Lessons #13 and 14

 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

+ 1. It is best to use this note after you have listened to the lessons because there are       +

+ comments given in the actual exposition not in the note.                                                 +

+ 2. The Bible abbreviations are as follows: CEV =Contemporary English version,         +

+ CEB = Common English Bible, ESV= English Standard Version,                                  +

+ GWT = God’s Word Translation, ISV = International Standard Version,                         +

+ NAB=New English Bible, NASB= New American Standard Bible,                               +

+ NEB= New English Bible, NET = New English Translation,                                           +

+ NLT = New Living Translations NJB = New Jerusalem Bible,                                        +

+ NJV = New Jewish Bible, TEV = Today’s English Version.                                           +

+ 3. Notes have not been edited for grammatical errors.                                                      +

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Qualification of Elders (Titus 1:6)

 

6 An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient...

 

The qualifications given in Titus 1:6-9 are no doubt concerned with spiritual leadership of a local church. However, there is the problem of whether the apostle had in mind a class of spiritual leaders or all spiritual leaders of a local church. This problem arises firstly because, as we will note later, the word “elder” of verse 6 does not appear in the Greek text. Secondly, because only an overseer is mentioned in the passage, that is, in verse 7. Thirdly, because the apostle had identified two classes of spiritual leadership of the church. He directly mentioned overseers and deacons as the two classes of spiritual leadership of local churches in his greetings of his epistle to the Philippians in Philippians 1:1:

Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus at Philippi, together with the overseers and deacons:

 

The same two classes of spiritual leaders are discussed in terms of their qualifications in the third chapter of the apostle’s first epistle to Timothy. However, later in that epistle the two groups seemed to be those referred to as elders in 1 Timothy 5:17:

The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching.

 

This passage indicates that there are at least two groups of elders: those who teach and those who are involved in administration and or pastoral care. In effect, there are those whose primary function is to teach as overseers so that they are also concerned with pastoral care of the congregation but not to the same extent as those whose primary functions are that of administration and pastoral care. Anyway, the point is that the apostle in his epistles to the Philippians and to Timothy has indicated that there are two classes of spiritual leaders that he lumped into the category of elders. This then raises the question of whether the apostle in this passage of Titus 1:6-9 is concerned with one or both classes of elders that he elsewhere identified.

      It is our answer that the apostle was concerned with the two categories of spiritual leadership of a local church that he clearly identified in his epistles to the Philippians and to Timothy. However, his major focus was on the class of spiritual leaders who are responsible for teaching the congregation. This is probably because these are those who are to provide guidance in spiritual matters and combat errors in any local church. In effect, we contend that the apostle gave general qualifications that are to be met by all spiritual leaders of the local church but then focused on those whose function is to teach. We say this because the qualifications given in verse 6 of Titus 1 are those that cover both classes of spiritual leaders of a local church with respect to their family life. Take for example, the apostle mentioned marital qualifications of an overseer in 1 Timothy 3:2:

Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,

 

The qualification we are concerned is given in the phrase the husband of but one wife. The same phrase is repeated in the description of deacons in 1 Timothy 3:12:

A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well.

 

The implication is that any spiritual leader of a local church is one that should be described using the phrase the husband of but one wife. We read of the same phrase the husband of but one wife in Titus 1:6 so that we should be able to deduce that the apostle was concerned with all the spiritual leaders of the church in Crete as he wrote verse 6 but in verse 7 he focused his attention to those who are to be overseers. In making this statement, we imply that the word “since” that began verse 7 of Titus 1 is not an adequate translation, as we will note when we get to the verse. Meanwhile, we simply want to make the point that verse 6 is concerned with the general qualifications of all spiritual leaders of the local church. 

