Forbidden Bible Verses — Titus 1:5-9, part 1

The three-year Lectionary that many Catholics and Protestants hear in public worship gives us a great variety of Holy Scripture.

Yet, it doesn’t tell the whole story.

My series Forbidden Bible Verses — ones the Lectionary editors and their clergy omit — examines the passages we do not hear in church. These missing verses are also Essential Bible Verses, ones we should study with care and attention. Often, we find that they carry difficult messages and warnings.

Today’s reading is from the English Standard Version Anglicised (ESVUK) with commentary by Matthew Henry and John MacArthur.

Titus 1:5-9

Qualifications for Elders

⁵ This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you— ⁶ if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife,^[a] and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. ⁷ For an overseer,^[b] as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, ⁸ but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. ⁹ He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound^[c] doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.

————————————————————————————————————————–

Last week’s post discussed Paul’s greeting to his evangelist Titus, which was meant in part for the people of Crete to understand that Titus ministered to them under authority of the Apostle. That post also gave more information about Titus himself.

Today’s entry will cover verses 5 and 6.

The churches in Crete were in some disorder, so Paul writes to Titus — but especially to the Cretans — that the evangelist’s mission was to put those congregations into order and appoint elders in every town as the Apostle directed (verse 5). Paul expected that Titus would show this letter to establish his credentials in order to straighten out the churches. Some of the converts were affected by Judaizers and others by worldly living.

John MacArthur puts Crete into context for us as Paul and Titus would have experienced the island (emphases mine):

Now dear Titus, this wonderful son in the faith to Paul, of whom we have learned so much in the first four verses, has been left on this large island in the eastern Mediterranean.  In fact, Crete really sits kind of in the center of a triangle of Europe, Asia, and Africa.  It is in the eastern Mediterranean, southeast a little bit of the Greek mainland.  Crete is 160 miles long and anywhere from 7 to 35 miles wide, highly civilized, right there, of course, in the middle of the world, as it were. It has always been civilized, and for centuries prior to the writing of Paul civilization was there.  Of late the civilization had become very corrupt …

The first time we see anything about Crete is at Pentecost.  On the day of Pentecost, you remember of course, the Spirit of God came and the church was begun, but the feast of Pentecost was celebrated annually by Jews from all over the world.  And according to Acts 2:11 there were Jews there from Crete.  So we know there was a population of Jews living in Crete, worshiping the true God who came to Pentecost. And some of them may have been converted to Christ that day because you’ll remember that when the 120 received the ability to speak in languages, they spoke in a myriad of languages – one of those languages was the language of Crete. And so the Cretans heard it in their own language, the wonderful works of God, and then heard the preaching of the gospel by Peter that may well have been where the seed of the church was originally planted.

Also going kind of to the opposite end of the book of Acts, in Acts 27 when Paul was on his ship traveling to Rome, he stopped at Crete, part of the journey there. And if you read Acts 27 you will note that.  It may well have been that in Paul’s brief stop in Crete he had influence for the gospel of Jesus Christ as well.

The church by the time this letter is written had extended throughout the whole island.  That’s obvious because he is to appoint elders in every city.  That’s a fairly comprehensive statement.  The church must have found its way all over that island, and there was the responsibility now to organize the church and give it some leadership.  We don’t know who founded the church, it’s speculative.  As I say, it could have been someone from Pentecost.  Paul could have an influence passing by, but someone other than Paul, no doubt, founded it, or Paul would have long ago have taken care of these basic things of setting it in order and ordaining the elders, as his custom was everywhere else that he went.  He had been there some time, but that perhaps was not a founding time.

Now just prior to the writing of Titus he went there.  We know that.  This would be other than the time he was traveling to Rome in Acts 27.  Sometime after the end of the book of Acts, after his first imprisonment with which the book of Acts ends, after that Paul went there, met Titus. Look at verse 5, he says, “I left you in Crete,” which means they had been there together and Paul did some work there among the churches and left Titus in Crete.  Now Acts says nothing, as I said, about Paul being there, except that mention in Acts 27 where he went by on a ship.  So we would assume that this is after the book of Acts is over. Paul goes there with Titus, and between his first and second imprisonment does a basic work there – can’t stay; he’s got other things to do.  He’s promised to go and see, you remember, Philemon, as he noted in verse 22 of that epistle. He also wrote to the Philippians in chapter 1, verse 25 and 26, about coming there.  There were other things he needed to do.

