Faithful Teachers

We just finished 1 Corinthians, as you all know, and we are now starting a new short book called Titus.

We will wrap this up probably in two or three weeks.

And the reason why we're taking a short hiatus with this book before we go into a longer Old Testament book

is because it teaches us helpful things that we think we need to address at this point of our church's life.

So, for example, it talks about church leaders in the first chapter.

Even though it mentions elders, which I'm talking about today, it doesn't mention deacons,

but I'm going to do another message, more topical message on deacons as well.

Next week, Titus 2 addresses various ministries of the church,

how our good works should accord with the sound doctrine that we have.

And in that passage, it also speaks of women's ministry as well, and we'll be launching that as well.

So that's where I went for that.

So that's why we're here.

Titus was written around 60, in the 60s AD by Paul, and he wrote it to Titus,

but with the intention to be read by the whole church in Crete, because Titus was ministering there.

He was facing a lot of opposition from false teachers in Crete.

And so Paul teaches through this letter that Christians should be characterized by good works

that accord with sound doctrine.

That's really the main point of this whole book, that Christians' lives should be characterized

by good works that accord with sound doctrine.

And the first chapter, like I said, is about church leaders.

The second and third chapter is about good works that accord with sound doctrine.

And let's dive into Titus 1.

In this first chapter, the main point is really that the elders of the church must be above reproach

so that they can teach sound doctrine and promote sound faith.

That's the main point of this first chapter.

The elders of the church must be above reproach so that they can teach sound doctrine and promote sound faith.

And we see three different profiles here in this chapter.

First is the profile of Paul and Titus in verses 1 to 4.

And then we see the profile of the elders, the qualifications for elders in verses 5 to 9.

And then third, we find the profile of the false teachers that are wreaking havoc in the church in Crete,

verses 10 to 16.

In verses 1 to 4, that's Paul's opening greeting where he introduces himself and Titus.

And first, Paul talks about who he is.

He says,

Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Christ Jesus.

And then second, he describes why he was called to be a servant and apostle.

He says,

For the sake of the faith of God's elect and their knowledge of the truth.

And then third, he describes what he does toward that end.

He says,

The preaching with which I have been entrusted by the command of God and Savior.

So we see who he is first.

That's what he addresses.

The word servant literally means slave.

Slave.

Obviously, that's not a complementary word.

It's not a complementary word in our context.

It wasn't a complementary word in their context as well either.

Yet Christians enthusiastically embraced that term, just as they embraced the word humility,

which was thought to be only to be associated with the lowly and the servants.

And that's because they believe that everyone is a slave in one sense or another.

They're either a slave to sin or a slave to righteousness, slave to God.

And then those who have come to faith in Jesus have been liberated from their slavery to sin.

And so now they are slaves of God.

And so that's what the reality that Paul's speaking of here that addresses in Romans 6.

He also describes himself as an apostle of Jesus Christ,

meaning that he is an authorized messenger of Jesus Christ,

someone who was sent out by Christ himself to bear witness to his saving message.

That's who Paul is.

And then he explains why he was called to be a servant of God and apostle of Christ Jesus.

Look with me at the end of verse 1 and down to verse 3.

For the sake of the faith of God's elect and their knowledge of the truth,

which accords with godliness in the hope of eternal life,

which God, who never lies, promised before the ages began.

So this is Paul's purpose in ministry, right?

His purpose in ministry is to bring God's chosen people, the elect, to faith.

And this faith is not merely subjective, right?

But it's rooted in the objective truth content that he tells us,

the knowledge of the truth, right?

So it's not some anything that you believe, whatever you want to believe.

No, it's based on the knowledge of the truth,

and his goal is to bring them to the faith in that.

And the word truth is a key word throughout the pastoral epistles,

which include 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus.

And the truth refers to the truth of the gospel.

And Paul says,

For the sake of the faith of God's elect and their knowledge of the truth,

which accords with godliness.

So not only is it a subjective faith based on an objective truth,

the knowledge of the truth,

it is evidenced in good works.

It's not just a theoretical.

It's not abstract, but it's a truth.

It's a faith that leads to godliness.

It accords with godliness.

It produces godliness.

And so that's really the main difference between Paul and the false teachers who are in Crete.

Paul doesn't separate the good works from faith.

He believes that godliness is a necessary implication of a true faith.

And he says this godliness is cultivated in the hope of eternal life.

We see again the two of the three famous Pauline triads, right?

The faith, hope, and love.

We see faith and hope here.

The goal of Paul's ministry to bring God's elect to faith in hope of eternal life, right?

So the Christian life is characterized by faith and hope,

believing in what we do not see and hoping in what we do not yet have.

But Paul, lest we think that this hope is something in vain or something that's just in our imagination,

he tells us that we should have confidence in this hope because he says this,

God who never lies promised before the ages began.

