No limits can be placed on love (though love needs to be defined biblically)(Snodgrass, 357).

Bibliography: Bilkes, Glory Veiled and Unveiled; Bock, BECNT; Calvin, Commentary on the Harmony of the Evangelists; Crowe, The Last Adam; Crowe, Why Did Jesus Live a Perfect Life?; Edwards, PNTC; Garland, ZECNT; Hays, From Every People and Nation, NSBT; Horton, Justification, NSD; Jones, Biblical Christian Ethics; Snodgrass, Stories with Intent.

What does it mean to “love your neighbor as yourself“?

Proposed Answers:

1. It means to love one’s neighbor “as much as oneself” (noted and rejected by Aquinas, 729; cf. Jones, 50; seems to be held by Poole, 107; Osborne, ZECNT, 823) or “in the same way that you love yourself” (noted and rejected by Wolterstorff 188).

2. It means to love your neighbor “on a par with love of yourself” (Wolterstorff, 188).

• “Weak neighbor-love combined with intense self-love would not qualify as satisfying the command” (Wolterstorff, 188).

3. It means to “love your neighbor as person like yourself” (Jones, 50; cf. Wolterstorff, 188; Edwards, 372, n. 49).

a. This reading fits best with the Golden Rule: “So whatever you wish others would do to you, do also to them” (Matt. 7:12; cf. Luke 6:31) (Jones 50).

b. “The command is to be interpreted as an instance of the standard “just as . . . so also” rhetorical structure. You love yourself, right? Okay. Then love your neighbor as well” (Wolterstorff, 188; Edwards, 372, n. 49).

4. It means to look after your neighbor’s “interests” in a “real and sincere” manner, just as one looks after his own interests” (Davies and Allison, 243-44; cf. Schnabel, 303).

• “People have a basic self-interest which they should extend to their neighbour” (Schnabel, 303).

5. It means to love others “for the same reason why your love yourself” (Aquinas, 729)

• The reason for loving both self and others is for God to be glorified (Aquinas, 729; citing 1 Cor. 10:31).

6. It means to love others “in the same manner that you love yourself” in that you want God’s good for them (Aquinas, 729).

Rejected Answers:

1. It means to love one’s neighbor “as much as oneself” (citing Aquinas, 729) or “in the same way that you love yourself” (citing Wolterstorff 188).

a. To love others “as much as oneself” is “contrary to the order of charity” (Aquinas, 729). That is, not all people are to be love to the same degree, but loves are to be ordered (Dt. 6:5; Gen. 2:24; Ex. 20:12; Gal. 6:10; Eph. 4:25; 1 Tim. 5:8; see also Augustine, 1.27-28; Lombard, 3.29; Udemans, Kindle loc. 451; à Brakel, 4:54; Wolterstorff, 188).

b. “Taken in a quantitative sense, ‘as yourself’ would strictly mean “no less and no more than yourself.” But the Bible does not require across-the-board equalization of benefits (implied in ‘no less’), and it commends self-sacrifice even to the point of preferring the lives of others to one’s own (excluded by ‘no more’)” (Jones, 50).

2. It means to love your neighbor “on a par with love of yourself”(Wolterstorff, 188).

a. Wolterstorff is correct to note that there can be a culpable lack of intensity of love toward neighbor.

b. Nonetheless, this formulation falls under the same critique as view 1.

5.  It means to love others “for the same reason why your love yourself” (Aquinas, 729).

a. Theologically Aquinas is correct that Christians should both self and others with God’s glory in view.

b. It is doubtful that this theological truth is being conveyed by the as.

Acceptable Views

3. It means to “love your neighbor as person like yourself” (Jones, 50).

a. The parallel with the Golden Rule is compelling.

b. The grammatical/rhetorical observation is compelling.

c. This view rightly avoids reading the as quantitatively.

4. It means to look after your neighbor’s “interests” in a “real and sincere” manner, just as one looks after his own interests” (Davies and Allison, 243-44).

a. This view is similar to view 3.

b. The weakness of this view is that it drains the affective force of the word love in its description of looking after their interests.

c. Nonetheless, sincerely looking after others’ interests is part of what it means to love them.

6. It means to love others “in the same manner that you love yourself” in that you want God’s good for them (Aquinas, 729).

a. Theologically Aquinas is correct that the manner of love is desiring God’s good for self and others.

b. The as is not directly communicating this truth, but it would be included in the as read with the broadest theological background.

Conclusion: View 3 is the best, but views 4 and 6 are entailments of view 3.

Bibliography: Aquinas, Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew; Augustine, De doctrina christinana; à Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service; Edwards, Mark, PNTC; Jones, Biblical Christian Ethics; Lombard, Sentences; Schnabel, TNTC; Osborne, ZECNT; Poole, Annotations; Udemans, The Practices of True Faith, Hope, and Love; Wolterstorff, Justice: Rights and Wrongs.