Now how long Paul and Titus were there we don’t know.  But just circulating over the island would be difficult.  Homer, this is interesting, Homer called Crete “the island of one hundred cities,” “the island of a hundred cities.”  So if there was a church in every city, or a church in most of the cities, you can imagine what a tremendous job it was to cover them all.  They may have been there for some time.  It sounds as though the church was wide-spread through the island of Crete.  I read one history book a couple of weeks ago [1992] that said even to this day over ninety percent of the occupants of the island of Crete still claim to be Christians … the effect of this has lingered even though there were years and years of Muslim influence.

Paul had to leave then and go to other ministries, so he left Titus.  You remember Titus was a man of like passion with Paul, according to 2 Corinthians 8. He was a trusted partner and a fellow worker.  He was a skilled and able leader and peacemaker as he had proven in ministering to the Corinthian church, of which he brought to his knees, as it indicates in 2 Corinthians 7:6 and 7.  So Paul left this very able, capable man there.  For what reason? – back to verse 5 – “That you might set in order what remains.” That’s the first reason.  The second reason, “To appoint elders in every city as I directed you.”

Now just very briefly to say this, “that you might set in order what remains.”  “Set in order” is kind of an interesting Greek word, epidiortho.  The first two, epi and dio, are prepositions.  The word ortho is the word from which we get orthodontics, orthopedics, orthodics – and all of those mean “straightening.”  When you go to the orthodontist, he straightens your teeth.  When you go to the orthopedist, he straightens your bones.  That’s what that means.  And so what he is saying, intensified by two prepositions, is “thoroughly and completely and fully straighten out what still isn’t straight.”  In ancient times that word was used by secular medical writers for the setting of bones or the straightening of bent limbs.  So he says “I want you to completely set things straight.”

Obviously Paul had begun some process.  We don’t know what the process was, but the process of getting the church right, maybe dealing with some sin, maybe dealing with some leaders that were not godly. Maybe it was a matter of dealing with some theological things that weren’t in place, or maybe they hadn’t yet formulated – obviously – leadership, because they didn’t have elders. And so they didn’t know who was in charge and things were a bit chaotic.

“Whatever remains” – we don’t know what that means; it could be correction, but it could be construction.  It could be repairing something, but it could be building something new.  He’s just saying “get the church together; get the church organized the way it ought to be, around the truth with proper spiritual leadership and response among the people.”  This, of course, would be very challenging.  Down in verse 10 it says “there are many rebellious men, there are empty talkers, there are deceivers, especially those of the circumcision.”  By the way, that does indicate to us that the church was probably around for quite a while, long enough for the Jewish Judaizers to come in and try to sell the gospel of circumcision, long enough for false teachers to have arisen … So they were dealing with people here – not just organizing the church, but dealing with error, dealing with Judaism imposing itself on the church, dealing with some kind of Gentile heresies, dealing with sinful people.

Matthew Henry’s commentary explains the difference between Paul, an Apostle, and Titus, an evangelist:

This was the business of evangelists (in which office Titus was), to water where the apostles had planted (1 Cor 3 6), furthering and finishing what they had begun; so much epidiorthoun imports, to order after another. Titus was to go on in settling what the apostle himself had not time for, in his short stay there. Observe, 1. The apostle’s great diligence in the gospel; when he had set things on foot in one place, he hastened away to another … And, 2. His faithfulness and prudence. He neglected not the places that he went from; but left some to cultivate the young plantation, and carry on what was begun. 3. His humility; he disdained not to be helped in his work, and that by such as were not of so high a rank in the ministry, nor of so great gifts and furniture, as himself; so that the gospel might be furthered and the good of souls promoted, he willingly used the hands of others in it: a fit example for exciting zeal and industry, and engaging to faithfulness and care of the flock, and present or absent, living and dying, for ministers, as much as in them lies, to provide for the spiritual edification and comfort of their people. We may here also observe, 4. That Titus, though inferior to an apostle, was yet above the ordinary fixed pastors or bishops, who were to tend particular churches as their peculiar stated charge; but Titus was in a higher sphere, to ordain such ordinary pastors where wanting, and settle things in their first state and form, and then to pass to other places for like service as there might be need … Others had power habitual, and in actu primo, to minister any where, upon call and opportunity; but evangelists, such as Titus was, had power in actu secundo et exercito, and could exercise their ministry wherever they came, and claim maintenance of the churches. They were every where actually in their diocese or province, and had a right to direct and preside among the ordinary pastors and ministers. Where an apostle could act as an apostle an evangelist could act as an evangelist; for they worked the work of the Lord as they did (1 Cor 16 10), in a like unfixed and itinerant manner. Here at Crete Titus was but occasionally, and for a short time; Paul willed him to despatch the business he was left for, and come to him at Nicopolis, where he purposed to winter; after this he was sent to Corinth, was with the apostle at Rome, and was sent thence into Dalmatia, which is the last we read of him in scripture, so that from scripture no fixed episcopacy in him does appear; he left Crete, and we find not that he returned thither any more … And observe, No easy thing is it to raise churches, and bring them to perfection. Paul had himself been here labouring, and yet were there things wanting; materials are out of square, need much hewing and fitting, to bring them into right form, and, when they are set therein, to hold and keep them so. The best are apt to decay and to go out of order. Ministers are to help against this, to get what is amiss rectified, and what is wanting supplied. This in general was Titus’s work in Crete …

Henry explains the role of elders, or presbyters:

To ordain elders in every city, that is, ministers, who were mostly out of the elder and most understanding and experienced Christians; or, if younger in years, yet such as were grave and solid in their deportment and manners. These were to be set where there was any fit number of Christians, as in larger towns and cities was usually the case; though villages, too, might have them where there were Christians enough for it. These presbyters or elders were to have the ordinary and stated care and charge of the churches; to feed and govern them, and perform all pastoral work and duty in and towards them. The word is used sometimes more largely for any who bear ecclesiastical function in the church, and so the apostles were presbyters or elders (1 Pet 5 1); but here it is meant of ordinary fixed pastors, who laboured in the word and doctrine, and were over the churches in the Lord; such as are described here throughout the chapter. This word presbyter some use in the same sense as sacerdos, and translate it priest, a term not given to gospel ministers, unless in a figurative or allusive way, as all God’s people are said to be made kings and priests unto God (hiereis, not presbyterous), to offer up spiritual sacrifices of prayers, praises, and alms. But properly we have no priest under the gospel, except Christ alone, the high priest of our profession (Heb 3 1), who offered up himself a sacrifice to God for us, and ever lives, in virtue thereof, to make intercession in our behalf. Presbyters here therefore are not proper priests, to offer sacrifices, either typical or real; but only gospel ministers, to dispense Christ’s ordinances, and to feed the church of God, over which the Holy Ghost has made them overseers. Observe, 1. A church without a fixed and standing ministry in it is imperfect and wanting. 2. Where a fit number of believers is, presbyters or elders must be set; their continuance in churches is as necessary as their first appointment, for perfecting the saints, and edifying the body of Christ, till all come to a perfect man in Christ, till the whole number of God’s chosen be called and united to Christ in one body, and brought to their full stature and strength, and that measure of grace that is proper and designed for them, Eph 4 12, 13 … Ignorance and corruption, decays of good and increase of all evil, come by want of a teaching and quickening ministry. On such accounts therefore was Titus left in Crete, to set in order the things that were wanting, and to ordain elders in every city; but this he was to do, not ad libitum, or according to his own will or fancy, but according to apostolic direction.

MacArthur raises a point that picks up from Henry’s sentence about apostolic direction:

So what Titus was to do was to get in line with the mind of the Spirit.  The Holy Spirit had a plan.  He’s the one who calls, and He’s the one who ordains, and He’s the one who gifts, and He’s the one who sets apart.  But the apostles – and in this case, the delegated envoy of the apostles, Titus – were responsible for knowing the mind of the Spirit in carrying that work out in the church. 

