Lessons #77 and 78
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ 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. +
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What and who to avoid (Titus 3:9-11)
9 But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. 10 Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him. 11 You may be sure that such a man is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.
These three verses form the second set of instructions in a series of four concluding instructions of Apostle Paul to Titus given in Titus 3:8-14. The message the apostle delivered to Titus, and so all pastors, is the necessity to avoid both unnecessary argumentations and factious person after a second admonition. Since the message is applicable to every believer not just those who are pastors the message the Holy Spirit wants you to hear then is this: You are to avoid both unnecessary argumentations that do not advance your spiritual life and a factious person after a second admonition. Thus, the message is concerned with what and who to avoid.
There is an important point that we should emphasize before we get to the message of the section before us. It is that rebellion against God’s word is the essence of sin. This assertion is supported by the fact that the first sin of humankind was not concerned with morality in the sense of good and bad behavior as such, as it was concerned with rebellion against God’s word. Adam and Eve rebelled against God’s instruction concerning the forbidden fruit; hence, it is said that they sinned. Why do I bring your attention to this fact at this point in the introductory phase of our exposition, you may wonder? It is to remind us that if we do not carry out the instructions given in the passage we are about to consider, we have sinned against God because every instruction or command in the Scripture is from God the Holy Spirit. Anyway, it is important that we should avoid what and who the Holy Spirit instructs in the passage before us.
Our passage is concerned with instructions that contrast with the preceding verse where positive action of doing good is required. The Holy Spirit tells us that good works are beneficial to everyone but the instructions of the passage we are considering involve things that are not beneficial to anyone. To get us thinking that what follow involve the things not beneficial to us, the apostle begins our verse with a Greek conjunction (de) that may be translated “and” when it is used to connect related sentences. Sometimes, it is left untranslated but, in our passage, it is used as a marker of contrast so that it means “but, on the other hand.” Thus, the translators of the NIV and majority of our English versions used the conjunction “but” to begin verse 9 although a handful of English versions such as the NAB revised edition and the GWT left it untranslated. That notwithstanding, it is necessary to begin verse 9 with the conjunction “but” to enable a reader to recognize that a contrast to what preceded is implied in what follow that is concerned with what and who the believer should avoid.
What are you to avoid based on the passage before us? It is unnecessary argumentation of the type that leads nowhere in your spiritual life. We may put it in another way, to indicate that it is the kind of discussion that makes you angry but does not lead to any edification of your soul that you are to avoid. This kind of argumentations is described in the first clause of Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law. The instruction indicates that Titus should make a deliberate effort and to repeatedly ensure that he avoids the things specified in the clause.
The reason for indicating that Titus should repeatedly avoid the things the Holy Spirit gives here through Apostle Paul is because the Greek command expressed in the English in the word avoid is given in the present tense in the Greek. Here the present tense is used to convey an action that should be repeated. In other words, Titus should repeatedly avoid the things described. The implication is that the action demanded in our passage is one that you should carry out several times. In fact, you should consistently do what is commanded. Of course, we said that Titus was to make deliberate effort to ensure he avoids the things specified. This is because the word “avoid” is translated from a Greek word (periistēmi) that has two meanings. It may mean to encircle by standing around some entity, that is, “to stand around” as it is used in Jesus’ explanation concerning His miracle of raising Lazarus from the dead that was for the benefit of those who were around Him, as we read in John 11:42:
I knew that you always hear me, but I said this for the benefit of the people standing here, that they may believe that you sent me.”
Another meaning of our Greek word is to go around something or someone so as to avoid the object or someone hence means “to avoid, shun” as it is used in the instruction concerning what Timothy should avoid in 2 Timothy 2:16:
Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly.
In our passage of Titus 3:9, the word is used in the sense of to avoid and stay away from deliberately, being conceived of as walking around something as to avoid it. Thus, there is the sense that Titus is to make deliberate effort to shun what the apostle mentioned in the verse. This means that as a believer you should make concerted effort to ensure you shun the kinds of unnecessary argumentations stipulated in our passage.