So not only was this promised by God, it was promised by a God who never lies.

And not only was it promised by a God who never lies, it has now been revealed to us as well.

He follows it up by saying this in verse 3,

And at the proper time, this was manifested in his word.

It was revealed in his word.

God's salvation plan, which was from before the ages began, in eternity past,

has now in the proper time, in the time of Jesus, has been revealed to us.

So because of that, we could have assurance in our faith and assurance in our hope

because this was given, promised by a God who never lies,

but also revealed in our day, in the days of Christ to us.

And then, having told us about who he is and why he was called,

he tells us what it is that he does.

He says in verse 3,

He says that God's word now goes forth through the preaching with which I have been entrusted

by the command of God our Savior.

So Christian preaching involves the proclamation of the word,

which, again, is the good news, the gospel of Jesus Christ,

his saving message that he died for our sins and rose again.

And the word preach comes from a Greek word that means herald, right?

So herald is a messenger, right, who relays someone else's message faithfully, right?

He serves as an ambassador of sorts and represents the person he sent,

the message that he bears.

And as such, the herald has no right to speak on his own authority

or to say whatever he wants.

He must preach.

He must herald.

He must announce what his sender, what his source authorized him to say.

And so that's the role of preaching.

Paul says, I preach what I've been told to preach.

I relay what I've been given, entrusted by God.

So that's why it's called an entrustment.

He was entrusted by the command of God.

And then Paul addresses Titus, who is a recipient of this letter.

Titus, this is an interesting tidbit that connects us to 1 Corinthians,

which we just finished.

But you know how Paul was sending Timothy to Corinthians to address all their problems, right?

So it turns out that that trip didn't go that well.

And so Paul has to do an emergency visit to Corinth because of it.

And that trip doesn't go well either.

And as a last resort, what he does,

and we know this from piecing together the information we have in Acts and other places.

And so the last resort, what he does, he sends Titus.

And so Titus seems to have been a man of extraordinary character and grace,

just able to work in situations like this.

And so that's the Titus we're talking about.

And he's facing a lot of opposition in Crete.

And he describes him this way.

Verse 4,

To Titus, my true child in a common faith,

grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.

So Paul is ministering faithfully for the sake of the faith of God's elect

in their knowledge of the truth.

And Titus stands squarely in line with that heritage.

He's of the common faith.

And he is a true child.

And because of that, he says,

Grace be with you.

Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.

Even though this is directly addressed to Titus,

it's a letter that was intended to be read by the whole church.

And we know that because at the end of the letter, in the closing greeting,

Paul says,

Grace be with you all.

Chapter 3, verse 15.

So Paul's writing this to Titus,

but as a way of kind of authorizing him

and making his ministry legitimate among the churches in Crete.

So he wants this to be read.

And other people to see that Paul is entrusting this task to Titus.

And that Titus has been charged by the Apostle Paul

to appoint leaders in these churches.

And that's why Paul greets him in a way.

So that's the profile of Paul and Titus.

And he says,

Grace and peace.

I mean,

this comes up quite a bit, doesn't it,

as we've been going through the New Testament epistles.

But once again,

grace,

if grace is God's favor toward us,

his love,

the mercy from which all his goodness toward us is expressed,

it's his unmerited favor,

with which God saves us from sin and death.

But if grace is the reason why God saves us,

peace is the result of that saving work, right?

It's to be a peace with God.

We have harmony with him.

We're reconciled to him.

And through that,

we have peace with one another.

So he greets them with that grace and peace.

That's the profile of Paul and Titus.

Next,

we see the profile of the elders

that Titus is supposed to appoint in the church.

Paul writes in verse 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.

On one of his missionary journeys,

Paul had left Titus as his representative

with the church in Crete.

And the goal of this was to ensure doctrinal fidelity,

so that to sound doctrine.

But the means of ensuring sound doctrine

was appointing faithful leaders.

So that's what he was appointed to.

He was called to appoint elders in every town.

And we see that throughout Acts,

Acts 14, 23,

it was Paul's custom to appoint elders

in every church that he planted.

And the fact that Titus is appointing elders

for the first time

shows that this is a relatively young church.

That's probably also why,

if you look at the parallel passage in 1 Timothy 3,

which gives qualifications for elders,

like here in Titus 1,

there's one notable difference.

In Timothy 3, Paul tells them

that an elder must not be a recent convert

lest he become puffed up with pride

and fall to the judgment of the devil.

But that qualification is not given here in Titus,

interestingly enough.

And it may be because there was no one

who had been Christian for a very long time

because it's a young church that Paul just planted.

We don't know that for sure,

but that may explain that discrepancy.

And so what is an elder?

Who is an elder?

Right?

It's not a reference to the elderly,

even though sometimes the same word

is used in that way in the Bible,

because what's the qualification being an elderly?

You just have to be old, right?