      Our interpretation, of course, raises the question as to why the apostle would not go into detail describing the two categories of elders as he did in his epistle to Timothy. Some  answered this question by stating that it is because the epistle of Titus was written before 1 Timothy where the apostle realized that it was necessary to explain further what he gave in Titus with respect to elders or the spiritual leaders of local congregations. This explanation makes sense but it is not certain whether Titus was written before 1 Timothy. So, while this explanation makes sense we cannot be certain of its validity. Therefore, the answer to the problem that is raised with our interpretation, as we indicated, is that it is probably because his focus was on the spiritual leaders who are to teach the word of God to deal with the spiritual stability of the local churches and to combat erroneous teachings that were creeping into the local churches in Crete. With this clarification, we proceed to consider the general qualifications of all spiritual leaders of the local church.

      The translators of the NIV began Titus 1:6 with the sentence an elder must be. We indicated that the word “elder” does not appear in the Greek text. A person who does not know the Greek could consult other English versions and discover this to be the case. To make my point, let me give you various ways in which our English versions begin verse 6. The ESV that is often more literal began verse 6 as if anyone is which is more in keeping with the Greek text.  The Revised edition of the NAB begins with the phrase on condition that. The NJB begins with that is, each of them must be a man. The NEB or the REB took a different approach in that they began the verse as a question. Thus, the NEB reads, is he a man of unimpeachable ...?  while the REB translates are they men of unimpeachable...?  So, one who consults several English versions gets the idea that although the NIV and many of our English versions introduced the word “elder” or its equivalent of “spiritual leader” that the word does not appear in the Greek text of verse 6 and so should be considered an interpretative translation, which is indeed good. Nonetheless, we will examine the Greek text to understand the variations in our English versions.

      The Greek text of Titus 1:6 begins with a Greek word (ei) that is used in different ways but not directly translated in the NIV. The Greek word is a marker of condition that exists in fact or hypothetical so that it is translated “if” as Apostle Paul used it in describing the spiritual minded believer in Romans 8:9:

You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ

 

The condition clause if the Spirit of God lives in you should be understood as stating what is factual. This is because no one is a believer in Christ without the Holy Spirit resident in that person, so the apostle is not stating something hypothetical but what is real or what has happened to believers in Rome in that the Holy Spirit lives in them. To read the clause as hypothetical will imply that the Romans were not believers but that is not in keeping with the thought of the apostle who wrote to believers in Rome. The Greek word that begins Titus 1:6 may also be translated “that” as a marker of content of an indirect question, as it is used in 2 Corinthians 11:15:

It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.

 

The clause if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness may alternatively be translated that his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness.  Another usage of the Greek word in question is as a marker in causal clauses, when an actual case is taken as a supposition, where we also can use “if” instead of “since”, as in Romans 15:27:

They were pleased to do it, and indeed they owe it to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in the Jews’ spiritual blessings, they owe it to the Jews to share with them their material blessings.

 

Gentile Christians have indeed shared in the spiritual blessings of the Jews so that the clause if the Gentiles have shared in the Jews’ spiritual blessings may be translated since the Gentiles have shared in the Jews’ spiritual blessings. Another usage of the Greek word is as a marker of direct questions. Under this usage, the context normally would have the word “asked” or “said.” For example, the word “asked” is used to reflect a question of the disciples to Jesus Christ after His resurrection with respect to the restoration of Israel’s self-rule or kingdom in Acts 1:6:

So when they met together, they asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?”

 

As we stated, the sense of question is also reflected when the word “said” is used as we find in Paul’s question to the centurion in Acts 22:25:

As they stretched him out to flog him, Paul said to the centurion standing there, “Is it legal for you to flog a Roman citizen who hasn’t even been found guilty?”

 

It is probably because the Greek word that begins Titus 1:6 may be used as a marker of question that explains the approach of the translators of the NEB or the REB that began the verse as question.

      Anyway, the question is how to understand the Greek word as it is used in our context. It is possible to understand it as stating a condition that is actual in which case it may be translated with the word “if” as it is done in the ESV. However, our Greek word is immediately followed by an indefinite Greek pronoun (tis) that may mean “anyone, someone” or it may refer to some one of prominence and so means “a person of importance”, as it is used in the advice of Gamaliel to the Sanhedrin to caution them abput persecuting the apostes in Acts 5:36:

Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing.