The unnecessary argumentation Titus, and so you, should avoid is given in the phrase foolish controversies. The word “controversies” is translated from a Greek word (zētēsis) with several meanings. It may mean a search for information, that is, “investigation” as it is used by Governor Festus as he consulted King Agrippa regarding Paul’s situation with the accusation of the Jews in Acts 25:20:
I was at a loss how to investigate such matters; so I asked if he would be willing to go to Jerusalem and stand trial there on these charges.
The sentence I was at a loss how to investigate such matters is literally I was at a loss with regard to the investigation concerning these things. The word may mean engagement in a controversial discussion and so means “discussion, debate, argument.” It is in the sense of “argument” that the word is used over a dispute between John’s disciples and an unnamed Jew regarding ceremonial washing in John 3:25:
An argument developed between some of John’s disciples and a certain Jew over the matter of ceremonial washing.
The word has the meaning “debate” in the sharp exchange between Apostles Paul and Barnabas and those Jews that insisted on the necessity of circumcision for salvation of Gentile believers, as described in Acts 15:2:
This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.
The Greek word may mean matter for dispute hence means “controversial question, controversy” as the word is used by Apostle Paul to describe a typical false teacher that gets into controversies in 1 Timothy 6:4:
he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions
In our passage, the word has the sense of “dispute” in the sense of argument or disagreement regarding something important in religion so that it is considered controversial question to address. However, the apostle qualified the dispute with the adjective “foolish,” implying that the dispute is unnecessary because such dispute goes nowhere.
What are the disputes or controversies that Titus and so all pastors and believers should shun? Before we get to what they are, let me state what they do not mean. They cannot mean defending doctrinal truths. In effect, Titus, and so all pastors, are not to avoid disputes that concern the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith. What this means is that a pastor should not shy away from a doctrine that is disputed by others. We know this from the example of Apostle Paul through whom the Holy Spirit gives us the instruction we are considering. We referenced the debate between Apostles Paul and Barnabas and those who were Jews that insisted on the necessity of circumcision for salvation in the passage we cited but worth repeating with additional verse included, that is, Acts 15:1–2:
1Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.
The doctrine that is at stake is that of salvation that includes how a person is saved and its related matter of justification. Paul and Barnabas could not possibly have avoided the dispute between them and those who were insisting on salvation by the keeping of the law. They certainly considered the dispute an important one that they could not shy away from it. In fact, we know that Apostle Paul considered the matter as that which goes to the heart of the gospel message as he later indicated in his reference to what transpired regarding this matter, as we read in Galatians 2:4–5:
4 This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. 5 We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you.
The apostle indicated that he and Barnabas did not give in for a moment because such shying away would have meant that the gospel message would be diluted and whatever results could not be the gospel message of Christ. Thus, Paul and Barnabas brought the dispute to the church in Jerusalem for settlement. Of course, the decision rendered by the Holy Spirit through the early church was not accepted by those who were concerned that salvation is by observing the law. We know this because Apostle Paul never stopped dealing with this dispute throughout his ministry in that in his epistle to the Galatians where he dealt with the doctrine of justification by faith, he again addressed this matter. He was very adamant that Gentiles should not submit to circumcision as a means of salvation, as implied in his assertion recorded in Galatians 5:2–4:
2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.
The example of Apostle Paul we have cited indicates that the dispute or controversy that Titus and so any pastor is to shun must never involve fundamental doctrinal issues of the gospel. This means that today a pastor must be front and centered when the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith are disputed by others. He must vigorously defend whatever the doctrine is. Take, for example, there are those who discuss as to whether salvation can be obtained in another way or through other religions. That is a dispute that a pastor cannot avoid although he might be labeled narrow minded or a bigot. This is because our Scripture is clear first that Jesus Christ is the only way to relationship with God the Father as the Lord Himself claimed in John 14:6:
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Apostle Peter speaking under the Holy Spirit is clear that there is no other way of salvation than through Jesus Christ in Acts 4:12:
Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.”