“Behold, though Moses gave the law, yet he gave no man grace to do it or to understand it aright, or wrote it in any man’s heart, to consent that it was good, and to wish after power to fulfil it. But Christ giveth grace to do it, and to understand it aright, and writeth it with his holy Spirit in the tables of the hearts of men, and maketh it a true thing there, and none hypocrisy.

The law, truly understood, is those fiery serpents that stung the children of Israel with present death. But Christ is the brazen serpent, on whom whosoever, being stung with conscience of sin, and looketh with a sure faith, is healed immediately of that stinging, and saved from the pains and sorrows of hell.”

William Tyndale, “An Exposition Upon the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Chapters of Matthew,” in The Works of the English Reformers: William Tyndale and John Frith, ed. Thomas Russell (London: Ebenezer Palmer, 1831), 2:229

I just came across again these paragraphs written by Matthew Henry of his father Philip and was struck once again by the godliness and biblical wisdom of this counsel. This is the counsel of a man who lived for many years under a persecuting government.

And here it may be very pertinent to observe, how industrious Mr. Henry was at this time, when he and his friends suffered such hard things from the government, to preserve and promote a good affection to the government notwithstanding. It was commonly charged at that time upon the nonconformists in general, especially from the pulpits, that they were all a factious and turbulent people, as was said of old,—Ezra, iv. 15,—hurtful to kings and provinces; that their meetings were for the sowing of sedition and discontents, and the like; and there is some reason to think, that one thing intended by the hardships put upon them, was to drive them to this; there is a way of making a wise man mad. But how peaceably they carried themselves, is manifest to God, and in the consciences of many. For an instance of it, it will not be amiss to give some account of a sermon, which Mr. Henry preached in some very private meetings, such as were called seditious conventicles, in the year 1669, when it was a day of treading down, and of perplexity; it was on that text, Psalm, xxxv. 20. Against them that are quiet in the land. Whence (not to curry favour with rulers, for whatever the sermon was, the very preaching of it had been known, must have been severely punished, but out of conscience towards God) he taught his friends this doctrine,—That it is the character of the people of God, that they are a quiet people in the land. ‘This quietness he described to be an orderly, peaceable subjection to governors and government in the Lord. We must maintain a reverent esteem of them, and of their authority, in opposition to despising dominion, 2 Peter, ii. 10; we must be meek, under severe commands, and burdensome impositions, not murmuring and complaining, as the Israelites against Moses and Aaron; but take them up as our cross in our way, and bear them as we do foul weather. We must not speak evil of dignities, Jude, viii. nor revile the gods, Exodus, xxii. 28. Paul checked himself for this, Acts xxiii. 5. ἐκ ἤθειν; I did not consider it, if I had, I would not have said so. We must not traduce the government, as Absalom did David’s, 2 Samuel, xv. 3. Great care is to be taken how we speak of the faults of any, especially of rulers, Ecclesiastes, x. 20.—The people of God do make the word of God their rule, and by that they are taught. (1,) That the magistracy is God’s ordinance, and magistrates God’s ministers; that by him kings reign, and the powers that be are ordained of him. (2,) That they, as well as others, are to have their dues, honour, and fear, and tribute. (3,) That their lawful commands are to be obeyed, and that readily and cheerfully, Titus, iii. 1. (4,) That the penalties inflicted for not obeying unlawful commands, are patiently to be undergone. This is the rule, and as many as walk according to this rule, Peace shall be upon them, and there can be no danger of their unpeaceableness. They are taught to pray for kings and all in authority, 1 Timothy, ii. 1, 2, and God forbid we should do otherwise: yea, though they persecute, Jeremiah, xxix. 7. Peaceable prayers bespeak a peaceable people, Psalm, cix. 4. If some professing religion have been unquiet, their unquietness hath given the lie to their profession, Jude, viii. 11, 12. Quietness is our badge, Colossians, iii. 12. It will be our strength, Isaiah, xxx. 7, 15. Our rejoicing in the day of evil, Jeremiah, xviii. 18: it is pleasing to God, 1 Timothy, ii. 2, 3: it may work upon others, 1 Peter, ii. 12, 13. the means he prescribed for the keeping of us quiet, were to get our hearts filled with // the knowledge and belief of these two things. 1. That the kingdom of Christ is not of this world, Job, xviii. 36; many have thought otherwise, and it made them unquiet. 2. That the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God, James, i. 20; he needs not our sin to bring to pass his own counsel. We must mortify unquietness in the causes of it, James, iv. 1: we must always remember the oath of God, Ecclesiastes, viii. 2: the oath of allegiance is an oath of quietness. And we must beware of the company and converse of those that are unquiet. Proverbs, xxii. 24, 25. Though deceitful matters be devised, yet we must be quiet still; nay, be so much the more quiet.’

