2  The Qualifications of a Pastor—part 1  (1:5-9)

For this reason I left you in Crete, that you might set in order what remains, and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, namely, if any man be above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. For the overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, that he may be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict. (1:5-9)

It would be helpful for every pastor to occasionally read Richard Baxter’s classic book The Reformed Pastor. That title does not indicate that he deals with what is commonly called Reformed theology but rather refers to the spiritual reformation and reviving of a pastor’s personal life. He writes,

God’s standards for leadership in the church are high, a basic and extremely crucial truth that many evangelical churches today either deny or ignore. New Testament standards for pastors are often lowered, selectively applied, or simply disregarded. Some congregations and denominations pick and choose pastoral qualifications that seem most relevant and appropriate for the times, that satisfy personal preferences, and that do not conflict too sharply with contemporary social standards and practices. Some take the liberty to waive biblical standards when they like a pastor and the application of those standards might result in his dismissal. Nothing is more needed in the church than the careful application of the biblical principles of leadership. Yet sound, qualified spiritual leaders are alarmingly scarce in contemporary churches.

No trend in the church is more damaging to Christ’s work than that of failing to discipline and permanently disqualify pastors who have committed gross moral sins. And if a pastor is disciplined and removed from the ministry, he often is readily accepted back into leadership as soon as negative publicity subsides. Many of the best-known and most visible church leaders today utterly fail to measure up to biblical standards. While growing in worldly popularity and prestige, a leader can spiritually and morally corrupt the very people who eagerly support and idolize him. Churches can rarely survive a failure of leadership. A pastor who has sunken spiritually, doctrinally, or morally, and is not disciplined and removed, inevitably pulls many of his people down with him.

God offers forgiveness and spiritual restoration to all believers, including pastors and other church leaders, who sincerely confess and renounce their sins, no matter how heinous and public. God’s gracious promise is to all Christians: “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9). But the Word also makes clear that the Lord does not accept such a person—no matter how gifted, popular, formerly effective, or repentant—back into a position of leadership. Nor should the church.

Lowering God’s standards for those He calls into the ministry and who uniquely represent Him before the world, as well as before the church, is tragic. It disobeys and dishonors God and weakens the church. A man who has squandered his integrity, stained the pulpit, and destroyed the trust and confidence of fellow believers does not forfeit salvation or forgiveness, but he does, before God, forfeit the privilege of church leadership. Although moral or doctrinal purity has been publicly forsaken, so has the divine prerogative to preach, teach, or otherwise rule and shepherd Christ’s church.

Some Christians argue that falling into a terrible sin and then being forgiven and restored exalts grace and makes a person more sympathetic with and effective in serving others who have committed similar sins. But the implications of that sort of thinking are frightening. It suffers the same kind of logical and theological error as the notion that “we [should] continue in sin that grace might increase” (Rom. 6:1). Paul’s response to that depraved absurdity is “May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?” (v. 2).

Some church members want to lower the standards for ministers in order to make their own sinful living seem more acceptable. Others want to lower the standards because of a distorted and unbiblical concept of love, foolishly thinking that overlooking or excusing a believer’s sin will somehow make him more inclined to turn from it and to pursue righteousness. But that approach inevitably makes a person more complacent and becomes a barrier to genuine repentance and holy living.

Godly love is never compatible with sin. “The one who says, ‘I have come to know [God],’ and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him,” John declares; “but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. … For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments” (1 John 2:4-5; 5:3; cf. 1 Cor. 13:6). Not only is it possible to be loving while not compromising God’s standards of righteousness, it is impossible to be truly loving if we do compromise His standards.

For the greater part of this century, evangelical Christianity has been deeply committed to the battle for doctrinal purity. But in many circles in recent years it has not been as committed to moral purity, even among its leaders. Inevitably the church has experienced erosion of its integrity and spiritual power. The Lord requires leaders in His church who are pure, holy, and above reproach. Anything less is unacceptable to Him and should be unacceptable to His people. Moral compromise, like doctrinal compromise, spells disaster for the church. Important as they are, battles to defend the inerrancy and authority of Scripture lose much of their effectiveness if the defenders of those doctrines fail to also defend and uphold God’s equally crucial standards of personal righteousness. And compromisers of the integrity of leadership will much more easily compromise the truth. Unfaithful in the battle for sound living, they are much more likely to fail in the battle for sound doctrine as well.

