Titus was a son `after the common faith'.  Care must be exercised in

the use of this term `common' lest we import into it a modern idea and so

lose the essential meaning.  The English concept equates `common' with

`commune' indicating something pertaining or relating to all.  While this is

included in Titus 1:4 it is not by any means the most important meaning.  The

English translation `common' has been employed for such terms as demosios

to the public' (Acts 5:18); polus `many' (Mark 12:37); anthropinos

`pertaining to man, human' (1 Cor. 10:13); politeia `citizenship' (Eph.

2:12), but none of these contain the word koinos which is used in Titus 1:4.

Koinos occurs in the New Testament twelve times and koinoo the verb fifteen

times.  It is used of the fellowship described in Acts 2:44 and 4:32 `all

things common', but the other occurrences in Acts show that something more

than common possession is implied, for Peter used the word when he said that

he had not eaten anything that is `common or unclean', and when he admitted

to Cornelius that, apart from the vision given him, he would have classed

this seeking Gentile with the `common or unclean' (Acts 10:14,28).  This

conception namely that a `common' thing or person was `unclean' is foreign to

our use of the word, but is implicit in every reference in the Scriptures.

`Defiled', that is unwashen hands (Mark 7:2), shows the meaning of

koinos and the verb is translated `defile' eleven times, `pollute' once,

`unclean' once and `common' twice.  The extension of this word, to koinonia

`fellowship' and `communion' never loses sight of this initial relation of

the word with ceremonial uncleanness, as for example, `what communion hath

light with darkness?'  `Truly our fellowship is with the Father', `partakers

of the Divine nature'.  The Old Testament equivalent to koinos and koinoo is

the Hebrew word chalal `profane'.  An illuminating usage of the word is that

of Deuteronomy 20:6:

`And what man is he that hath planted a vineyard, and hath not yet

eaten of it? let him also go and return unto his house'.

Before dealing with this reference, we quote another from Leviticus:

`And when ye shall come into the land, and shall have planted all

manner of trees for food, then ye shall count the fruit thereof as

uncircumcised: three years shall it be as uncircumcised unto you: it

shall not be eaten of.  But in the fourth year all the fruit thereof

shall be holy to praise the Lord withal.  And in the fifth year shall

ye eat of the fruit thereof' (Lev. 19:23 -25).

To our ears, to speak of the fruit of a tree as being `uncircumcised'

sounds strange, but it has a bearing on the subject before us.  In the verse

cited from Deuteronomy 20, the words `eaten of it' are literally `made

common', as distinct from being the uncircumcised growth of the first three

years, or the dedicated crop of the fourth year which was reckoned `holy',

the fruit had become `common'.  It is impossible for a Gentile, having had no

connection with the teaching of the Old Testament on questions of ceremonial

defilement and cleansing, the dedicated and the profane, to see in the word

`common' as employed in the New Testament what the believer would see who had

knowledge and acquaintance with this use of the term.  When Paul went up to

Jerusalem to contend for the faith, he took Titus, a Greek, with him and

reminded the Galatians, that Titus was not compelled to be circumcised.  In

the same chapter he said to Peter `why compellest thou the Gentiles to

Judaize?' (Gal. 2:14).  Titus was a splendid example of one who had entered

into a `common' salvation and who exercised a `common' faith.  Titus was