I have been thus large in gathering these hints out of that sermon, (which he took all occasions in other sermons to inculcate, as all his brethren likewise did,) that if possible it may be a conviction to the present generation; or, however, may be a witness in time to come, that the nonconformist ministers were not enemies to Caesar, nor troublers of the land; nor their meetings any way tending to the disturbance of the publick peace, but purely designed to help to repair the decays of christian piety.

Matthew Henry and J. B. Williams, The Life of the Rev. Philip Henry, rev. ed. (1828; repr., Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1974), 112-14.

Possible Positions

1. This law applies to foreign slaves who have fled to Israel (Gill, Craigie; Merrill; McConville; Block).
a. The statement in verse 17 that indicate that the escaped slave “shall dwell with you, in your midst,” indicates that a foreign slave who has come to Israel is in view (Cragie 300; McConville, 351; cf. Poole, 381).
b. ANE treaties exist which speak of repatriating slaves; in not permitting this Israel’s law is distinctive (Merrill 312; McConville; 351; Block 544).
c. “The word [עֶבֶד] is avoided in the Deuteronomic law of slave release up to the point at which the debt slave voluntarily accepts permanent slave status (15:17). For this reason the refugee is more likely to be a foreigner than an Israelite” (McConville 351).
d. The previous context dealt with “the topic of military campaigns” and “the plight of foreign slaves may have arisen in the light of this context more than at any other period” (Woods, 245).
e. This is how the ancient Jewish writers understood it (Gill, 100)

2. This law applies to perpetual slaves within Israel (foreigners enslaved within Israel and Israelites who had agreed to permanent servitude) (Matthews, Chavalas, Walton)
a. Debt slaves served for a term of six years (and presumably did not, therefore, have a reason to run away) (Matthews, Chavalas, Walton, s.v. Dt. 23:15-16).

3. This law applies to all slaves who have escaped from their masters (Poole; Wright)
a. The text itself does not limit the law to foreign slaves (Wright, 249).
b. The option to choose any place in Israel does not necessitate that a foreign slave is in view. Rather, a benefit is being extended “on behalf of the poor and the weak” (Wright, 250).
c. The existence of this law would testify that slavery in Israel was to be of such a nature that no slave would want to run away and (as other passages indicate) that some would desire to remain in that condition (Wright, 250).

Rejected Positions

1. This law applies to foreign slaves who have fled to Israel.
a. Argument 1c is the strongest argument in favor of position 1. However, an Israelite-born escaped slave would have also needed a guarantee of a place to live. Given his socially weak condition, the protections of this law make good sense for Israelite-born slaves as well.
b. McConville and Block cite not only treaties that deal with this issue but also laws; this law could deal with both situations (McConville, 351; Block, 543-44). This point therefore actually supports view 3.
c. I don’t understand McConville’s reasoning in point 1.c. above.
d. The contextual connection is not clear. These verses could just as likely be connected with what follows.
e. The testimony of ancient Jewish writers gives weight to position 1, but it cannot be decisive.

2. This law applies to perpetual slaves within Israel (foreigners enslaved within Israel and Israelites who had agreed to permanent servitude)
a. There is no exclusion in the text of debt slaves, and six years with a cruel and wicked master would have been a long time.

Accepted Position

3. This law applies to all slaves who have escaped from their masters (Poole; Wright)
a. The decisive factor in favor of position 3 is that the law itself does not specify that it is limited to foreign slaves
b. This law would put pressure on the system of slavery in Israel to be of such a nature that it would be beneficial to the slave. Though it could be abused, it would place strong pressure on Israelite society for justice in this area.
c. McConville (who takes position 1) notes that the oppression forbidden in v. 17 “is like the oppression of the weak Israelites by the rich and powerful (all its uses, except one, Is. 49:26, relate to oppression of Israelites by Israelites…).” This does not prove that Israelite slaves are in view, but it testifies to the likelihood of this possibility.
d. The fact that ANE cultures had both treaties that dealt with foreign runaway slaves and laws that dealt with internal runaway slaves may favor seeing this law as dealing with both.

Bibliography: Block, NIVAC; Cragie, NICOT; Gill, An Exposition of the Old Testament, vol. 2; Matthews, Chavalas, and Walton, The IVP Bible Background Commentary; McConville, AOTC; Merrill, NAC; Poole, Annotations upon the Holy Bible, vol. 1; Woods, TOTC; Wright, NIBC.