Titus: Elders Pt. 1

But today we're going to conclude with the rest of chapter 1.

I hope I get to have a long conversation with the Apostle Paul in heaven. I want to tell him how many nights he has kept me up wondering what he meant in certain passages. and kept me up trying to figure out exactly how to explain certain things as I teach. Of course, maybe it will all be clear at that point. But I would still like to talk to Paul.

You know, Peter himself wrote in 2 Peter 3.16 about the writings of Paul. And so the Apostle Peter, talking about the writings of Paul, says, he says many things that are hard to understand. So let's begin up front by acknowledging with the Apostle Peter, as he says in 2 Peter 3.16, he explicitly says it, Paul writes many things that are hard to understand, and we're going to tackle some this morning. Please be gentle with your teacher. I'm going to try to answer some questions about which you may already have some fixed views.

if I don't answer in the way your view is fixed to at least recognize I have come to the answers I'm going to give you after much thought, prayer, consideration that doesn't necessarily mean I'm right but it means I have weighed the evidence of scripture and so forth and so maybe if your views are fixed and my answer is somewhat different maybe it would at least be worth consideration of the subject again and a re-examination.

Titus. Last week we talked about the recipient, excuse me, the author of the book, the Apostle Paul. Today we turn to the beginning of Titus. Verse 4 is where we're going to begin. where Paul acknowledges and states that the recipient of his letter is a gentleman named Titus.

Read with me in Titus chapter 1 verse 4. Paul writes to Titus, and in my text at the NIV it says, My true son in our common faith. Grace and peace from God the Father in Christ Jesus our Savior. The text literally says Titus is a true son, not my true son, but the word my may well be implied in the text. Many believe that Titus was converted under the preaching and teaching of the apostle Paul.

And that's why Paul refers to him in this letter as a true son. So this is someone Paul was close to and loved.

Paul says in verse 5, The reason I left you in Crete. And by saying I left you in Crete, Paul implies, I think, that he too had been at Crete. And if you remember our teaching last week, we believe that the Apostle Paul was released from his first Roman imprisonment and went on a fourth missionary journey. journey probably included a visit to Crete. So when Paul says, I left you in Crete, it implies that Paul had been in Crete with Titus. And Paul left Titus at Crete to continue the work there.

Why Titus? Why did Paul choose Titus to be a co-worker? Why did Paul leave Titus at Crete? Let me just tell you a little of what we know about Titus from the scriptures. He's one of the more minor figures in the New Testament, but he obviously was a very dependable Christian worker.

Titus, we know from Galatians 2, was an uncircumcised Gentile. So this is not a Jewish Christian, but a Gentile Christian. He was a co-worker of Paul who must have been diplomatic, must have had good people skills, and must have been able to deal with difficult situations. The reason I say that he must have been diplomatic and able to deal with difficult situations is we know if we read the book of 2 Corinthians that Paul wrote a severe letter to the Corinthian church, a copy of which we do not have in our New Testament. But he refers to this severe letter where he was very critical of the church at Corinth.

And guess who he gave to take the letter? He handed the letter to Titus and said, You go talk to him. And Titus went, and he came back to Paul after delivering the letter with a good report that the people of Corinth had repented of their ways. And so we get the sense that Titus was able to present even difficult things to people in a way that won them over. And that may have been a good reason for him to be left in Crete as well.

We also know where we can imply from Scripture that Titus was dependable, honest, and trustworthy. Because we also know from 2 Corinthians was being taken from the Gentile churches to help the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem who were suffering badly, that Titus was put in charge of the collection from the Corinthians. You don't send somebody to take up the money who you don't trust, who you don't believe is honest. So we can imply that Titus was a dependable, honest person. And he was someone who was willing to stand firm even in difficult situations.