So, I mean, so if that's the case,

then that would be the only qualification he gives.

But he lists other qualifications.

That's how we know that by an elder,

he doesn't mean elderly, right?

So he lists qualifications.

So an elder is a man who occupies

the office of elder in the church,

in a leadership position in the church.

And in the Old Testament,

towns were ruled and judged by their elders,

who were heads of their own respective households

that gathered at city centers and city gates

to deliberate issues that faced the entire community.

And they led in that capacity.

By the New Testament period,

men who were leaders in the local synagogues

were called elders.

And Paul seems to be adopting that terminology

and appointing and using elders

in the context of the local church.

And elders are also referred to as overseers.

If you look at verse 7,

that term is used,

those two terms are used interchangeably.

I'll just mention this.

It's because you've probably heard of it.

So the term presbyter,

it's the same word as elder.

Term bishop or the episcopate,

those are all the same word as overseer.

So some of these come from,

and you've probably heard it in different church contexts.

But these are not different roles

within a church hierarchy.

They're all interchangeable terms.

For example, the overseer, pastor, elder.

Pastor is really not a title that's given in the Bible.

It's really a function of an elder.

And I can show you,

give you an example from Acts 20,

17 to 28.

I skipped a whole bunch in the middle.

But it says,

Now from Miletus,

Paul sent to Ephesus

and called the elders of the church

to come to him.

And when they came to him,

he said to them,

Pay careful attention to yourselves

and to all the flock

in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers

to care for the church of God,

which he obtained with his own blood.

So you see all three terminologies used there.

He's addressing the elders of the church in Ephesus.

He calls them overseers.

And he tells them to care for the flock,

which is pastoring language,

shepherding language.

So it's all the same office.

It's one office that has many people in it.

And note also that the word elder

is in the plural form.

Whenever the Bible speaks

of instituting leadership structure in the church,

it speaks of appointing elders in the plural.

Except when it's talking about

a singular office of elder.

So office of overseer, right?

And so the plurality of elders

provides an important check

to a single elder's power or dominance.

It provides accountability.

And it creates a ruling body

that is wiser than its constituent parts.

And that's why from the beginning of our church,

we've had a plurality of elders.

Even though as a church plant,

we don't have our own elders, all of them.

But we have two other elders,

Dan Rocha and Paul Buckley,

whom we're borrowing from a sister church

in Massachusetts.

I've been with them on a regular basis

at least once a month

to deliberate different things about the church.

And then, of course, for this reason,

we also have our own leadership team,

which includes me

and three pastoral,

four pastoral interns

who we are working through training

so that we can be equipped

and assessed for eldership.

And so that's the goal.

That's the reason for this.

The reason why these teams are important

is because of the plurality of elders

that's taught in scripture.

So that's who the elders are.

Now let's look at the qualifications

for elders that Paul delineates

in verses six to nine.

The first requirement

is that they be above reproach, right?

So right away, there you go.

Okay, Sean cannot be a pastor anymore, right?

So what does it mean

that he has to be above reproach?

And this doesn't mean

that an elder has to be above criticism.

In that case,

no one would be qualified to be an elder,

not even Jesus.

And in fact,

Apostle Paul himself

had many critics and naysayers.

We saw that in 1 Corinthians 8 to 11.

Paul was accused

of being inconsistent in his stance

regarding food sacrificed to idols.

In 2 Corinthians 10.10,

Paul specifically quotes someone

who says of him,

his letters are weighty and strong,

but his bodily presence is weak

and his speech is of no account.

This is what someone else said about Paul.

So I mean,

he's got a pretty vocal critic there.

And in Acts 21, 27 to 36,

some of the Jews accused Paul

of breaking God's law

and leading people away from God.

So certainly he was not without his critics.

And not only him,

Jesus himself had many critics, right?

In Luke 7.34,

Jesus is accused of being a glutton

and a drunkard,

which specifically would disqualify him

from being an elder

and consorting with sinners.

He's accused of being a false prophet

in Luke 7.39,

of being a Sabbath breaker in Luke 6,

of being insane in Mark 3.21,

of being demon possessed in John 10.

So, and of blaspheming in Matthew 26.

I don't know how you blaspheme yourself, right?

He's a son of God.

But that's,

he's accused of all kinds of things.

And so his life was full of controversy

and scandal,

but yet he was blameless

and sinless.

Therefore, he was eminently above reproach.

So what does it mean then

to be above reproach, right?

So the qualification above reproach

cannot mean above criticism.

What it means is,

because if people want to find dirt on you,

they will.

They can.

And, but it doesn't mean that,

because we're all imperfect and sinful.

What it means is that an elder

must possess a general high character

so that he is not accused of hypocrisy

and bringing shame to the gospel.

Paul actually goes on to unpack what this means.

So above reproach is really less

one of the qualifications in the list.