MacArthur also has this about the role of elders in that Church era:

“Elder,” presbuteros, simply means “an older man.” It’s just the Greek word for older men – “put older men in leadership.”  But it came to mean more than just a generic older man. It came to be the official office of the one who was the pastor or the overseer.  Here it speaks of ordaining elders.  In 1 Timothy 3, where the same qualifications are closely to it are given, they’re called “overseers.”  Several times they’re called “pastors” – Acts 20 and 1 Peter, chapter 5.  Whether they are pastors, overseers, bishops, elders, they are all the same.  It’s the spiritual leaders of the church.  And the New Testament says they are to be highly regarded, and they are to be given high responsibility. They have responsibility to feed and lead the flock, and they are to be honored, lifted up, appreciated, obeyed, and followed for their leadership. 

I wrote at length about Paul’s stipulations for an elder in 1 Timothy 3:

1 Timothy 3:1-7 – qualifications for overseer, bishop

Paul gives Timothy the qualifications for an overseer, or bishop — lead pastor, as we would know it:

• • Forbidden Bible Verses — 1 Timothy 3:1-7 — part 1
  • Forbidden Bible Verses — 1 Timothy 3:1-7 — part 2
  • Forbidden Bible Verses — 1 Timothy 3:1-7 — part 3

As such, I will not spend too much time again on those characteristics, but will add additional notes from our commentators.

Paul tells Titus that the elder must be above reproach, the husband of one wife with children who are believers; the candidate for elder must not be open to a charge of debauchery or insubordination (verse 6).

MacArthur looks at ‘above reproach’, which could also be translated as ‘blameless’:

Namely, “If any man be above reproach.”  This is a general qualification.  This is the first sort of overarching statement to which all the others somehow relate.  Saying “above reproach” and then defining it throughout verse 6, 7, 8, and 9.  What does it mean to be “above reproach?”  Well in the specific sense it means to be “a one-woman man, having children who believe, not accused of,” so forth and so forth, all the way down through verse 9.  But let’s just look at that general category of being “above reproach.”

Any man who is going to be an elder, a pastor, an overseer in the church, called to the “noble work,” as Paul calls it in 1 Timothy 3:1, must be a noble person.  He must be a noble person.  In 1 Timothy 3, where you have the parallel qualifications for leadership, verse 2, it says, “An overseer, then must be above reproach”; dei, “it is absolutely necessary,” it is not something about which you can equivocate or debate. He is to be “above reproach”; so says 1 Timothy 3:2; so says Titus 1:6.

Now look at the term “above reproach” in Titus 1:6.  It’s an interesting Greek word, anegkltos.  I mention the word for those of you who will be interested in that. It means “to be without fault, unchargeable, without indictment, without accusation.”  The verb in the middle, or the end of the word, is kale, “to call.”  It has an alpha privative, which negates the word so that simply it has the idea of “not being called,” that is to say, not being called before the court, not being called before the tribunal, not being called into question, not being called to account for what you’ve done, not being called to indictment – that’s the idea.  It is used also of deacons, by the way – the same word – in 1 Timothy 3:10.

In other words, there’s no charge that can be affixed against this person.  He is unchargeable.  There is no indictment against him.  There is no fault for which he has been confronted.  First Timothy 3:2 uses the same English term, “above reproach,” but it uses a different Greek word.  In 1 Timothy 3:2 the word is anepilmptos. It means “not able to be held.”  What does that mean? – “not able to be made a prisoner, not able to be taken captive, not able to be laid hold of,” as if you were taking a prisoner.  Here was a man who cannot be indicted and who cannot be held for his sin – is a man who has no mark, no vice, no sinful defect in his life that calls his virtue, his godliness, his righteousness into question.  There is no one asking and successfully bringing against him a charge. There is nothing in his life present.  There is nothing in his life past that would disqualify him from being a model of spiritual character for all to follow; there’s no indictment against his life. There’s nothing for which he can be laid hold of, and taken, as it were, prisoner.  He is a man who is without accusation.  One writer says, “Not one about whose past or present accusations are being circulated among the people.”