And again, I think we can imply that from his dealing with the Corinthian church. He was left, we are told in Titus chapter 1 verse 5, he was left to finish the unfinished work there. I left you in Crete so that you might straighten out what was left unfinished, Paul says, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you. So one of the major tasks Paul wants Titus to complete is the appointment of church leaders called elders, also called overseers, in this passage. And we're going to really focus this morning on the qualifications of these church leaders who are called both elders and overseers.

Let me ask you a question. How many deacons do we have in here?

Okay.

In the text, we're dealing with elders and overseers, but many of these qualifications, if you read 1 Timothy 3, also apply to deacons.

So we will be gentle with you who are deacons as we think about your qualifications to be where you are. But in all seriousness, we're going to focus on the importance of godly leadership in the church. important that Titus get some good leaders because he was on Crete and Crete was a tough place to be if you were a Titus. Here's a picture. Can you see? Is that clear enough?

Where's Crete? Here's Crete right there.

I'm trying to point, it's right here this is the Mediterranean Sea, here's Greece this is Titus, excuse me, it's Crete, this is where Titus is located Crete was an island, it's the fourth largest island in the Mediterranean it's about 160 miles wide, long, 36 miles wide Paul stopped here on the way to Rome when he was being sent there for trial the ship stopped at Fairhaven's on the island of Crete and it may have been when Paul landed there he may have said in his mind if I ever get a chance I'm coming back here to spread the gospel he didn't get to do that the first time he landed there on the way to Rome for his trial but we know that Crete was a tough place to be because of what Epimedes said about the Cretans. Epimedes was a 6th century B.C. Cretan who was a philosopher and prophet. And look at Titus 1, verse 12 and see what he said. Here's what he said.

Even one of their own prophets has said, Paul is now quoting Epimedes, and here's what Epimedes said about the Cretans. Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons. They were not known for being people of character. And Paul, after quoting Epimedes, says that these characteristics of the Cretans are particularly true of a group that is on Crete called the circumcision group. 1.10, there are many rebellious people, mere talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision group.

Let me tell you about this circumcision group. These were a group of false teachers who had infiltrated the Christian church on Crete. And they are causing great problems. The second half of chapter 1 talks about them, but I'm just going to summarize the problem. Those of the, quote, circumcision group were apparently Jewish Christians who were saying that in order to be genuinely saved, you must be circumcised.

And they were teaching that the true Christian life required that one follow all of the Old Testament Jewish ceremonial laws and rituals. If you wanted to be pure, a pure Christian, you had to follow all those dietary rules and all of those restrictions. Paul says that this group is a rebellious group because they will not yield to the true teaching of the apostles that said you don't have to be Jewish in your practices or circumcised to be saved. He said that this circumcision group were a group of deceivers. Because they weren't teaching the truth.

That they were dishonest. Apparently some of them were teaching and using their position to get money for their teaching. They taught for dishonest gain. And Paul says they are detestable and unfit for doing anything good. And Titus, you must silence them.

Because they were teaching people wrongly about a very fundamental issue of the Christian faith. How is one saved?

but I think one reason Paul told Titus to appoint elders is that Paul knew that Titus needed help in combating this group. So he says to him, I want you to complete the task that I left for you, and that first part of that task is to get some godly leaders to help. Appoint some elders. And that's what we're going to turn to and talk about right now.

we're going to talk about the qualifications for elders and overseers but I want to make some preliminary observations first listen carefully to these number one I do not believe that the scriptures teach any particular form of church government we see Paul putting in place certain leadership but I don't think a particular form is taught however the form of government that seems to predominate as you read 1 Timothy and Titus and read other passages in the New Testament seems to be to have a group of elders who are the overseers responsible for the spiritual development in the church and also then a group of deacons who are the servants in the church, who help take care of those who are in need. Secondly, the leadership is always plural. It's not just an overseer or an elder. It's elders and overseers. It seems that the leadership of the church is not assigned to one person only, but to groups, elders, deacons.