Paul’s central theme in Titus 1:5-9 is that only a man whose character meets divine standards should be allowed to enter or remain in the ministry. Titus was to select such men for leadership in the churches of Crete.

The apostle mentions two reasons for leaving Titus in Crete. First, he wanted the young pastor to set in order what remains. The verb epidiorthoō (set in order) is comprised of two prepositions, epi (“upon”) and dia (“through”), attached to orthoō (“to make straight”). It is from orthos that we derive orthodontist, a dental specialist who straightens and aligns crooked teeth. In ancient times, the term was used of setting broken bones and straightening bent limbs, a function of the medical specialty that today we call orthopedics.

Titus was charged with the task of correcting and setting straight certain doctrines (see, e.g., 1:10-11, 13-14; 2:1) and practices (see, e.g., 1:12, 16; 3:9) in the churches in Crete that had become defective. The qualifying phrase what remains indicates that Paul himself, and perhaps others, had accomplished some of the correcting he now wanted Titus to complete. Judging from the admonitions that followed, the problems were both moral and theological and involved church leaders.

There also were problems of attitude and personal responsibility in the churches. Because some of the older men were not reflecting the maturity that should have come with age, Titus was to admonish them “to be temperate, dignified, sensible, sound in faith, in love, in perseverance” (2:2). Similarly, he was to instruct older women “to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips, nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good” (v. 3), to “encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be dishonored” (w. 4-5). He was to counsel “young men to be sensible” (v. 6) and “urge bondslaves to be subject to their own masters in everything, to be well-pleasing, not argumentative” (v. 9).

The major factor in such correction was to appoint elders in every city as the apostle had directed—indicating that some of the churches there did not yet have their own qualified local leadership. Because many, if not all, of those churches were troubled by “rebellious men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision” (1:10), and because many of the people had become involved in “foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the Law” (3:9), the need for sound spiritual leadership and moral example was all the more urgent. Both of those verses indicate that a large part of the controversy was caused by Judaizers, legalistic Jews who attempted to impose the ceremonial requirements of the old covenant on Christians, even on those who were Gentile.

Paul’s pattern of ministry was to lead men and women to Christ, nurture them in the faith, give them the endurance of eternal hope, and provide them with loving, spiritual leaders. That pattern is clearly seen in the book of Acts. After Paul and Barnabas “had preached the gospel to [Derbe] and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch, strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying, Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God.’ And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, having prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed” (Acts 14:21-23).

Elders translates presbuteros, which referred generally to any older man. But the term already had come to be used as an official title for leaders in the early church, as evidenced by the facts that the elders were to be appointed and that they were to have the noblest spiritual character and possess the ability to teach. Simply being older—even older in the faith—does not qualify a man for leadership in the church.

From numerous passages in the New Testament it seems certain that elder, overseer (bishop), and pastor refer to the same office, the different terms indicating various features of ministry, not varying levels of authority, as some churches espouse. The qualifications for an episkopos (lit., an overseer, or, as sometimes translated, bishop) that Paul gives in 1 Timothy 3:1—7 are clearly parallel to those given here for elders. Both in this first chapter of Titus (w. 5, 7) and in chapter 20 of Acts (w. 17, 28), the titles of presbuteros and episkopos are used of the same men. In Acts 20:28, Paul uses the verb form of still another title (pastor) for the same group of men. “Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock,” he says, “among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers [episkopos], to shepherd [or ‘to pastor,’ poimainō] the church of God which He purchased with His own blood” (v. 28). In Ephesians 4:11, Paul adjoins the divine callings of pastor (poimēri) and teacher (didaskalos) as a single role of ministry, which properly could be called pastor-teacher.

Although the appointment of elders was one of Titus’s primary assignments in Crete, the choice of those men was not left to his own human judgment and discretion. He was to seek the leading of the Holy Spirit. In the same verse (Acts 20:28) just cited twice above, Paul makes clear that the selection of elders is the divine prerogative of the Holy Spirit (“the Holy Spirit has made you overseers”). From an earlier account in the book of Acts we learn that, as the prophets and teachers in Antioch of Syria “were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, ‘Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them’” (Acts 13:2, emphasis added). Only by the direction of the Holy Spirit, and after further fasting and prayer, did those church leaders send out Paul and Barnabas on their first missionary journey (v. 3). During that trip, “when they had appointed elders for them in every church, having prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed” (Acts 14:23). The appointment of elders by the apostles and by their envoys, such as Timothy and Titus, was always done while seeking the mind and wisdom of the Holy Spirit. Their divine calling was then affirmed by the church.