In the ears of all here is a faultless, exemplary man whose life is a model for spiritual conduct.  He has to be a model because that’s what shepherding is …

This kind of man can be a pastor.  The man whose life is the model, whose life is the pattern, whose life is without indictment, without accusation, without guilt …

It would seem to me that any man who would purport to speak for God from a pulpit would have to have come out of the presence of God, would he not?  And it would seem to me, then, that if a man is going to speak for God out of the presence of God, he would therefore have to be the kind of man God would accept into His communion.  And what kind does God accept?  Those who walk with tamim.  They’re above reproach; they’re blameless. And he shows it both outwardly and inwardly.  Outwardly they work righteousness, and inwardly they speak truth in their hearts.  Outwardly righteousness is the pattern of their life, and inwardly there is no hypocrisy.

This goes back to King David in the Old Testament:

David said, “I don’t want anybody ministering to me, anybody serving me, who doesn’t walk in a blameless way.”  I think that’s fair.  I think every congregation should rise up and say the same thing.  I think you have to say that if you have for yourself done what David did, and that is to set the highest standard.  If you say this is the way I want to live and so I want someone who can show me how to live that way.

It is also worth noting that an elder, pastor or overseer spoke the Lord’s name the most often, therefore, he had to be pure of heart:

In the New Testament, another scripture that relates, is … 2 Timothy 2:19 and following ...  In 2:19, at the end of the verse, it says, “Let everyone who names the name of the Lord abstain from wickedness.”  Nobody names the name of the Lord more than a preacher, pastor. 

Keeping all of this in mind, MacArthur warns against leniency in evaluating candidates for leaders in today’s churches:

I would hope that as a church you wouldn’t let a man be a Sunday school teacher or an usher or a children’s worker or an adult worker or a deacon or a discipler – you wouldn’t let a man or a woman minister who had some sinful blight on their life.  I imagine you wouldn’t.  If someone came into the Sunday school department and said, “I want to teach children. I want to work with young people.  Maybe I want to teach in junior high.  I’ve ministered to junior high.”  “Well, tell me about yourself.”  “Well, I’ve just been through an adulterous situation but I’m okay.”  I don’t think many churches would even touch a person like that.  Somebody who bears that kind of reproach, somebody who was justifiably blamed for some kind of transgression, accused of some kind of wickedness, blameworthy and failed to live pleasing to the Lord – if we wouldn’t do it at those levels, why is it that we would want to do it at the level of the pastor?  Again, it’s back to that idea that personality and fame and popularity and giftedness somehow seem to us a more important qualification than virtue and godliness and holiness. And that’s why we have the kind of church we have in many cases.

MacArthur explains the importance of the marital situation, ‘the husband of one wife’ or, in some translations, ‘a one-woman man’:

… “a one-woman man.”  That’s literally what the Greek text says.  “The husband of one wife,” which probably says in most Bibles could give you the idea that he’s talking about polygamy; you can’t be a polygamist man.  Obviously that was forbidden, but that was forbidden for everybody, that’s not anything special.  That was a given.  Some people think it means that, well, “the husband of one wife,” so if he was widowed and he remarried he’d be disqualified.  No – because even in Romans 7 the Lord is very clear that if your partner dies you’re completely free. You’re no longer bound by that union. You’re free from that ...

Some people think it means – well, no, he has to be the husband of one wife, therefore he can’t be single.  The emphatic inclusion of the word “one” argues against that.  If he wanted to talk about being married as opposed to being single he could have said they have to be married, or they have to be the husband of a wife.  But “a one-woman man” is explicit here.  It’s explicit.  He isn’t saying it can’t be single people, it can’t be remarried widowers.  He isn’t talking about polygamy.

You say, “Well, is he saying anything here about divorce?”  Well, I think something about divorce was said just if a man be “above reproach.”  If he has no blight on his life, no stain, no taint.  But I think we have to in all fairness look at this “one-woman man” phrase and see some implications there with regard to the issue of divorce, though it isn’t explicit.  I believe it could be part of what the Holy Spirit is saying here.  Let me tell you what I mean.  In the first century, divorce was rampant among Jews and Gentiles; it was common; it was easy to acquire.  The Lord hates it; He’s always hated it.  He does recognize there are times when divorce occurs and a partner is not sinning.  For example, if you have a partner who is continuing in unrepentant adultery, then there is no way you can resolve that – divorce is legitimized and you’re free to remarry, according to Matthew 5, Matthew 19.  If you have a partner who is an unbeliever who departs, 1 Corinthians 7:15, you’re not under bondage.  In the case of unrepentant and continual adultery or the leaving of an unsaved partner, there is a severing of the union and a freedom for remarriage.  I think that’s discussed in 1 Corinthians 7 very clearly … 