There is no church synod necessary today to decide on fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith. Every fundamental doctrine of the church is already in the Scripture, so any dispute should be referred to the Scripture. Another dispute that we often hear concerns the deity of Jesus Christ. A pastor cannot shy away from such dispute. He must defend it with all the might the Lord has given him. This is because if Jesus Christ is not God, then He could not be a true mediator between humanity and God. Apostle Paul in a sense has even in the epistle we are considering conveyed that Jesus is God in many ways but most noteworthy is Titus 2:13:
while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,
Hence, it should be clear that the kind of disputes or controversies that Titus and so all pastors are to shun are not those related to the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith.
What then are the kinds of disputes or controversies that Titus and so all pastors should avoid? Before we get to the answer of this question as given in our passage, let me apply the question in its significance for our time. A controversial matter that pastors should not get involved is anything that is political in nature. It is unfortunate that many pastors do not understand this truth. Many find it necessary to weigh in or advocate a position that may be controversial but not based on the Scripture instead on personal preferences of people or due to human ideology. Read through the Scripture you will find that prophets and the apostles did not weigh in on political matters of their days as such. The only thing these ancient prophets and apostles spoke or wrote about has to do with moral issues, especially as it concerns justice. Sadly, there is very little said among those considered leading voices among the evangelicals in this matter of justice. The prophets spoke volume with respect to justice as it affects the nation of Israel while the apostles focused on believers’ respect for governmental authority even though the government at that time was hostile to the Christian faith. Other than these, those who communicated God’s word as we find in the Scripture were not political in that they did not take sides regarding whatever the current political matter was at their time. The side those who communicate the truth should take is the side of truth. In other words, they should speak truth as given in the Scripture with respect to a given subject that is addressed directly in the Scripture. Pastors are not to offend people because of their personal political views but they should offend them because they teach what the Scripture demands on any subject. When pastors take sides in political controversies, they do damage to the Christian faith because they place themselves where those who do not agree with their political views would be turned off from listening to them. Therefore, a pastor must be focused on one thing only, that is, Jesus Christ crucified as Apostle Paul stated to the Corinthians 1 Corinthians 2:2:
For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.
My point is that a pastor should not be weighing in on political controversies other than focusing people on Jesus Christ crucified. This view is in keeping with the function of pastors. I know of a person who used to be angry with me because I make no comments on political controversies but that did not matter because I know that I am called to preach and teach the truth of the gospel and therefore refuse to get involved in such matters since they do not do anything with respect to advancing the gospel of Jesus Christ. If anything, it may be a hindrance to the gospel. Hence, the prudent thing for any pastor to do is to avoid political controversies no matter how much of the congregation think otherwise. Another area pastors should not be caught up is in scientific theories of evolution. A pastor should not spend too much time in such a subject. He should be aware of the extent of the debate in such a way as to help his congregation focus on biblical account of creation. There are some pastors who have devoted unproportionate time pursing this area, but such pursuit leads nowhere since it is difficult to persuade anyone with a scientific background that does not believe in anything miraculous that God created the universe by His word. So, it is important that a pastor not devote his precious study time that should be for the edification of the local church in pursuit of such controversies that involve evolution theory or the theories of origin of the universe.
Be that as it may, we return to answer the question regarding the kinds of controversies Titus, and so all pastors should, avoid. A first kind of controversies is that connected with genealogical debate. It is this that is mentioned in Titus 3:9 in the phrase and genealogies. It does not seem that the word “genealogies” is an example of controversies because the conjunction “and” may be understood as a marker that joins two words that are of equal rank or significance in the first clause of Titus 3:9, that is, the words “controversies” and “genealogies”. This is possible, but it is probably that the apostle used the Greek conjunction (kai) translated “and” that appears three times in the first clause in a way that its first usage is different from the other two usages. We mean that the apostle probably intended the first usage of the Greek conjunction to be understood as a marker of explanation so that it is used to explain what goes before it, so we have the meaning “that is, namely.” This interpretation enables us to understand that the apostle intended us to take what follow as explanations or examples of the controversies that he meant. This makes sense in that without taking what follow as examples of the kind of controversies that he meant, we have no way of knowing precisely the kind of controversies he would have had in mind since there were several controversies that involved Jewish people of the time the apostle wrote as he alluded in his defense before King Agrippa in Acts 26:3:
and especially so because you are well acquainted with all the Jewish customs and controversies. Therefore, I beg you to listen to me patiently.