It's more of a summary

of all the qualifications in the list.

And we know that because he repeats

that exact phrase again

at a critical juncture in this passage.

So in verse 6 and verse 7.

So in verse 6,

Paul says that elders must be above reproach.

And then he explains what this means

with regard to his family life in verse 6.

And then in verse 7,

he repeats that an overseer

must be above reproach.

And then he proceeds to explain

what this means with regard

to his personal life,

his personal character.

So above reproach is really

a summary of all of that.

So let's look at the qualifications

in verse 6.

In order for an elder

to be considered above reproach

regarding his family life,

he must be the husband of one wife

and his children are believers

and not open to the charge of debauchery

or insubordination.

First, he must be the husband of one wife.

So this verse is so difficult.

I spent hours and hours

just contemplating this verse,

thinking about the implications

and figuring it out.

So I'm going to tell you

what I arrived at,

but just so you know,

this is, I'm not sure.

I'm going to teach you

what I think it means.

Verse 6.

So the husband of one wife,

literally the phrase in the Greek

is one woman man.

An elder must be a one woman man.

The phrase assumes

that an elder would be a man

that's consistent with the teaching

of 1 Timothy 2, 11 to 15,

1 Corinthians 14,

which we talked about,

which calls mature Christian men

to the office of elder

and to lead the family of God

in the same way God calls other men

to be heads of households

within their respective families.

But this does not mean,

I don't think,

that an elder has to be a married man

in the same way

the mention of children

doesn't mean that an elder

has to have children, right?

So Paul himself,

like Jesus,

was single,

and Paul clearly teaches

that being single

so that we can be

singularly devoted to God

is better than being married

in 1 Corinthians 7.

So it doesn't make sense

for Paul to then contradict himself

and say that an elder of the church

must be married.

Rather,

Paul is giving these qualifications

in the case that a man

in question is married.

And if the elder canon is married,

it is necessary that he be

a one woman man.

Several different interpretations

have been proposed for this phrase

throughout church history.

And throughout church history,

there have been proponents

for all three of these views,

which is why the interpretation

is so difficult.

But one possibility

is that the one man,

the one woman man,

it refers to the fact

that the man must be monogamous

rather than polygamous, right?

There are examples,

historically,

of Jews being polygamous, right?

And so this may be

to ensure that that doesn't happen.

An elder has to be married

to only one woman

at the time.

And the second possibility

is that the man

had to have been married

only once.

So some churches today

interpret it this way.

So he could not have married

a second time.

So he could not have divorced

and remarried.

And he could not have been

widowed and remarried.

Some people think

it only applies to divorce,

but not necessarily

to widowhood.

Third possibility

is that the man

must be faithful

to his one wife,

to have eyes

for one woman only.

So this is really hard.

But I think

one really helpful clue

is in 1 Timothy 5.9.

It says,

it's speaking,

Paul's speaking

of the role of widows.

So there are widows

who in the church

who give themselves

completely,

fully to the service

of the church

and remain widows.

And those widows

were eligible

to receive full,

basically,

life support

from the church.

And so Paul's talking

about those widows

and he says

that these widows

must be qualified.

And one of the qualifications

is this.

Let a widow be enrolled

if she is not

less than 60 years of age,

having been the wife

of one husband.

The phrase is literally

one man woman.

It's the mirror opposite

of the phrase

that was given to man.

So I think this is helpful

for a couple of reasons.

First,

while it is known

for men in the ancient world

to have been polygamists,

to have multiple wives,

it is not known

for women

to have had

multiple husbands.

So polyandry

is not attested

in the Roman world.

So for that reason,

I don't think

it's likely

that one man woman,

a widow had to be

had been a one man woman.

I don't think that means

she had to have

had only one husband

at a time

because there's no context

for a woman

having more than one husband.

So I don't think

that phrase refers

to polygamy.

So second,

in 1 Timothy 3, 2, 12,

3, 2 and 12,

and Titus 1, 6,

the qualifications

for elders,

the one woman man requirement

is given

in the present tense.

So he must be now,

presently,

a one woman man.

But then if you look

at 1 Timothy 5, 9,

when it's speaking

of widows,

the requirement

is given

in the perfect tense,

having been

a one man woman.

Right?

And so the reason

for the change

in the tense,

I think it's because

we're talking about

widows who are,

by definition,

no longer married.

Right?

And so I think

because of that,

that description,

being a one man woman

or a one woman man,

most likely refers

to the present

state of things.

How,

when you are married

and not to,

perhaps,

not to the person's past,

for example,

of having never,

having never married twice

or having never married,

having never divorced

or remarried.

So I don't think

it's referring

to someone's past.

I think it's referring

to someone's present marriage.

I don't think

that's in view.

So I don't think

it means one woman,

man means only once married,

never having married twice.