 

The verbal phrase to be somebody is the same as to be a person of importance. That aside, when the Greek word that may mean “anyone” is used together with the Greek word that may mean “if” that begins Titus 1:6, the two may be read as “everyone who” or “whoever.” It is also possible to read the two Greek words as “if anyone”, as it is done in the ESV or even in the NIV where both words were used in 1 Timothy 3:1:

Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task.

 

The problem in Titus 1:6 is that whether the two Greek words are translated “if anyone” or “whoever”, the verse does not form a complete sentence. In other words, if we read the verse as beginning with “if anyone is” or “whoever is”, we do not have a complete sense as we find, for example, in 1 Timothy 3:1. Therefore, the problem is to supply an object that will help to make sense of what the apostle had in mind. There are two possible objects to be used based on the context. We can supply the word “overseer” since it is the word used next in verse 7 of Titus 1 or we can supply the word “elder” since it is the word used in verse 5. The use of the word “overseer” will match the object used in 1 Timothy 3:1. The problem with this is that if that were the case, then the apostle was only thinking of one class of elders in the local churches in Crete. This will not be in keeping with his concept of having teaching and administrative elders. Therefore, it is better to supply the word “elder” as it is done in the NIV and some of our English versions. This approach helps us to understand that the apostle in verse 6 of Titus 1 is concerned with the qualifications of all elders in a local church whether they are teachers or administrators. 

      In any case, the Holy Spirit directs the apostle to state the general qualifications of any spiritual leader primarily in terms of family characteristics. This should not surprise us when we understand that God the Holy Spirit views the church as the family of God, as we may gather from 1 Timothy 3:15:

if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

 

The word “household” is translated from a Greek word (oikos) that also means “family.” Thus, one way to tell if a person can be a good leader of a local church is to consider his family life. For if his family life is riddled with instability as reflected in his children then it is difficult to see how that person could provide a stable leadership in a local church. It is for this reason that the apostle questioned the ability of such a person to lead a congregation in 1 Timothy 3:5:

(If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?)

 

Therefore, it is not surprising then that the apostle who did not go into detail in distinguishing the two classes of spiritual leaders in this epistle of Titus would focus on the characteristics that should be found in each class of spiritual leadership because what happens in the family is a strong indicator of a man’s leadership ability. 

      It is true that the predominant focus in terms of the characteristics of a spiritual leader is on his family life but really that is not with what the apostle began. He began with the man’s personal life (that should be true of all believers) in that we read in Titus 1:6 An elder must be blameless. The first thing then that any pastor or a those who are responsible for appointing a spiritual leader in any capacity should be sure is that such a person fits the description of being “blameless.”

      What does it mean to be blameless? To answer this question, we should begin by stating what it is not. It does not mean to be perfect or sinless since the word is applied by God to believers in the OT times who certainly sinned. Take for example, Noah was described as blameless in Genesis 6:9:

This is the account of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God.

 

This man who is described as righteous and blameless was the person that became drunk in Genesis 9:21:

When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent.

 

Drunkenness is a sin, so Noah, although described as blameless did, in fact sin. David, despite his famous sins of murder and adultery, claimed to be blameless in that he avoided sin, as recorded in 2 Samuel 22:24:

I have been blameless before him and have kept myself from sin.

 

For David to make the claim recorded here indicates that his two famous sins were anomalies in his life and not some kind of habit. Anyhow, the fact that these two men – one described by God as blameless and the other who made the claim – sinned, indicates that to be blameless does not mean that one is perfect.