The controversies the apostle referenced before Agrippa would certainly include theological questions that surround the person of Jesus Christ as Governor Felix mentioned as he consulted with Agrippa, as stated in Acts 25:19:
Instead, they had some points of dispute with him about their own religion and about a dead man named Jesus who Paul claimed was alive.
The disputes about Jesus Christ would have involved first, the issue of His resurrection as implied in the claim of the apostle that Festus referenced. The issue of the resurrection of Jesus was certainly a matter of debate among the Jewish authorities, especially, the Sadducees who rejected any concept of resurrection of the dead among other things, as we can gather from Acts 23:6–8:
6 Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, “My brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. I stand on trial because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead.” 7 When he said this, a dispute broke out between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. 8 (The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, and that there are neither angels nor spirits, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all.)
Another kind of controversy that swirled around the person of Jesus Christ concerned His relationship to the law since some of the Jewish authorities had a misconception of His mission in that they accused His disciples of teaching that He would change some aspects of the Mosaic laws, as implied in the accusation brought against Stephen in Acts 6:14:
For we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs Moses handed down to us.”
It is probably the case that Titus although he was a Greek would have heard some of these controversies as he traveled with Apostle Paul. Clearly, the apostle would not instruct Titus to avoid any argumentation that is concerned with the resurrection of Jesus Christ or His mission and His relationship to the Mosaic law since He fulfilled it. Therefore, it would be necessary for the apostle to give examples of the kind of controversies he wanted Titus and so all other pastors to avoid. Hence, it is appropriate to accept that the first use of the Greek conjunction translated “and” in the phrase of Titus 3:9 and genealogies should be understood as intended to explain or to provide examples of the kind of controversies that Titus should avoid.
Be that as it may, it is our assertion that the first kind of controversy the Holy Spirit through Apostle Paul wants Titus, and so all pastors, to avoid has to do with genealogical debate in the phrase and genealogies. The word “genealogies” is translated from a Greek word (genealogia) that refers to an account of ancestry so means “genealogy”, as it is used in 1 Timothy 1:4:
nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God’s work—which is by faith.
It seems that the concept of genealogies was not separated by what the apostle described as myths. Thus, the phrase to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies refers to the effort or the concern about traditions of the past based on historical hints that are intended to divert attention from the truth of God’s word. That aside, we are not certain of the nature of the genealogical debate that the apostle meant. It is probably a reference to records of family history, especially of the Jews since the apostle in the passage we are considering in Titus 3:9 mentioned the law. It seems that many of the Jews of that time in Crete were obsessed with their genealogical information that they would use to debate Jewish Christians probably to convey that they are the ones who are of God’s plan and not the Christians. Anyway, we are not certain of the nature of the debate that involves genealogy, but Titus was certainly aware of it. The important thing that we should understand is that it is concerned with heritage or ancestry of those involved. This being the case, pastors should not be involved in debates that have to do with human heritage since these are indeed meaningless. I recall many years ago hearing a pastor who spent a series of sermons defending his and the members of his congregation’s ancestry. That to me is a violation of what the Holy Spirit prohibits in the passage we are considering. The issue of heritage seems to be important to some in our time but when a person is immersed in heritage matter that person underscores that the individual knows nothing about the true heritage in Christ, which is the only thing that counts. What we mean is that for a person to be focused on the individual’s heritage or to be proud or boast of it is to ignore that what an individual should be proud is that the person knows Jesus Christ and belongs to Him. This is the implication of what the Holy Spirit tells us in 1 Corinthians 1:31:
Therefore, as it is written: “Let him who boasts boast in the Lord.”
This passage is clear that our boasting should not be in our ancestry but about our Lord. Ancestry was only important among the Jews before the coming of the Messiah as many were speculating if He would come through their line. Since the coming of the Messiah it is meaningless to speak of heritage or ancestry because that has no spiritual significance. Your ancestry does not give you an advantage in spiritual matters, but it might with the people of this world. But then you are not of this world therefore you should not focus on such thing as the world of unbelievers do. They are focused on their ancestry or heritage because firstly they ignorant of the fact that all humans today have a common ancestry that can be traced to Noah’s three sons as stated in Genesis 9:19:
These were the three sons of Noah, and from them came the people who were scattered over the earth.