elders translates the Greek word presbyteroi, from which we get Presbyterian, and the word translated overseer translates the Greek word episkopoi, from which we get episcopal. But I'm going to submit to you that in the New Testament, the term elders and overseers are synonymous terms. We see that in the passage we're going to look at this morning, and if you go and look chapter 20 you will see what the group a group referred to both as elders and as overseers the same term applied to the same group so elders are those who are appointed leaders whose responsibility is to oversee the church so sometimes they're called elders but also overseers because that That is their function is to oversee. Fourthly, the term elders implies a certain maturity,

both spiritual and physical. So the group of elders, and nobody ever gives us a cutoff, how old must you be to be an elder?

In our bylaws at our church, you've got to be 25 to be a deacon. We've drawn a bright line. elder does seem to imply some physical and spiritual maturity. Fifthly, elders should meet certain standards before they are appointed as elders. With increased responsibility comes increased accountability and these characteristics should be there before somebody becomes a leader. In other words, you don't appoint someone to be an elder in the hopes that they will become what an elder should be.

This is not the place to let people become what they should be. They should be and should have these qualifications before they advance to leadership. It's too important a place to be for this to take the untried, the untested, those who don't meet the qualifications. This means that some people may not qualify. be elders and it takes a little intestinal fortitude sometimes to say no you're not there you're not qualified sixthly we need to remember principles about interpreting scripture listen to me carefully we should let scripture interpret scripture and we should interpret a particular passage in light of the teaching of Scripture as a whole.

And if we have a passage that is unclear, we should interpret it in light of passages that are clear.

And lastly, in interpreting Scripture, we should seek to follow the principle of harmony. In other words, if a passage is capable of two or more interpretations, we should give it the interpretation that is in harmony with other passages of Scripture. You follow me? And there are some passages in Scripture where you could say, well, it could be interpreted this way, it could be interpreted that way. Well, you want to choose the one that harmonizes with other passages of Scripture.

And the last point about interpretation is there are some things that we just aren't absolutely certain about from Scripture.

we are certain about. But there are some passages and some issues where Christians who are dedicated to the authority of Scripture have come to some different conclusions.

And sometimes we just need to recognize it's hard to know absolutely for certain on certain issues. That's just, we see some things through a glass darkly at this point. and obviously I'm preparing you for we're going to deal with one issue that's been the subject of much debate but let's begin first with the overarching requirement for deacons let me just read verses 6 through 9 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. Since an overseer is entrusted with God's work, he must be blameless, not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, and not pursuing dishonest gain. Rather, he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined.

He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message has been taught so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it. The overarching requirement for one who is to be an elder is that he must be blameless.

Every other requirement, the very specific requirements must be understood in light of this overarching requirement that the elder be blameless. This is the chief qualification or the chief requirement. The elder must be blameless. Now what does that mean? It doesn't mean perfect.

If that were the case, no one could be an elder, right? But it does mean this. This is a judicial word. It was used in judicial proceedings. The one who was blameless was the one against whom no indictment or no accusation could be fairly leveled.

In other words, the one who was blameless was somebody who was above reproach.

this person's lifestyle is such that there's just no basis for a bad accusation against that person. His behavior, his conduct are exemplary. So the question we must ask when we're appointing someone as an elder is will this person enhance the witness and reputation of the church Because of his character and conduct. When people outside the church look at the person who is the elder, do they say, yeah, good person, integrity, honest, above reproach? Or when people would see that person, would they say,

who are they kidding?

Do you get the sense? You want somebody who is exemplary in this position. Now, let's hasten to add again, in our form of church government, we don't have what we call, quote, elders, do we? But in a sense, our pastor and our deacons, in our form of church government, serve many of the functions that the elders did here. because the pastor and the deacons oversee the spiritual life of the church.

We can talk about what's the best form of church government, but let's just leave it for our purposes that the deacons and the pastor, I think, basically should have these qualifications.