      We have ruled out what blamelessness could not mean so we proceed to understand what it means to be blameless in the context of the qualifications of spiritual leaders of a local congregation. This is because in our study of Genesis 6:9 we indicated that being blameless means being committed to the Lord, which results in integrity. The word “blameless” in Titus 1:6 is translated from a Greek adjective (anegklētos) that pertains to a person against whom there can be no accusation hence free from reproach or without stain. The adjective may mean “irreproachable, without accusation.” Thus, when the apostle indicates that a spiritual leader should be blameless, he means that such an individual must be free of any accusation or one to whom no one can bring a just charge. It is not a person to whom there can be no charge brought against since there is no such a person on this planet. I mean that people are free to charge others of anything they choose but that such a charge should be false. We know that people in their hatred can bring charges falsely against someone. The Lord Jesus who is blameless in the sense of being free of any sin was charged falsely by the Jewish leaders in order to condemn Him to death. Thus, a spiritual leader may be accused of wrong doing that proves to be false. Nonetheless, the qualification given in this passage with the word “blameless” means that one that is being considered for appointment as a spiritual leader should be without any kind of accusation levied against him, justified or not, because the reputation of the local church is at stake. In effect, when a person is to be considered for spiritual leadership there should be no accusation hanging over the individual since if that accusation is proved to be true later, would damage the reputation of the local church. It is this requirement that one considered for spiritual leadership should be free of any accusation, that was probably in the mind of the apostle when he wrote Timothy not to share or unwittingly participate in the sins of others by hastily appointing such individuals to a spiritual leadership position in 1 Timothy 5:22:

Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, and do not share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure.

 

The reason for not being in a haste to appoint someone to an office is that there are those whose sins are not immediately obvious but are later discovered, as in 1 Timothy 5:24:

The sins of some men are obvious, reaching the place of judgment ahead of them; the sins of others trail behind them.

 

When the sins of such people are discovered then that will tarnish the image of the church. Therefore, when a person is blameless with respect to being appointed to spiritual leadership, it means that the individual is free of any charge or accusation of any kind, again, justified or not. This requirement implies that a person who is to be considered for a position of spiritual leadership should be beyond reproach and be a person of good reputation not only among believers but also with outsiders. This requirement is probably the basis for the question raised during ordination is some local churches when it is asked if anyone knows anything that a candidate is not to be ordained, to speak up. When such a question is raised, it is to ensure that there is no charge, justified or not, that the candidate has at the time of ordination. If there is, the ordination is stopped to ensure that the image of the local church is not tarnished by something that later proves to be true. In any event, it is required that a person for spiritual leadership is one that is without any charge or accusation brought against him at the time of being appointed to leadership role.

      The apostle having stated the general requirement of any spiritual leader being free from accusation, proceeds to deal with their family characteristics that in a sense explain part of what it means to be blameless. The first family characteristic of a spiritual leader is one that defines his character that is certainly related to being blameless in that he should have good reputation when it comes to the kind of person he is with respect to women. In effect, a man’s marital practice reveals something about him. Therefore, it is fitting that the first family characteristic of a spiritual leader is to be sexually faithful in a monogamous marriage. It is this characteristic that is given in the next phrase of Titus 1:6 the husband of but one wife.

      Many groups have misapplied what this specific characteristic is, particularly as it pertains to pastors.  On the one hand, are those who use this requirement to exclude unmarried persons from becoming pastors or serving as spiritual leaders. On the other hand, there is the group that insists that a pastor must be single. Clearly this second group violates what the Holy Spirit stated through Apostle Paul as demonic doctrines in 1 Timothy 4:3:

They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.

 

The requirement of one wife does not mean that a man who is single cannot be a pastor for if it were true Timothy, as far we know, was single at the time the apostle wrote him. Furthermore, the apostle himself was single so that the Holy Spirit is not saying that a person who is single should not be a pastor or a spiritual leader. Instead, the point is that if a person is in marital status he must be married to one woman. The implication is that there were some men involved in polygamy. To be in polygamous relationship is really an indication of some form of moral weakness in a man. This, we can deduce from the Lord’s rebuke of David after he killed Uriah and took his wife, as we read in 2 Samuel 12:8:

I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more.