Secondly, and most importantly is that people focus on their ancestry because they do not know that there is a new kind of humanity that the Holy Spirit taught through Apostle Paul in Ephesians 2:15:
by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace,
The new humanity is described in the phrase one new man out of the two. A person who belongs to this one new humanity cannot not speak of ancestry or heritage since the new humanity is the creation of Christ through His death on the cross. This being the case, what heritage or ancestry should the one in the new humanity boast? Such a person could only boast about Jesus Christ who is the head of the new humanity. Therefore, it is important that believers do not get involved in such controversies that involve ancestry or heritage. Of course, this goes with the whole concept of monuments since many do not recognize that building of monuments may be a way to identify with the sins of those of the past generation as Jesus charged the Jews in Luke 11:47–48:
47 “Woe to you, because you build tombs for the prophets, and it was your forefathers who killed them. 48 So you testify that you approve of what your forefathers did; they killed the prophets, and you build their tombs.
In any event, our concern is that in application of the first kind of controversy that is concerned with genealogy that Titus should avoid is that pastors should not be involved in defending ancestry or heritage because as we will see later they belong to what the Holy Spirit says are useless.
A second kind of controversy Titus should avoid concerns the law as given in the next phrase of Titus 3:9 and arguments and quarrels about the law. There is the question as to whether the apostle meant to say two different things in this phrase, that is, does he see arguments as a different kind of controversy distinct from quarrels about the law? It seems that the apostle was concerned with only one thing about the law and not two different things. In other words, it is our interpretation that the phrase should be read to mean that the apostle is concerned with a kind of disagreement that leads to quarrels or open clash about the law. There are two reasons for this interpretation. First, the Greek conjunction (kai) translated “and” is here subject two different usages. It could be interpreted as a marker of explanation or as a marker of result from what precedes. Although either interpretation is possible, it is probably the interpretation that takes the Greek conjunction as a marker of result that is intended. Second, the senses of the Greek words translated “arguments” and “quarrels” imply that the first leads to the second as we will demonstrate.
The word “arguments” is translated from a Greek word (eris) that refers to engagement in rivalry, especially with reference to positions taken in a matter and so it has several meanings. The word may mean “strife” as it is used to describe those who reject God’s truth that He gave over to depraved mind in Romans 1:29:
They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips,
The word may mean “dissension”, that is, disagreement as it is used in describing the behavior expected of believers in Romans 13:13:
Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy.
The word may mean “quarrel, quarreling” as it is used to describe the state of affairs among the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 3:3:
You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men?
The phrase quarreling among you is translated strife among you in some English versions. The Greek word may mean “discord” as it is used in describing the activities of the sinful nature in Galatians 5:20:
idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions.
Another meaning of our Greek word is “rivalry” as the word is used to describe what Apostle Paul said about the reason some preach the gospel in Philippians 1:15:
It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill.
It is true that our Greek word has various meanings that are related but in our passage of Titus 3:9, the word is used in the sense of bitter disagreement between conflicting opinions expressed by those who try to teach others hence it simply means “bitter disagreement.”
The word “quarrels” in the phrase of Titus 3:9 arguments and quarrels about the law is translated from a Greek word (machē) that is used in the NT only in plural to refer to battles fought without actual weapons so that it is equivalent to what may be described as verbal fights. The word may mean “conflict” as Apostle Paul used the word to describe what he and his missionary teamed faced in 2 Corinthians 7:5:
For when we came into Macedonia, this body of ours had no rest, but we were harassed at every turn—conflicts on the outside, fears within.
The phrase conflicts on the outside refers to quarrels with those outside the church. The word may mean “quarrels” as it is used in James 4:1
What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don’t they come from your desires that battle within you?
Here our Greek word is translated “quarrels” since the word “fights” is from a different Greek word (polemos) that may mean war or strife or fight. In our passage of Titus 3:9, the word is used in the sense of open clashes between two opposing groups of teachers hence it refers to battle that does not involve actual weapons and so the meaning is that of “contention.”