Every city suggests that much of the island had been evangelized by Paul and that a number of local churches had been established. As 1 directed you indicates that Paul was reiterating a previous instruction. By this written confirmation of apostolic command, the churches would know that appointments by Titus were made under a divine mandate.

In the next four verses (6-9), Paul mentions the divinely revealed, nonnegotiable qualifications for pastors (or elders or overseers). These church leaders are to have unblemished public reputations (v. 6a) and must qualify in four specific areas: sexual morality (v. 6b), family leadership (v. 6c), general character (w. 7-8), and teaching skill (v. 9). A man who is not qualified in all of those ways is not permitted to be an elder.

PUBLIC REPUTATION

namely, if any man be above reproach, (1:6a)

Anenklētos (above reproach) is formed from the negative prefix a and the verb enkaleō (“to call into account”) and carries the idea of being completely blameless. In his Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, W. E. Vine observes that this term “implies not merely acquittal, but the absence of even a charge or accusation against a person.” In the legal system of Paul’s day, a person who was anenklētos was not subject even to indictment, much less trial. Being above reproach is of such importance that Paul repeats this qualification in the following verse (7), where he refers to the same church leaders as overseers. Being “beyond reproach” is also required of deacons (1 Tim. 3:10).

At the beginning of the parallel list of qualifications for overseers already mentioned above, Paul uses a related Greek word, anepilēptos, which also is translated “above reproach” (1 Tim. 3:2). This word carries the idea of being laid hold of. In other words, an elder, or overseer, should be subject neither to being called to account nor taken into custody, as it were, on any moral or spiritual charge.

Paul is not speaking of sinless perfection but is declaring that leaders of Christ’s church must have no sinful defect in their lives that could justly call their virtue, their righteousness, or their godliness into question and indict them. There must be nothing in their lives to disqualify them as models of moral and spiritual character for believers under their care to emulate. They not only must teach and preach rightly but also must live rightly. Paul charged Timothy that “in speech, conduct, love, faith and purity” he was to show himself as “an example of those who believe” (1 Tim. 4:12).

God does not call all elders to be entrepreneurs, men who begin ministries and build them, nor does He call all elders to be producers, men who accomplish a great amount of work in the church, although those are worthy things. Neither does He call all of them to be managers, adept at mobilizing others in the Lord’s service, although that, too, is a worthy thing. The Lord does, however, call all elders to be godly leaders, men who by their exemplary lives as well as by their sound teaching and preaching set a pattern of virtue and devotion to the Lord for other believers to follow.

Mistakenly, many church leaders view their roles as that of promoter, businessman, executive, psychologist, entertainer, or president. But those roles contrast sharply with those specified in the New Testament. In 2 Timothy 2 and 3, Paul uses eight different figures to depict the “faithful men” (v. 2) who would carry on the ministry. They were to be able teachers (v. 2), soldiers on active duty (w. 3-4), athletes who compete according to the rules (v. 5), hard-working farmers (v. 6), careful workmen (v. 15), useful vessels (v. 21), and bond servants (v. 24). None of those images are glamorous or self-aggrandizing. All of them exemplify diligent effort and self-sacrifice. And they are called “man of God” (3:17), a technical Old Testament title for one whose calling is to speak for God.

Godly and effective leadership of the church involves many responsibilities. Among them are winning of the lost to Christ, discipling and nourishing believers, preaching and teaching sound doctrine, organizing, wise decision making, careful stewardship of funds, consistent and earnest prayer, discipline of sinning members, and ordination of other qualified elders.

But despite those noble and awesome responsibilities, Christ did not intend the role of pastor or elder to be a mark of status in the church’s aristocracy or hierarchy. Like the Lord Himself in His incarnation, church leaders are, above all, to be humble and faithful servants of God and of His people. Jesus’ last words to Peter before His ascension included the threefold charge: “Tend My lambs. … Shepherd My sheep. … Tend My sheep” (John 21:15-17). The word pastor, in fact, means “shepherd,” a metaphor the Lord used of Himself. “I am the good shepherd,” He said; “the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep. … I am the good shepherd; and I know My own, and My own know Me” (John 10:11, 14; cf. v. 16). The writer of Hebrews speaks of Christ as “the great Shepherd of the sheep” (Heb. 13:20). Peter speaks of Him as “the Shepherd and Guardian of [our] souls” (1 Pet. 2:25) and as “the Chief Shepherd” (5:4).