 

The sentence I gave your master’s wives into your arms suggests that David inherited the harem of King Saul. Now, for David to have gone after another man’s wife and to take her eventually as his wife is an indication of moral weakness on his part. He already had many women at his disposal so there is no other satisfactory explanation for David being in polygamous relationship except moral weakness. This weakness indicates that a person is not in compliance with God’s original design in creation regarding marriage, which is monogamy. If a man is not monogamous, he is very likely a person who cannot be trusted in the matters of sexual purity. A person who has never had sex with more than one woman is much more likely to maintain sexual purity than a man who had experimented with several women. This requirement of being sexually faithful to one’s wife may be the reason the Holy Spirit specifies this requirement of one wife.  

     Another problem that arises with the phrase the husband of but one wife is whether a person who is divorced should serve as a pastor of a local church. If we keep in mind the first requirement of being above reproach, the more logical answer is that such an individual should not be a pastor or bishop of a local church for at least one reason. A pastor must remain exemplary in every aspect of his life. If he divorces his wife even though justified, he loses credibility both with believers and unbelievers unless, of course, there is general decadence, where moral absolutes no longer exist. Furthermore, although people may not say anything, such a pastor loses his moral authority regarding marriage. It is such a pastor that will have a weak view of divorce and certainly when he teaches on marriage it would be difficult for him to remain totally objective. Besides, some of those who listen to him that are not matured spiritually may not be able to accept his explanation on marriage for the rationale that if what he teaches is true how then is it his own marriage failed. Of course, if divorce is due to infidelity on the part of the wife and it is well known people may have a different view of such a pastor. So, if there is a situation where a divorced man could be a pastor it must fit into the ground permitted for divorce as given by our Lord, which is marital infidelity.  John Chrysostom in his homily on this requirement indicates the early church viewed this as a prohibition against a second marriage for someone in church leadership.[1] It appears that in the interest of the credibility and the witness of a local congregation that it is best not to have a pastor who has divorced his wife. But this requirement does not extend to those who remarried because of the death of their wives. The Bible authorizes remarriage under this condition hence there is no reason to exclude any person from being a pastor or a church leader because he has married a second time because of the death of his first wife. The emphasis here is that a man can only be married to one woman at a time and be faithful to her. This requirement of being a husband to one woman demands that a spiritual leader’s spiritual life must influence his wife as well. For if his spiritual life impacts his wife then it seems to me that both would withstand the attack of the enemy whose purpose is to bring the local church into shame through its spiritual leadership, especially the pastor, by trying to break up the marriage of such ab individual. On a practical level, this requirement demands that believers should pray constantly for their spiritual leaders and their wives so that the Lord would protect them from the attack of the enemy.

      In any event, it is the character of the would be spiritual leader with respect to sexual relationship that is at stake. This we can infer from using the literal Greek reading of man of one woman.  The literal phrase man of one woman may be understood to mean a man who belongs to one woman. Thus, the phrase is a reference to “one woman kind of a man.”  A “one woman kind of a man” speaks to the man’s character in that he is not prone to having sex with anyone but the wife. In effect, a spiritual leader should be one without wondering eyes. It is not difficult to understand this requirement when we recognize that a spiritual leader deals with both men and women in the local congregation. Consequently, a person in that kind of position must be an individual that should live above suspicion when it comes to sexual relation with other women. Unfortunately, this is not always the case as evident in some publicized immoral activities of some spiritual leaders, particularly pastors of local churches. Nonetheless, it is important for spiritual leaders of local churches not be involved in polygamy and to be sexually faithful to their wives.

      The next family characteristic of spiritual leaders involves their children who are described both positively and negatively in the clause of Titus 1:6 a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Before we consider this clause, we should comment that it is not advocating that a spiritual leader have children; instead, the clause is applicable for those who are married with children. Anyway, the positive description of the children of spiritual leaders is given in the clause whose children believe. There is the question of how to understand what the Greek says about the children of the would be spiritual leader because the Greek did not use a verb “believe” but a noun. The Greek verb (echō) used means “to have” or even “to hold to.” In our passage, the Greek verb is used in the sense of “to have” so it describes what is true with respect to children at the time that a spiritual leader is being considered for appointment to leadership.