And it is possible to conclude, and I think fairly, that an elder was to be chosen from men who were known as one-woman men, who even before their salvation had not been divorced, so that their lives were the proper model of God’s marital ideal, because that’s, after all, what leadership was all about. There would be then no opportunity for prior wives, or prior children to compromise, confuse, or attack the credibility of the highest office in the church and to destroy the reputation of the man by saying things about him.  I would think that if the Lord was going to set up the model of virtue in the church in the elder, it would be “a one-woman man,” and that is to say he would be known in the community far and wide, both in the church and out of the church, as a man who had a wife, was devoted to her, and that was his reputation and nothing more.

… The intent of this is a man who is a model of God’s design – one man, one woman together for life – he’s the model of that.

On this note, MacArthur explains why adultery is so harmful. A sin such as theft can be compensated, but there is no compensation for damaging human relationships:

You say, “… What happens if a man is doing pretty good and – but he’s got some sin, he falls into sin like all these people today?  Can they come back?  Can’t they be restored if they have shattered that?  Isn’t there hope for restoration?”  Go with me to Proverbs chapter 6 – very important, very important …  Proverbs 6, verse 27 – this context is talking about adultery, a man getting involved with an adulteress, and again we see questions – verse 27, 28, “Can a man take fire in his bosom and his clothes not be burned?  Or can a man walk on hot coals and his feet not be scorched?”  Stop there.

What the writer is saying is this: “Do you think you can engage yourself in sexual sin and not be scarred?  Do you think you can involve yourself in adultery and not have painful consequences?  Painful?”  You can’t, you can’t take fire into your bosom and not burn your clothes. You can’t walk on hot coals and not scorch your feet.  If you get involved in adultery the consequences are severe.  Verse 29, “So is the one who goes in to his neighbor’s wife” – “neighbor” simply means any other than his own, somebody that he knows or is available to him – “so is the one who goes in to his neighbor’s” – What do you mean?  If you do, if you go to your neighbor’s wife, commit adultery, you’re taking fire into your bosom and you’re walking on hot coals. Verse 29, “Whoever touches her will not go unpunished,” or “will not be innocent.”  You do that, you’re not going to go unpunished; you’re not going to be innocent.

Verse 30, he compares it to thievery, “Men do not despise a thief if he steals, to satisfy himself when he’s hungry.”  We understand that.  “But when he’s found, he must repay sevenfold, he must give all the substance of his house.”  He says, “Look, take a look at a thief. We understand why a thief steals if he’s hungry. We understand that.”  And there’s a way for him to undo that.  He can, he can compensate.  He can make amends.  He can make it right.  He can pay it back sevenfold.  He can undo what he did.  And so it doesn’t last that long; he can fix it.  Verse 32, “The one who commits adultery with a woman is lacking sense.”  Why?  Because it’s not like a thief; it’s not like stealing.  He who would destroy himself does that.  You can’t come back; you can’t fix it.  You can’t repair it; you can’t undo it.  Verse 33, “Wounds and disgrace he will find, and his reproach will not be blotted out.”  It never goes away – never.  It is not blotted out.  You took fire into your bosom, you’re burned.  You walked on the hot coals, you’re scorched.  You can’t fix it.  You can’t make it right.  It just stays for good.

The word “reproach” in verse 33, cherpah – “disgrace, contempt, shame” are synonyms.  The thief can pay it back.  He can offer compensation.  The adulterer is lacking sense because he will destroy himself, because this “reproach” will bring him wounds and disgrace; he will never be able to blot out.

… Look at verses 34 and 35.  “For jealousy enrages a man and he will not spare in the day of vengeance.”  You know what that means?  There’s a husband somewhere, folks. There’s a husband or a father, and his vengeance is going to come after you.  And you might want to cover it up, but he’s not going to let you.  Verse 35, “He’ll not accept any ransom nor will he be contempt though you give him many gifts.”  You can’t buy him off, you can’t make it right. 