So, the overarching qualification is blameless, but then there's specific qualifications. And Paul breaks down the qualifications into three areas. he's going to say the elder must have a certain family life.

Before somebody becomes an elder in the church, before he becomes a manager of God's house, you need to look to see how he manages his own house.

Secondly, the elder must have certain personality and character traits. and Paul gives us a list of 11 personality or character traits and we're going to look at those. And thirdly he says the elder must be devoted to sound doctrine. I'm going to go through each of these on your handout. I just want to summarize here.

Does everybody see that Paul when he gets to the specifics breaks the qualifications down into three areas? Family life, personality and character traits and devotion to sound doctrine.

Okay, and we're going to take these one by one and talk about them. First family life.

Paul about. The husband of one wife. And that's all he says. Come on, Paul, I need some more information. What does that mean? I came up with six questions that I think this, six questions we have to ask in terms of who is permitted to be an elder given this qualification.

I think you'll agree with me on at least four of them, my answers to four. But you may disagree with my answers on two because two have been the most troublesome. And if you disagree, that's okay. So long as I would just ask you to go back and rethink it and research it before you spear me. But here are my six questions.

Are bigamist, polygamist permitted to be elders in light of the requirement of a husband of one wife?

Are single men permitted to be elders? It says the husband of one wife. thirdly may married men who have no children serve as elders because it says their children should be believers not wild and disobedient

fourthly are those who have remarried after their spouses died in other words they've had a second spouse because the first spouse died permitted to serve? Fifthly, what about men who have been divorced or divorced and remarried?

And then, what's the last question? Women. Are women permitted to be elders?

Should we just stop and come back next week? Are the questions provocative enough?

I'm going to give you my answers. Are you ready?

Bigamist, polygamist, are they permitted to serve? The answer is no. I think there is no feasible interpretation that would permit someone who has two spouses to serve. So bigamist, polygamist, prohibited. Everybody okay with me on that one?

Single men, are they permitted to serve? The answer is yes. Why do I say that? Remember, we must interpret any particular passage in light of other clear teachings of Scripture.

Paul commends singleness in 1 Corinthians 7 and in fact encourages those who are single to embrace their singleness because it gives them a certain freedom to serve Christ. So the fact that he commends singleness I do not think he would prohibit a single person from being an elder. you must be the husband of one wife. He's saying those who are husbands must be the husband of just one wife. But he's not saying, he's not intending to exclude single people.

Think about it. Jesus would not qualify to be an elder if you excluded single men. Paul, who in all likelihood was single, would not qualify. So sorry, Jesus, not qualified. Sorry, Paul, not qualified.

Come on. would be a very difficult position to maintain. So my answer is, are single men permitted to serve? The answer is yes. Are married men without children permitted to serve?

I think the answer is yes. There is no, some can't have children for physical reasons. I don't think people are prohibited from serving just because they don't have children. have, their children must be of a certain character. He means if you have children, then part of being blameless is that those children will have a certain characteristic. Fourthly, how about those who have remarried after their spouses have died? Are they permitted to serve? I think the answer is yes.

Paul explicitly in 1 Corinthians 7, 39 gives permission for remarriage after a spouse has died.

and there's nothing wrong with that and so I think it would be hard to argue that because someone has remarried after a spouse has died that they would then not be permitted to serve as an elder

now we get to the hard questions five and six I think the first four are relatively straightforward Are men who have been divorced or divorced and remarried permitted to serve?

Here's my answer. It depends.

Write it down. That's my answer. I could be wrong, and I'll see some of you not wanting to write that answer down.

My answer is it depends, and I'm going to tell you what I think it depends. and again we've got to go back to remember that we interpret any particular passage in light of other biblical teachings that we have and try to find an interpretation that harmonizes them. And I know we like bright line tests. Yes, either we want to go either yes or no. Either no you can't if you've ever been divorced you are absolutely branded for life and can never serve as an elder.