      In any case, the word “believe” of the NIV is translated from a Greek adjective (pistos) with different meanings.  When used of a person, it may mean “faithful” as Apostle Paul used it to describe Christ’s evaluation of him in 1 Timothy 1:12:

I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has given me strength, that he considered me faithful, appointing me to his service.

 

The word may mean “trustworthy” as the word is used by the Apostle Paul to describe the qualities expected in the wives of deacons in 1 Timothy 3:11:

In the same way, their wives are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.

 

It may mean “reliable” as Apostle Paul used the word to describe the kind of men that Timothy should pass the truth of the church to in 2 Timothy 2:2:

And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.

 

The Greek word may mean “believing” or even “believer.” It is in the sense of believing that the word is used to describe Christian slave masters in 1 Timothy 6:2:

Those who have believing masters are not to show less respect for them because they are brothers. Instead, they are to serve them even better, because those who benefit from their service are believers, and dear to them. These are the things you are to teach and urge on them.

 

It is in the sense of “believer” that the word is used in 1 Timothy 5:16:

If any woman who is a believer has widows in her family, she should help them and not let the church be burdened with them, so that the church can help those widows who are really in need.

 

The meanings of the Greek adjective used in our passage of Titus 1:6 begs the question as to what sense the apostle used it. Is he concerned with the children of would-be spiritual leader being believers or being faithful or trustworthy? He probably was concerned with both. They are to be believers who show themselves faithful to the Lord. In other words, it is not normal to be a believer and not be faithful to the Lord. This, of course, does not mean that there are no believers who are not faithful, but our point is that such is not normal, or it is not expected of those who are believers not to be faithful to the Lord. Of course, there are those who take the position that the Greek word used here refers to “faithfulness” in the sense of “submissive” or “obedient,” which is possible; nonetheless because of what the apostle writes next, it is more likely that he was thinking of the children being believers and faithful in their devotion to the Lord. The fact that the Holy Spirit through the apostle wants the children of spiritual leaders to be believers who are faithful or trustworthy is implied in the negative characteristic that should not be associated with the children of those who are to be spiritual leaders of a local congregation.

      The negative characteristic that should not be associated with children of a spiritual leader is that they are not to be spoiled. Spoiled children are not those whose parents provide with things per say, but those who are described in one of two ways given in the verbal phrase of Titus 1:6 are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. The translation of the NIV implies that there are two things that define a spoiled child, being wild and being disobedient because of its use of the conjunction and. We do not have a Greek word that means “and” instead we have a Greek particle (ē) that may be used to denote comparison so that it means “than, rather than.” However, in our context, the Greek particle is used as a marker of an alternative and so should be translated “or” as reflected in many of our English versions. The importance of translating the Greek particle as “or” instead of “and” as in the NIV and a few other English versions is that it helps us to define a spoiled child in terms of either of the descriptions the apostle gave. In other words, he did not mean to say that unless both descriptions are true of a child then a man is not qualified to be appointed a spiritual leader. No! He meant either description is sufficient to disqualify a person from being a spiritual leader.

     A disqualifying characteristic for a person being considered for a position of spiritual leadership is if the children could be accused of being wild. This implies that a child is spoiled if that child could be accused of being wild. The word “wild” of the NIV is translated from a Greek word (asōtia) that literally means “lost life” so the word may mean “prodigality” or “a dissolute life.”  It is a word that is often associated with drinking binges during festivals, so the word is concerned with dissipation of wealth and debauchery.  In fact, the word is taken to be synonymous with dissoluteness and immorality so much so that it is a word that is used to characterize pagans who are surprised that believers do not live their kind of lifestyle in 1 Peter 4:4:

They think it strange that you do not plunge with them into the same flood of dissipation, and they heap abuse on you.

 

Here in 1 Peter 4, the translators of the NIV used the meaning “dissipation” to translate our Greek word translated “being wild” in Titus 1:6.  A child described with our Greek word is one that wants a flashy existence, spends too much money in things that will eventually destroy the person’s life. Today, such a child will be involved in parties where there is so much drinking and use of drugs. This kind of child brings shame to the father, as implied in the description of a glutton in Proverbs 28:7:

He who keeps the law is a discerning son, but a companion of gluttons disgraces his father.