We cannot use David or Solomon as legitimate exceptions, because they were kings — not spiritual leaders:

People always say, “Oh but what about David?  But what about David?  David was a man after God’s own heart and David certainly sinned.”  First Kings – let me just read you this – 1 Kings, chapter 15, verse 5, “David did what was right in the sight of the Lord, had not turned aside from anything that He commanded him all the days of his life, except in the case of Uriah the Hittite.”  That’s when he committed sexual sin with Bathsheba, Uriah’s wife.  David, he said, did what was right and he didn’t turn aside from anything all through his life except that.  In Nehemiah chapter 13, speaking of Solomon, David’s son – who by the way followed the lead of his father in that area – “Did not Solomon, king of Israel, sin regarding these things?  Yet among the many nations there was no king like him, he was loved by his God and God made him king over all Israel; except the foreign women caused him to sin.”  There was an “except” in David’s life; there was an “except” in Solomon’s life.  You say, “But, but weren’t they kings?”  Yes, they were kings but they could never be pastors – never.  And God put it down, chronicled it, 1 Kings 15:5, Nehemiah 13:26; they lived a life that honored God “except” – “except.”

Therefore, MacArthur says, there should be no return to the pulpit for a pastor who has committed adultery. The most a congregation can do is to welcome him back to worship in the pews once he has repented:

Adultery, any kind of sexual sin, is a permanent reproach, making a man disqualified. And we may love that man and we may restore that man to fellowship. God may find a place for him to be useful, somehow some way, but to lift him up to a pulpit is to fly in the face of the clear instruction of Scripture and to set a standard for spiritual leadership that lowers the expected level of commitment of the congregation and thus ignores God’s own will.

MacArthur comes to the importance of a church leader to raise a godly family:

If you want to know whether a man lives an exemplary life, if you want to know whether he can lead someone to faith in Christ by the power of his own virtue, if you want to know whether he can teach the truth, if you want to know whether he can model it, whether he is consistent, whether he can lead people to salvation, lead them to holiness, lead them to serve God, then look at the most intimate relationships in his life and see if he can do it there. See if he has integrity there. See if the credibility is there. Does a man have integrity and virtue? Does a man have true godliness and righteousness in all his ways? Are the principles that he wants to teach lived out in the most intimate way in his own life? Is he able to lead someone to Christ by the power of his testimony and consistency? Is he trustworthy? Is he godly? Is he virtuous?

You want to know the answer to that? Look at his family, and you will find the people who know him best – who know him most intimately, who see him most closely, who understand every part of him. If you want to find the answer to what kind of man he is, ask the people who know him best.

There are many fathers who work hard. And some fathers who manage their households well, keep everything controlled, but do not lead their children to Christ and do not lead their children to godliness and do not lead their children to serving the Lord. The men who do are candidates for being pastor or elder. That’s what he’s saying here. Since spiritual leadership is a kind of parenting where you don’t just talk it, you live it, and where you must be able to lead people by your life as well as your precepts to certain level of understanding of the truth which leads to salvation and holiness and service, you need to look at some proving ground where you can see that happening, and Paul’s simply saying here the proving ground is in the home – it’s in the home.

Now this is, this is a somewhat provocative concept, I understand. And you may be having all kinds of thoughts, not all of which I’ll attempt to answer any more than this text does. But the simple statement here is the man who is to be considered for leadership in the church is a man who has proven his spiritual leadership in the most intimate place – that’s his own family.

For a single man, or a childless married man, other areas of life would have to be explored for purity and godliness:

… where you don’t have marriage, or you don’t have children, you have to find other experiences than those in the home to ascertain the man’s spiritual leadership. And if indeed he has been faithful as a spiritual leader in other arenas that will be available to assess.