Or we just want to go to the complete other extreme and say, yes, we're going to let anybody. We're a forgiving church. We wouldn't dare hold it against someone that they've been divorced. My answer is it depends. It means we've got to do a little analysis.

In some circumstances, Scripture permits divorce. God never wants divorce, ever. But it's permitted at least two clear, I think, two clear situations. It is permitted where the other spouse has been unfaithful maritally, marital unfaithfulness, which apparently has, the Greek word implies sexual immorality, some sort of sexual relationship outside of marriage. It could be homosexual relationship outside of marriage.

it could be a heterosexual relationship outside of your marriage where you've been unfaithful to your spouse, then that spouse is permitted to divorce. The other, that's Matthew 19.9 if you want to reference. The other situation is in the case of willful abandonment or desertion. Paul in 1 Corinthians 7.15 says the believer is not bound. And I think the best interpretation of that one spouse has willfully abandoned and deserted the other, that divorce is permitted.

So where scripture has permitted it, if someone has been divorced where it was not their fault, their spouse committed adultery, left them, and that spouse filed for divorce, even against the wishes of the wrong spouse. and you know in South Carolina someone can get a divorce your spouse can get a divorce from you whether you want it or not one spouse doesn't need quote permission to get a divorce from another under our law so somebody who was not at fault in any way potentially can end up being quote divorced whether they wanted to be or not and I would argue that if that's been the circumstance if someone is divorced because their spouse has been unfaithful or their spouse has just deserted them, then that person who has been wronged is not prohibited for life from being an elder.

Another reason I don't think there's an absolute exclusion is the biblical teaching about forgiveness.

scriptures tell us that when the Lord forgives us our sins are as far as the east is from the west

and God not only forgives people who have lied committed adultery been unfaithful in other words cheated, stolen but he can forgive those who have been wrong that they divorce someone.

Now, I don't think we take that teaching about forgiveness to the extreme that just everybody, even if they are divorced, is qualified to be an elder. The question is, would someone looking at that person say that they are now above reproach? Let me just give you a couple of examples to think about this issue. Here's an example. where I think someone who has been divorced could qualify to be an elder.

A young man at age 17 who is not a Christian gets a girl pregnant.

And he does what he thinks is the right thing in his lost condition at that point. He gets married to her. And as you can imagine, the marriage only lasts about a year and they get divorced. and then by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ that man is radically saved and changed. He finds a godly woman and he marries her and for 20 years he has faithfully lived with her in marriage.

And now the church wants him to be an elder. Can he be? I think the answer is yes because he is now above reproach. He has been saved. He has a character and a quality in his life that shows he is a faithful husband, committed to his wife.

And the sins of his past have been forgiven, and there's been a long enough period of faithfulness where it's demonstrated he is now above reproach.

And I think you have to build in a period of faithfulness. been away from the Lord or has committed great sin should not six months later be an elder. I think there has to be a pattern to show he's now above reproach. But how about a person who has been divorced twice? On both occasions, he was at fault in the divorce.

He was maritably unfaithful. He has remarried for a third time, and it's been three years since he's remarried, and He's been faithful to this spouse, this third spouse, for three years now.

Somebody says, we ought to make him an elder. I would argue no, because he's had two failed marriages at which he was at fault, and we've not had a sufficient period of time to determine if he's now above reproach in order to be an elder.

The question is, you've got to remember the overarching characteristic, the overarching qualification, blamelessness, above reproach. The question is, is that person now above reproach? And this is where it's tough. The reason people want to just say yes or no to the answer, may a divorced person serve, is you don't have to think much. You don't have to analyze what's happened in that person's life.

You don't have to ask questions about the divorce. Whose fault was it? what role did the prospective elder play in the divorce? It's much more difficult when you have to think through these questions.