Shepherds have never enjoyed high status. They have always been on the lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder. Their work is important and fills a necessary function, but it is semiskilled at best, consisting of mundane, repetitive, and unglamorous tasks that most people would shun. If a pastor has a shepherd’s heart, he will be as satisfied and faithful with ministering in the least noticeable and least appealing responsibilities as in those that are highly visible and attractive.

During the Last Supper, Jesus

At the end of the supper, however, “there arose also a dispute among [the disciples] as to which one of them was regarded to be greatest” (Luke 22:24). They had utterly forgotten the lesson the Lord had so graphically taught them only a short while before. “And He [Jesus] said to them, The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who have authority over them are called “Benefactors.” But not so with you, but let him who is the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as the servant’” (w. 25-26).

The mark of a godly leader in the church is humble, loving, self-giving service. The Lord does not call them to be celebrities or charismatic personalities, much less domineering taskmasters, but the very opposite—selfless servants who find their greatest fulfillment and joy in emulating the devotion, sacrifice, humility, and love of their Lord, the Great Shepherd of the sheep.

There are ways, of course, in which a pastor’s work differs considerably from that of a shepherd. His job is far from being semiskilled. Although he does not have to be highly educated or talented, he must be mature in the faith and exercise the spiritual gift he has received. Even in a small congregation a pastor can face an enormous diversity of problems and challenges. Every pastorate demands effort, energy, devotion, patience, persistence, and wisdom. In the figures Paul uses in 2 Timothy 2 and 3, mentioned above, a pastor/elder must function as a teacher, soldier, athlete, farmer, workman, vessel, bond servant, and man of God. And that list is not exhaustive.

But the emphasis in the present passage is that a pastor, or elder, is not qualified on the basis of intelligence, education, influence, or human talent. He is qualified on the basis of his moral and spiritual character and his ability to impart the Word and on those alone. A minority of God’s choice servants throughout history have been highly intelligent, well-educated, and greatly talented, qualities the Lord has chosen to use and bless. As just noted, every pastor should be hard-working. But those are not the foundational qualities that the Lord requires. The foundational and indispensable qualities He requires of highly skilled and eminent pastors are the same as those He requires of the simplest, uneducated pastor who ministers in the primitive back-woods of a rural region or in a developing third-world country. Regardless of where and how they minister, they are to be morally and spiritually pure. Only such men are worthy to be leaders in Christ’s church.

Leaders in Christ’s church are also to function like parents in a family. Paul frequently referred to those under his care as his children in the faith. “We proved to be gentle among you, as a nursing mother tenderly cares for her own children,” he reminded believers in Thessalonica. “Having thus a fond affection for you,” he continued, “we were well-pleased to impart to you not only the gospel of God but also our own lives, because you had become very dear to us” (1 Thess. 2:7-8; cf. v. 11). John refers to those to whom he is writing as “My little children” (1 John 2:1). And just as poor parental leadership undermines a family and weakens society as a whole, so does poor pastoral leadership undermine a congregation and weaken the church as a whole.

Like Paul, every elder should be able to say honestly to those to whom he ministers: “Brethren, join in following my example, and observe those who walk according to the pattern you have in us” (Phil. 3:17; cf. 1 Thess. 2:7-12; 5:12; 2 Thess. 3:9). Elders should be remembered by believers in their churches as “those who led [them], who spoke the word of God to [them],” and as those whose conduct and faith were worthy of imitation (Heb. 13:7).

To persecuted Christians scattered throughout the Roman Empire Peter wrote, “Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock” (1 Pet. 5:1-3).

Being above reproach is to be a lifelong characteristic of the faithful elder, overseer, pastor-teacher. Near the end of his first letter to Timothy, Paul admonishes the young pastor to “keep the commandment without stain or reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ” (6:14).

After asking rhetorically, “0 Lord, who may abide in Thy tent? Who may dwell on Thy holy hill?” David answers his own question, saying, “He who walks with integrity, and works righteousness, and speaks truth in his heart” (Ps. 15:1-2). “Integrity” translates tamim, a Hebrew word that carries the idea of being complete, sound, perfect, upright, unblemished, and without defect.