I think,

I don't think

that's because of this context

in 1 Timothy 5, 9.

I think that's still possible,

but I don't think

currently as of now,

I don't think

that's what it means.

And there's multiple reasons

for that.

I think that this expression

is really rare,

but it's mentioned

three times in scripture.

And every time

it's mentioned,

Paul seems to assume

that everybody will know

what he's talking about.

So it seems to be

a pretty simple

and intuitive thing.

But if he were trying

to say that

an elder candidate

should have been

only married once,

that opens up

a whole can of worms.

So it raises

a lot of questions.

So what does that mean?

So what if his wife died

and then he remarried?

Is he still

a one-woman man?

What if he divorced

and then remarried?

Is he a one-woman man?

And what if he divorced

and remarried

and then his ex-wife died?

Then is he now

a one-woman man?

Right?

So I mean,

all kinds of questions

he raises,

and I don't think

that kind of nuance

or complexity

is in Paul's view

because he seems

to assume that everybody

will know

what he's talking about.

So he just says

one-woman man,

and I think it's,

and so I think,

I don't think that's likely,

even though a lot of people

have held that view.

So I think

what it's most likely

to mean,

I'm not dogmatic

about this,

but I think it's most likely

to mean that

he must be faithful

to his own spouse,

one spouse.

I think that's

the most likely meaning.

It describes a man

whose family life

is characterized

by one woman only.

Just as the qualification

of having obedient children

applies to the man's

present family life,

I think the issue

of being a one-woman man

applies to the man's

present marriage

and not to his past,

whether he had been

widowed or divorced

in the past.

So while marital history

is of course relevant

for determining

the man's character,

that's not what is

primarily in view here.

That's not,

doesn't automatically

bar someone

from the eldership.

But of course,

if the one-woman man

means that person

must be faithful

to his one spouse,

of course that excludes

polygamy as well.

So I think that's assumed.

And in addition

to being faithful

to his wife,

Paul continues

in verse 6,

his children

must be believers

and not open

to the charge

of debauchery

or insubordination.

This is another

difficulty about this verse.

What's difficult

is that the parents

really don't have control

over whether their children

are going to be saved

or not, right?

I mean,

we can do all that we can

to raise them up

in the discipline

and instruction of the Lord,

but ultimately salvation

comes from the Lord.

So how can the father

be held accountable

for this

and punished for this

for not being able to?

So that's the reason

why it's difficult.

But the word

believers

can also be translated

as faithful.

And actually,

the same word

in the exact same form

is often translated

as faithful

throughout the Bible.

So those are

the two main options.

I think it's possible

either one is right.

If it's referring

to them having

to be believers,

even if they have

no control of it,

the scripture

could be teaching us

that, well,

even if you're not

ultimately responsible

for it,

if your children

are not believers,

then it brings reproach

to the gospel.

Like, hey,

here's a man

who preaches the gospel,

here's a pastor,

his children don't even

believe what he teaches,

right?

So that could be

what that means.

Or it could mean

that the children

have to be faithful.

My personal preference

is that that's,

my best interpretation,

it means that

they should be faithful

or trustworthy.

And the reason

why I think that

is because the same word

is used two more times

in Titus,

and in both times

it refers to

being trustworthy,

not being believers.

It refers to

a trustworthy word

in chapter 1,

verse 9.

It refers to

a trustworthy saying

in chapter 3,

verse 8.

And then secondly,

if you look at

the parallel

in 1 Timothy 3,

4,

it says this,

he must manage

his own household well

with all dignity

keeping his children

submissive,

right?

So again,

in that parallel context

in 1 Timothy 3,

it doesn't mention

anything about

them having to be believers,

having to have been saved

and being Christians.

It only talks about

them being submissive.

So if that's the case

and that's an accurate parallel,

then I think here

it's referring to the fact

that your children

should be reliable.

They should be

of trustworthy character.

And what that looks like

is this,

they should not be open

to the charge of debauchery

or insubordination.

I think that's most likely

what this passage

is referring to.

Debauchery refers to

drunkenness, of course,

and wild living.

Insubordination

refers to

persistent rebellion

and disobedience.

Whether

the word

should be translated

faith for all

or believers,

this passage

shows clearly

that it's important

to assess

the man's

family life,

that he has to have

been proven faithful

in his family life

for him to become

an elder.

And

this is referring

to children

who are still

under the father's authority,

so it wouldn't apply

to grown children

who are out

of the house

because they're

called children

and

they're called

to be subordinate.

And

the rationale

behind the qualification

is this.

In 1 Timothy 3,

4 to 5,

it says,

he must manage

his own household

well with all dignity,

keeping his children

submissive,

for if someone

does not know

how to manage

his own household,

how will he care

for God's church?

That's the rationale,

right?

It's the,

a married elder

is called

to lead two families,

his family

and God's family,

and the former

functions as

the testing ground

for the latter,

whether he can serve

in the latter ground

or not.