I'm going to talk about women and then I'm going to quit for today because we won't have time. We'll deal with the rest of the qualifications next time. But let me go ahead, and so you can just spear me all week, I'll go ahead and answer this question. Are women permitted? It says the husband of one wife.

and there are some English translations say if any man is blameless, and probably a better translation is if anyone, because there the Greek word doesn't imply maleness, it just implies being a human being. Are women prohibited from being elders? Or let me ask you positively, are women permitted to be elders? Are women permitted to be elders? Here's my answer.

It's not a yes or no answer, again. My answer is, I think so. I think so. There has been great debate on this issue in evangelical circles, as some of you may know. Some evangelical scholars would answer this question, no.

Some would answer it unqualifiedly, yes. I lean a little more toward the yes side, but I'm saying I think so. But let me tell you why I think so. And it's looking at, I think when Paul says the husband of one wife, he means if someone is a husband, he's got to be a faithful husband. But to say the husband of one wife, just as it doesn't exclude single men, I don't think it excludes women.

Let me give you a couple of reasons. Phoebe. Phoebe? Does everybody remember Phoebe? Romans 16, 1.

She is identified as a diakonos. diakonos, which is the word for deacon. It can mean servant. In 1 Timothy 3, the qualifications for deacons are they must be a husband of one wife. So the same qualifications that we see here in Titus for elders applies to deacon, husband of one wife.

But we see Phoebe, who is a diakonos. Now some have said that word diakonos just means she was a servant in the church. She didn't hold the position of a deacon. and that word diakonos can mean either it can mean she was a deacon or deaconess or she was just a servant but i think the best and scholars have examined that i think the best understanding is that she was a deacon or a deaconess in the church the reason for that is she was the one who took the letter of romans to the church at rome she carried it from paul from the church at syncria where paul wrote it and in all likelihood they gave the letter to someone who was a to carry to the church at Rome. And so when they say Phoebe, a deaconess, a diakonos, they probably mean she's our church representative.

She's the one who holds a leadership position. She's bringing you the letter. Secondly, women served as prophets. In the Old Testament, Deborah was a prophetess. In the New Testament, Paul, in 1 Corinthians 11, 5, has no problem with women being prophetesses.

And women are also identified as apostles. Hunia in Romans 16, 7. She is identified as an apostle within the church. So Paul's permission, and apparently with no problem, of women being prophetesses, even identifying one as an apostle, and of women being a deacon, I would argue he would not exclude women being elders. you must deal with 1 Timothy 2.12 which is the most difficult passage so if you're studying this issue 1 Timothy 2.12 is where you should go which says I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority or usurp authority over a man and there's a big question there was Paul dealing with a particular problem at that church at Ephesus or is he giving some universal rule my answer to the question may women serve as elders I think so. If you're really interested in this topic, you've got to read. Don't just go with your gut instinct. You've got to study. And I'll give you about three books, all of which I have read, and you can begin to study this subject.

And when you finish reading these books, if you disagree with me, then come talk with me. But don't just have a knee-jerk reaction. Just because your mama or your daddy told you it was this way does not necessarily mean that's the way it is. We need to carefully look at Scripture and be careful in the opinions that we come to and the conclusions we draw. Again, I acknowledge I could be wrong.

but if I'm wrong it still comes only after much study and I am devoted to God's word if we can understand clearly from scripture then for me that's the end of the debate because God's word is our authority

deacons and elders will finish with the qualifications next time let me close us in prayer Lord

thank you for letting me teach

help me to teach clearly accurately, correctly

may I in this class view your word as our authority but may we be diligent in searching it putting our preformed notions before it letting the light of your truth expose where we have just gotten opinions formed by the culture or the way we were raised. May we be willing to let our preformed judgments be overridden by the judgment of your word and your truth. I pray, Lord, for the godly leaders we have in our church and I pray that we will be people who support them and I pray that we will be people who desire not only to be godly leaders if we are leaders but to have godly leadership within the church. For it is in Christ's name we pray. Amen