It was Job’s integrity toward God that he steadfastly maintained against all accusations and adversities. God Himself said “to Satan, ‘Have you considered My servant Job? For there is no one like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man fearing God and turning away from evil. And he still holds fast his integrity [from tummah, closely related to tamim], although you incited Me against him, to ruin him without cause’” (Job 2:3). It was that integrity that Job’s wife foolishly advised him to forsake. “Do you still hold fast your integrity?” she asked. “Curse God and die!” (v. 9). But Job’s unswerving testimony was “Till I die I will not put away my integrity from me. I hold fast my righteousness and will not let it go” (Job 27:5-6; cf. 31:6).

Isaiah asked rhetorically, “Who among us can live with the consuming fire? Who among us can live with continual burning?” (Isa. 33:14); that is, who can avoid God’s judgment and chastening? In answer, he replies, “He who walks righteously, and speaks with sincerity, he who rejects unjust gain, and shakes his hands so that they hold no bribe; he who stops his ears from hearing about bloodshed, and shuts his eyes from looking upon evil” (v. 15).

David declared, “I will give heed to the blameless way. When wilt Thou come to me? I will walk within my house in the integrity of my heart” (Ps. 101:2). The peerless king of Israel was committed to the Lord in the fullest possible way. He wanted his life to reflect the righteousness and goodness of God, and he wanted his personal relationship with the Lord to be close and sincere. He wanted to live “the blameless way.”

David also wanted those who ministered to him to live in that same way. “My eyes shall be upon the faithful of the land,” he continues, “that they may dwell with me; he who walks in a blameless way is the one who will minister to me” (v. 6). He did not want to subject himself to the spiritual leadership of any man who did not live a life above reproach. The only person who can truly speak and minister for God is one who has been in God’s presence; and the only person who can come into God’s presence is one who is inwardly as well as outwardly righteous.

Although the great reproaches of his life, so well chronicled in the Old Testament, were confessed, and he was restored to fellowship with God, who allowed him to continue as king in Israel, David’s life is not proof that one can sin scandalously and be restored to the pastorate. Old Testament kings rarely would have qualified. David—with his many wives, adultery, murder, and wayward children—certainly did not.

“Let everyone who names the name of the Lord abstain from wickedness” (2 Tim. 2:19), Paul declares; because only “if a man cleanses himself, … will [he] be a vessel for honor, sanctified, useful to the Master, prepared for every good work” (v. 21).

SEXUAL MORALITY

the husband of one wife, (6:b)

The first specific qualification of an elder is his being the husband of one wife. The Greek behind that phrase is more literally rendered “a one-woman man,” or “one-woman husband.”

Because that qualification is so often misinterpreted, it is important to note a number of things it does not signify. Although polygamy is clearly forbidden in the New Testament (cf. 1 Cor. 7:2), that is not Paul’s point here. Being married to only one spouse at a time applies to all believers, not just church leaders. Nor is the reference to a widower who has remarried, a practice that is perfectly permissible (Rom. 7:1-3; 1 Cor. 7:39; 1 Tim. 5:14). Nor is Paul saying that an elder must be married. If that were his point, he simply could have stated such. More significantly, Paul himself may well have been an elder in Antioch before he stepped out into the role of apostle (cf. Acts 13:1), and apparently he was not married (cf. 1 Cor. 9:5).

Likewise, the apostle is not here referring explicitly to divorce or he would have mentioned it. It is possible, however, that Paul is including an unbiblical divorce. In New Testament times, divorce was rampant among Jews as well as Gentiles. Although God hates divorce (Mal. 2:16), He graciously permits it under certain circumstances. Jesus declared that the adultery of one spouse permitted the innocent partner to remarry. “I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the cause of unchastity, makes her commit adultery” (Matt. 5:32). Under divine guidance, Paul taught that, if an “unbelieving [spouse] leaves, let him [or her] leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace” (1 Cor. 7:15).

Being the husband of one wife refers to the singularity of a man’s faithfulness to the woman who is his wife and implies inner as well as outward sexual purity. It is quite possible, and all too common, for a husband to be married to only one woman yet not be a one-woman man, because he has sexual desires for other women besides his wife or engages in impure behavior with another woman. Jesus made clear that “everyone who looks on a woman to lust for her has committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matt. 5:28). A lustful husband, whether or not he ever commits physical adultery, commits moral adultery if he harbors sexual desire for women other than his wife. He is not a one-woman man. When his unfaithfulness becomes known, he is disqualified.

An elder must have an unsullied, lifelong reputation for devotion to his spouse and to sexual purity. He must be completely free of fornication, adultery, divorce, and remarriage (except after the death of a wife), mistresses, illegitimate children, and all such moral stains that tarnish the reputation of Christ and His church. When a church brings a morally corrupted man into leadership or brings him back into leadership after serious moral sin, it does so in serious contradiction of God’s standards and will.