 

Anyway, the Greek word may be translated with such words as “recklessness, debauchery, dissipation, profligacy, wildness.”

      An alternative disqualifying characteristic for a person being considered for a position of spiritual leadership is if the children could be accused of being rebellious as in the word disobedient in Titus 1:6. The implication is that a spoiled child is one that is disobedient. The word “disobedient” is translated from a Greek word (anypotaktos) that when used of things means “not made subject” or “put under one’s control”, as the word is used with respect to Christ’s control of everything or His sovereignty in Hebrews 2:8:

and put everything under his feet.” In putting everything under him, God left nothing that is not subject to him. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to him.

 

Another meaning of the Greek word translated “disobedient” in Titus 1:6 pertains to refusing submission to authority and so means “rebellious, undisciplined, disobedient”, as Apostle Paul used the word in 1 Timothy 1:9:

We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers,

 

The phrase for lawbreakers and rebels is more literally for the lawless and rebellious.  In our passage, the meaning is either rebellious or disobedient. It is probably better to use the word “rebellious” as that defines better a child who brings trouble to the parents. 

      In any case, a man is disqualified from being appointed a spiritual leader if the children are either involved in wild living or they are rebellious. These disqualifying characteristics recognize two realities of life. A spiritually minded father has the responsibility of training his children so that they grow up not being wild or rebellious. We see this responsibility spelled out by God to Abraham as one who was in covenant relationship with Him, as we can gather from Genesis 18:19:

For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing what is right and just, so that the Lord will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him.”

 

Abraham was expected to direct his children in accordance with God’s word. Consequently, those who are believers that are described as Abraham’s spiritual descendants are certainly expected to carry out this responsibility of raising their children properly so that a failure in this may mean that such a person is incapable of true spiritual leadership.  Anyway, another reality that is conveyed in the characteristic that disqualifies a man from being a spiritual leader is that there are fathers whose children would be rebellious. This was the case with the children of Eli, the priest. He had rebellious children, as stated in 1 Samuel 2:22–23:

22 Now Eli, who was very old, heard about everything his sons were doing to all Israel and how they slept with the women who served at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 23 So he said to them, “Why do you do such things? I hear from all the people about these wicked deeds of yours.

 

Despite what Eli said to his children, it is apparent that he did not discipline his children when such was possible, that is, before they became adults. We know this because prior to God killing his two sons, He chastised Eli for not restraining his children’s actions, as we gather from 1 Samuel 3:12–13:

12 At that time I will carry out against Eli everything I spoke against his family—from beginning to end. 13 For I told him that I would judge his family forever because of the sin he knew about; his sons made themselves contemptible, and he failed to restrain them.

 

The point is that fathers have the responsibility of rearing their children. If the children are spoiled in the sense of either living a wild lifestyle or rebellious that disqualifies their fathers from being spiritual leaders of a local congregation.

      Someone may argue that it is unfair for a father to be so judged because of his children. To be sure, the children in view are those who are still under parental authority since a father no longer has control of a child once he or she leaves home. But when a child is still at home then the father should ensure that the child obeys him. This is expected of a father who is spiritually minded as   we have noted with the requirement God gave Abraham. Thus, if a father could not discipline his children, it is very likely he would not be a good leader in a local church. Thus, there is nothing unfair about these qualifications. Of course, someone may argue that to require that the children be faithful believers is out of the control of the father, that is, it is not up to the father to get his children saved. True! But God the Holy Spirit who gave the requirement knew that the requirements are to be met. This will imply that if a person is to be a spiritual leader then God would equip him with the kind of family that meets the qualifications we have considered. The point is that the Holy Spirit would not put qualifications no believer could meet. Therefore, there is nothing unfair about the general requirements we have in this passage with respect to spiritual leaders.

 

02/24/17  

 

 



[1] “Homily 2”; NPNF 13:524).