4th century pastor

John Chrysostom

puts it this way,

I don't have the quote

for you,

sorry,

we should observe

what care

he bestows

upon children.

For he

who cannot be

the instructor

of his own children,

how should he be

the teacher of others?

If he cannot

keep in order

those whom

he has had with,

if he cannot

keep in order

those whom

he has had

with him

from the beginning,

whom he has brought up,

and over whom

he had power,

both by the laws

and by nature,

how will he be able

to benefit those

without?

For if he was

unable to restrain them,

it is a great proof

of his weakness.

And if he was

unconcerned,

his want of affection

is much to be blamed.

He then that neglects

his own children,

how shall he take care

of other men?

That's the rationale.

So having addressed

the elder's family life,

then Paul now turns

to the qualifications

regarding the elder's

personal life

in verse 7.

Read with me.

For an overseer,

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.

Once again,

the elder's qualification

can be summarized

by the phrase

above reproach.

And being above reproach

entails,

in terms of personal character,

not being arrogant

or quick-tempered

or drunkard

or violent

or greedy for gain.

These are pretty

self-explanatory,

so I'll go through them

pretty quickly.

But an elder

must not be arrogant,

meaning overbearing,

seeking his own will,

seeking his own interest

and pridefully.

He must not be

quick-tempered.

He shouldn't be

hot-headed

or angry.

He must not be

a drunkard.

The Greek word

literally means

alongside wine

or beside wine.

So it refers

to someone

who spends

too much time

next to alcohol.

And he must not

be violent,

a bully,

or a brawler.

So he must not

be greedy for gain.

Elders who try

to get rich

off of their ministry

bring shame

and disrepute

to the gospel

of Jesus Christ.

So they must

not be greedy

for gain.

Having described

what elders

should not be

in verse 8,

Paul describes

what elders

should be

in verse 8.

They should be

hospitable,

a lover of good,

self-controlled,

upright,

holy,

and disciplined.

This is a great list,

right?

An elder must

be hospitable.

Isn't that crazy

that that's a requirement

for an elder?

Doesn't that sound

kind of wild,

right?

They have to be hospitable.

That's a real requirement.

I mean,

I don't know.

I've never heard

of a church

that refused

to ordain an elder

because he failed

to be hospitable.

But we need

to be ready

to do that

if it's really obvious

that they're not hospitable,

right?

And they must

not be reclusive

or withdrawn,

right?

They must not

be too busy

to prioritize

people in their lives.

They must be

welcoming

and inviting.

Their dinner table

should be open

to feeding others.

Their guest rooms

and beds

should be open

for hosting others.

They should be willing

to inconvenience themselves

for the convenience

of others.

Of course,

this involves

being hospitable

to fellow believers.

1 Peter 4.9

says,

show hospitality

to one another

without grumbling.

Romans 12.13

says,

contribute to the needs

of the saints

and seek to show hospitality.

So hospitality

is a significant aspect

of our love

for one another.

And in particular,

I think when it says

that an elder

has to be hospitable,

it probably is assuming

that an elder

is responsible

for basically

housing,

traveling missionaries

that come through

to minister to them

and to the church

as well.

But it's not just

for one another.

Hospitality goes beyond

our care for one another.

The Greek word

for hospitable

literally means

loving the stranger.

It has a missional orientation,

our orientation

toward outsiders,

even unbelievers.

It should not be,

our posture

should not be

one of fear

and antagonism

but of love,

inviting warmth.

So Hebrews 13.2

says,

do not neglect

to show hospitality

to strangers

for thereby some

have entertained

angels unawares.

An elder's home

should be,

it should be a hopping place

to use our terms.

It should be a place

for drawing people in

and not for

retreating from people,

withdrawing from people.

Elders should also be

a lover of good,

not evil

and self-controlled.

The word

self-controlled here

has a sense of

being prudent

and thoughtful

rather than

rash and careless.

So he should be

a lover of good

and he should be

self-controlled.

He must be

upright and holy.

The two words

are frequently

paired together

in scripture.

Being upright

refers to one's

posture toward

other people,

being just

in your dealings

with other people

and being holy

refers to one's

orientation toward God,

being set apart

for him

and living for him

as someone

who has been

consecrated to God.

The last word,

disciplined,

it means

being disciplined

but it also has

likely a sexual nuance

because the verbal

form of the same word

is used in 1 Corinthians

7, 8-9

when Paul addresses

widows and widowers.

He says this,

I say that it is good

for them to remain

single as I am

but if they cannot

exercise self-control,

that's the same word,

they should marry

for it is better

to marry

than to burn

with passion.

So to be disciplined,

I think it involves

being self-controlled

in one's desires

and passions.