The two Greek words we have considered that are translated “arguments” and “quarrels” have similar meanings that it is possible to take the word “quarrels” as explaining “arguments” but it makes better sense to understand the relationship of the words in the sense that “arguments” will result in quarrels, as we have interpreted. This interpretation is supported by the fact that Apostle Paul conveys that arguments result in quarrels, according to 2 Timothy 2:23:
Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels.
It is true that the Greek word (zētēsis) translated “arguments” in this passage is different from the Greek word (eris) translated “arguments” in Titus 3:9 but the sense of dispute is present in each Greek word. You see, the Greek word translated “arguments” here in 2 Timothy is the same Greek word translated “controversies” in Titus 3:9 of the NIV. Of course, it is the same Greek word that is translated “quarrels” in Titus 3:9 that is used in 2 Timothy 2:23. Thus, there is the sense that controversies may lead to quarrels. That aside, it is our interpretation that the phrase of Titus 3:9 arguments and quarrels about the law is concerned with bitter disagreement that results in quarrels with reference to the law so that the apostle was not concerned with two different matters with respect to the law but one thing, which is bitter disagreement about the law that results in open clashes.
The phrase about the law of Titus 3:9 is translated from a Greek adjective (nomikos) that means “learned in the law” and so refers to a legal expert or lawyer as the word is used to describe a lawyer the apostle referenced later, that is, in Titus 3:13:
Do everything you can to help Zenas the lawyer and Apollos on their way and see that they have everything they need.
In our passage of Titus 3:9, the word means “about law.” Although the apostle did not elaborate on what he meant, it is the Mosaic Law that he must have meant. This is because he had referenced Jewish teachers in the first chapter of the epistle as those that Titus should ensure that their teaching is refuted in Titus 1:10–11:
10 For there are many rebellious people, mere talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision group. 11 They must be silenced, because they are ruining whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain.
Therefore, it makes sense that when he mentioned the law, he had in mind the Mosaic law.
We should be clear regarding what the Holy Spirit through Apostle Paul conveyed to Titus regarding avoidance of controversies about the law. He was not telling him to avoid any teaching regarding the law since the apostle had much to say about the law. For example, he had taught that the death of Christ on the cross has rendered unnecessary the continuation of the Jewish Law in Romans 10:4:
Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.
Of course, when the apostle speaks of ending of the law, he was primarily concerned with the ceremonial and civil laws as applied to Israel. For example, it is not necessary to require Gentile believers to become circumcised as required by the Mosaic Law. Furthermore, believers are not to be governed by the various celebrations required in the Law such as the observance of the Sabbath or special days as the apostle mentioned in Colossians 2:16:
Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.
That the ceremonial aspect of the Mosaic Law should be of no concern for believers at the present time is also implied in the apostle’s teaching in a passage we cited previously, that is, Ephesians 2:15:
by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace,
The point is that the apostle was not instructing Titus and so all pastors to avoid all controversies about the law but to avoid the kind of engagement that will result in open clashes with their opponents. Pastors should be able to defend the correct teaching of the Scripture with respect to the Mosaic Law, but they should do it in such a way that avoids open clashes. This means that they should have an attitude that does not lead to open clashes with the opponents. In effect, they should defend the truth in humility and gentleness, as the Holy Spirit demands of us in 1 Peter 3:15:
But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,
Be that as it may, the Holy Spirit instructed Titus through Apostle Paul to avoid controversies that deal with genealogical debate and disputes about the Law that will result in quarrels because they do not advance him or any pastor spiritually. It is this reason that is given in the last clause of Titus 3:9 because these are unprofitable and useless. The clause indicates that such controversies do not yield any good result in the spiritual life. You see, the word “unprofitable” is translated from a Greek word (anōphelēs) that here means either “unprofitable” or “harmful” while the word “useless” is translated from a Greek word (mataios) that means “fruitless, useless.” Therefore, the point of the apostle is that controversies of the type described do not advance believers spiritually and so should be avoided. Thus, we have considered what is to be avoided, which is controversies that today involve disputes about ancestry and about the law.
11/03/17