Returning to a married man with children, MacArthur says a church leader must demonstrate that his family life runs smoothly:

We are wanting to emphasize the positive impact of his Christianity, but there’s also the point that he must “have children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion,” because they would become a reproach on him …

… if he has “children who believe,” who are not involved in dissipation and rebellion, they will never bring scandal upon his good name and the integrity of his spiritual leadership. When a man stands in a pulpit and says, “This is how to live, this is how to conduct yourself, this is God’s high standard, this is what God expects of you, this is how you’re to raise your children, this is how you pass godliness from one generation to the next,” and you look at his life and you say, “Wait a minute, you’ve got wild and uncontrolled children who live in rebellion and reject the gospel, why are you the guy who is telling us how to do this?” You can see it brings reproach upon his life. It questions the integrity of his message. It sucks the credibility out of it and thus the impact …

Paul is saying “you want to make sure you select men who have a good reputation,” as he says elsewhere, “outside the church as well as inside the church, who will never be discredited by some unbelieving, wayward child, one who claims to believe but is unruly and sinful.” That kind of child would be a reproach, shattering the model of godly virtue that he is to hold up before the people on the inside of the church and the outside of the church.

So the standard is both positive. He is to reflect the power of godly living, and he is also to be protected from embarrassing scandal by wayward children. Both are essential perspectives for his candidacy to be an elder …

Salvation comes to people through the faithful witness and godly example of other believers. All through Scripture we are continually taught that a godly life leads people to salvation. Election is the issue with God and the issue by which we give Him glory, but it is not the consideration to be in our minds in the process of spiritual living and witness. All through Scripture we are taught that a godly life leads people to salvation …

You can’t just … go off on the concept of election and say, “Well, if they’re elect they’ll get saved; if they’re not elect they won’t get saved.” The fact of the matter is, God saves people through the means of godliness in the lives of others. And if I in my home am committed to living a godly life and a virtuous life and the proclaiming, saving gospel truth that is lived out in integrity, there is every reason to believe God in His grace will use that to redeem my children. It may not always happen, but for a man who stands in the pulpit to be the model and who will not be scandalized by some activity on the part of his children, it is necessary. And God in His grace makes it possible.

In some translations, ‘children are believers’ appears as ‘faithful children’. MacArthur says:

To take the word “faithful,” pull it out of the believing context, isolate it as if it only meant “submissive to the father’s leadership,” without “believing what the father taught,” would be to distort the word.  If you look at the Scripture, every scripture in the New Testament I looked at – I got them all where the word is used – it always refers to believers, unless it’s referring to an inanimate object, or God, or Christ.  For example, the “faithful servant” of Matthew 24 and Luke 12 is a believer.  The “good and faithful servant” of Matthew 25 and Luke 19 is a believer.  The “faithful person” of Luke 16 is a believer.  The “faithful mother” of Timothy, Acts 16:1, is a believer.  The “faithful stewards” of 1 Corinthians 4 are believers.  The “faithful Timothy” of 1 Corinthians 4:17 is a believer.  The “faithful ministers” of Colossians 1:7 and 4:7 are believers.  The “faithful Onesimus” of Colossians 4:9 is a believer.  The “faithful Moses” of Hebrews 3:5 was a believer.  The “faithful Silvanus” was a believer, 1 Peter 5:12.  And the “faithful martyrs,” including “Antipas,” of Revelation 2 were believers.  Always they’re called “faithful” because they are believers.  It is never used in the New Testament of somebody who is not a believer.  So the word then describes both active and passive sides.

So what is Paul saying?  He’s saying not only is this man “to have children who believe,” but children who also are – What? – “faithful to what they believe.” That’s what’s implied in the rest of the statement, “not accused of dissipation or rebellion” – they believe it and they live it; they believe it and they live it.

MacArthur says it is a given that the man’s wife will also be a Christian:

… if you are in that kind of marriage where there’s a believer and an unbeliever, there is not in existence the kind of harmony that can create the spiritual power and energy of a godly family. It isn’t there …

And so, we assume that the wife was a believer, to which the man was totally devoted in faithfulness, and the children also followed along in the faith.

MacArthur concludes with an eye to the present day:

Thus does the apostle arm Titus with both a moral qualification for leadership and a leadership qualification. They are absolutely foundational to the ministry. And where they don’t exist, the church will remain at a low level because the pattern isn’t there to lift the church. We need to pray for our leaders, pray for all of us, all those who lead the church – any place, any time – that they might be these kind of men who know this kind of grace, that the Lord’s church may be what would please Him most.

Tomorrow’s post will address verses 7 through 9.