And finally,

Paul says in verse 9,

he must hold firm

to the trustworthy

word as taught

so that he may be able

to give instruction

in sound doctrine

and also to rebuke

those who contradict it.

So up to this point,

Paul's list

all had to do

with character

requirements for the elders.

Now he addresses

a related issue

of theological competence.

The final aspect

of being above reproach

involves holding firm

to the trustworthy word

as taught.

Elders must be people

who hold firmly

to the word,

not loosely

or lackadaisically

to the trustworthy word

as taught, right?

This, again,

the word,

he said a similar thing

earlier in 1 Corinthians 15,

1-2 which we saw.

He said,

hold fast to the word

I preach to you.

And he explained

that this word

is the gospel

that he preached to them.

Because this gospel

is trustworthy,

the saving use of Jesus,

because this gospel

is the power of God

for salvation

to everyone who believes,

that has to be

what the elders are about

and they have to hold

firmly to it.

Because if you're not

convicted of it,

if that's not what

you're staking your life on,

you will not be,

you will not have

a sense of urgency

when that is contradicted,

when it is challenged,

when it is lost

and taken for granted.

It's so easy

to become

kind of pragmatic

as an elder,

as a pastor,

and to neglect

the gospel

in favor of some

particular pet project

or hobby horse,

you know,

or some kind

of doctrinal distinctive,

right?

Elders can get carried away

by a particular view

of the second coming,

right?

The millennium,

right?

What's the view?

Rapture,

right?

I mean,

an elder can get carried away

with,

and obsessed

with giving.

Like,

you have to give more

every week,

right?

It's like a,

you could get,

they could get obsessed

with,

you know,

self-help practices.

If you do this,

you could have

your best life now,

right?

You could get fixated

on spiritual gifts,

apologetics,

social justice.

Not all of these

are bad,

they're really good things,

but none of these

things must rival

the centrality

of the gospel.

Elders must hold

firmly to the gospel.

This is necessary,

why?

So that he may be able

to give instruction

in sound doctrine

and also to rebuke

those who contradict it.

And if an elder

does not personally

hold firmly

to the truth,

trustworthy word

as taught,

he will neither be able

to instruct others

nor be able to rebuke

those who contradict it.

And I love how the word

that is used,

is sound,

right?

It means healthy,

right?

It's a medical metaphor,

right?

There is doctrine

that is sound,

that is healthy.

And there is doctrine

that is diseased,

that will lead

to spiritual ailments.

An elder must be able

to give instruction

in sound doctrine

because the elders

of the church

must be above reproach

so that they can teach

sound doctrine

and promote sound faith.

So that's the profile

of the elders.

And the reason

why Paul is so urgent

about Titus appointing

these qualified elders

is because of the presence

of the false teachers

in Crete.

So that leads us

to our final point,

the profile

of the false teachers.

Paul writes

in verses 10 to 11,

for there are many

who are insubordinate,

empty talkers

and deceivers,

especially those

of the circumcision party.

They must be silenced

since they are upsetting

whole families

by teaching

for shameful gain

what they ought

not to teach.

It's imperative

that Titus appoints

elders in Crete

who are above reproach

and able to teach

sound doctrine

because there are many

who are promulgating

false doctrine.

And the description

of these Cretan

false teachers

are intentionally

contrasted

with the description

of the elders.

So if you put them

side by side

and compare them,

it's like the exact opposite.

So the Cretan

false teachers

are described

as insubordinate

and that's how

but the elders

on the other hand

are supposed to have

subordinate children.

Unlike the elders

who give instruction

in sound doctrine

in verse 9,

the false teachers

are empty talkers.

Unlike the elders

who are supposed

to hold firmly

to the trustworthy word,

the false teachers

are deceivers.

Paul is specifically

concerned about

those of the

circumcision party,

he says.

This is a reference

to legalistic

Jewish Christians

who insisted

that all Christians,

even Gentile ones,

had to follow

all the ceremonial laws,

the Jewish laws

and be circumcised

to become a Jew

in order to be saved.

And the apostles

and the elders

had already decided

this issue

in the Jerusalem

Council in Acts 15

saying that it's not

necessary for Gentiles

to become a Jew,

to be saved.

But these Jewish converts

were nevertheless

teaching this.

And Paul writes

that in verse 11,

they must be silenced

since they are upsetting

whole families

by teaching for a shameful gain

what they ought not

to teach.

Once again,

the contrast

between the elders

who are not greedy

for gain

and these false teachers

who are teaching

for shameful gain.

And so how are

these false teachers

to be silenced?

It's not by,

you know,

hiring some muscles

to escort them

out of the church service,

right?

The way Paul

calls these elders

to silence

the false teachers

is already,

he already told us

in verse 9,

by instructing

with sound doctrine

and rebuking

those who contradicted.

The elders

are to silence

false teaching

by teaching the truth.

And then,

in verse 12,

Paul condemns

these Cretans

with their own mouth

by quoting

a Cretan seer.

His name is

Epimenides.

Epimenides,

I don't know how to say it.

Cretans are always liars,

evil beasts,

lazy gluttons.

And then he affirms

that this testimony

is true.

Of course,

Paul is generalizing here.

Not every single

one of the Cretans

are like this.

If that were the case,

every single one

of the Cretan Christians

would be like that too.

That's not what Paul

is saying.

But this portrayal

of them

is actually

quite consistent.

There's a lot of

history

written by

non-Christians

attests to this

reality as well.

So,

Paulibius

was a Greek historian

from the 2nd century BC.

He writes

in his histories

this,

so much,

in fact,

disordered love of gain

and lust for wealth

prevail among them

that the Cretans

are the only people

in the world

in whose eyes

no gain

is disgraceful.

That's a pretty

harsh accusation,

right?

And then Cicero,

the 1st century

BC Roman politician

and lawyer,

he said this,

the Cretans

consider piracy

and brigandage

honorable.

So,

Cretans

did not have

a good reputation

and this is not

just from the Christians,

from this,

from pagan authors

as well.

So,

Cretans had

such a reputation

for lying

that the Greek

word for lying

actually is taken

from the word

Crete.

And Paul points

this out

not because he

wants to mock

the Cretan Christians

but because he

wants to exhort

them to

dissociate themselves

from the

ungodly bunch

and to distinguish

themselves

from that past

and from

that history.

Therefore,

Paul continues

in verse 13,

rebuke them

sharply

that they

may be

sound

in the

faith,

not devoting

themselves

to Jewish

myths

and the

commands

of people

who turn

away

from the

truth.

So,

Paul's

used the

word rebuke

already in

verse 9

so he's

rightly referring

to rebuking

the false

teachers.

He wants

even them

to return

to true

faith,

to be

sound

in the

faith

again.

And then

in verse 15,

Paul does

himself what

he tells

the elders

to do.

He silences

the false

teachers

by teaching

the truth.

He says,

to the

pure,

all things

are pure,

but to

the defiled

and unbelieving

nothing is

pure,

but both

their minds

and their

consciences

are defiled.

So,

Paul's here

contrasting

moral purity,

which is

necessary,

from ritual

purity,

which is

unnecessary.

This exposes

the heart

of the false

teaching of

the Cretan

circumcision

party,

because to

the pure,

all things

are pure.

To those

who are

morally

pure,

those who

are pure

from within,

to those

who have

been cleansed

by Christ,

all things

are ritually

pure.

In Mark

7,

7,

Jesus rebuked

the Pharisees

because they

in vain

worshipped

God,

teaching as

doctrines the

commandments of

men,

and then

Jesus went

on to teach

that it's

the internal

moral purity

that matters

to God,

not external

ritual purity.

So,

Paul is

following

Jesus'

teaching here.

And so,

conversely then,

the defiled

and unbelieving,

for them,

nothing is

pure.

To those

who are

morally

impure,

to those

who have

not been

cleansed by

Christ

from within,

because they

are unbelieving,

nothing is

pure for them.

All things

are ritually

impure for

them.

No amount

of ceremonial

cleanness can

purify their

hearts because

they are

defiled from

within.

Both their

minds and

their consciences

are defiled.

Because of

this,

Paul continues

in verse 16,

they profess to

know God,

but they deny

him by their

works.

They are

detestable,

disobedient,

unfit for

any good

work.

Paul repeats

the key word

work twice

in this verse.

And professing a

mere knowledge of

God is

insufficient if

it does not

produce good

works,

because faith

by itself,

if it does not

have works,

is dead.

Their

profession of

faith,

the Cretan

false teachers'

profession of

faith,

was nullified by

their evil

deeds.

And that's

why Paul said

earlier in

verse 1 that

his goal in

ministry was

to secure the

faith of God's

elect and the

knowledge of the

truth which

accords with

godliness.

The elders of

the church must

be above reproach

so that they can

teach sound

doctrine and

promote sound

faith.

And why devote

an entire chapter

just to

qualification of

elders?

elders.

It's because

Paul is

concerned about

the gospel of

Jesus Christ.

I cannot be an

elder apart from

the grace of

God.

It's because I'm

a sinner through

and through and

it's him that

saved us,

saved me from

myself.

And Jesus died

for our sins,

paid the penalty

that we could not

pay so that we

can be recipients

of his grace,

so that we can

become holy,

and so that we

can be saints

living for him

and no longer

for ourselves.

That's the gospel.

And that is so

precious to Paul.

That is so

essential for the

health of the

church that he

devotes an entire

chapter to talking

about the leaders

whose only job,

really,

everything is

subsumed under

this one job,

is to protect

the gospel.

It's a high

calling.

And he doesn't

call just the

elders for that.