The writer of Proverbs asks rhetorically, “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? So is the one who goes in to his neighbor’s wife; whoever touches her will not go unpunished” (Prov. 6:27-29). “Men do not despise a thief if he steals to satisfy himself when he is hungry,” the writer goes on to say, “but when he is found, he must repay sevenfold; he must give all the substance of his house” (w. 30-31). But “the one who commits adultery with a woman is lacking sense; he who would destroy himself does it. Wounds and disgrace he will find, and his reproach will not be blotted out” (Prov. 6:32-33). Unlike a thief, a man who commits adultery has no way to make restitution for his sin and can never be free of reproach and, consequently, can never be “above reproach.”

Although Reuben was Jacob’s “first-born” and was “preeminent in dignity and preeminent in power,” he became “uncontrolled as water” and thereby forfeited his “preeminence, because [he] went up to [his] father’s bed” and “defiled it” (Gen. 49:3-4). Such a man can never be above reproach.

It should be carefully noted, however, that a man who has never been guilty of sexual sins is not necessarily morally or spiritually superior to a man who has fully confessed and been forgiven of them. It does not mean that a repentant man will never be used effectively by the Lord in Christian service. It simply means that only a sexually pure and faithful man is qualified to be the pastor and example in Christ’s church.

David was “a man after [God’s] own heart” (1 Sam. 13:14; Acts 13:22), and he “did what was right in the sight of the Lord, and had not turned aside from anything that He commanded him all the days of his life, except in the case of Uriah the Hittite” (1 Kings 15:5, emphasis added). David’s son Solomon succeeded his father on the throne of Israel, and “among the many nations there was no king like him, and he was loved by his God, and God made him king over all Israel; nevertheless the foreign women caused even him to sin” (Neh. 13:26, emphasis added). Both of those godly men were specially loved and blessed by God, yet both were morally disqualified as spiritual shepherds of God’s people. Despite their great devotion to the Lord and faithfulness in His service, sexual infidelity gave them a permanent moral stigma.

Despite his apostleship and incomparable service to Christ and His church, Paul knew that he himself was not exempt from possible disqualification. “I buffet my body and make it my slave,” he testified, “lest possibly, after I have preached to others, I myself should be disqualified” (1 Cor. 9:27). Earlier in that letter he declares that “every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?” (1 Cor. 6:18-19). Paul knew that if he succumbed to sexual temptation he no longer would have a life that was above reproach and no longer would be qualified for leadership.

FAMILY LEADERSHIP

having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. (1:6c)

The second specific qualification for eldership mentioned here is that of family leadership. A man who cannot spiritually and morally lead his own family is not qualified to lead an entire congregation.

To find out if a man is qualified for leadership in the church, look first at his influence on his own children. If you want to know if he is able to lead the unsaved to faith in Christ and to help them grow in obedience and holiness, simply examine the effectiveness of his efforts with his own children.

Children translates teknon and refers to offspring of any age. Paul has just referred to Titus, a grown man, as his “true child [teknon] in the faith” (v. 4). His immediately following reference to dissipation strongly suggests that he has in mind primarily grown or nearly grown children. Even very young children can believe in Christ, and they certainly can be rebellious. But they cannot be guilty of dissipation in any normal sense of the word.

Pistos is a verbal adjective that passively means “trustworthy,” or “faithful” (as KJV), and actively means to believe, as rendered here. Some commentators believe that Paul is using only the passive sense here and is simply referring to children who are well behaved, who can be trusted to do what is right and are faithful to their parents.

In the New Testament pistos is used passively of God’s faithfulness (see, e.g., 1 Cor. 1:9; 10:13; 2 Cor. 1:18), of Christ’s faithfulness (see, e.g., 2 Thess. 3:3; Heb. 2:17; 3:2), of the faithfulness, or trustworthiness, of God’s words (see, e.g., Acts 13:34; 1 Tim. 1:15; 2 Tim. 2:11; Titus 1:9; 3:8). It is also used passively many times of people in general. But it is significant that, except for this sometimes disputed text (Titus 1:6), it always is used of people whom the context clearly identifies as believers (see, e.g., Matt. 25:21, 23; Acts 16:15; 1 Cor. 4:2, 17; Eph. 6:21; Col. 1:7; 4:7; Rev. 2:10, 13; 17:14). Unbelievers are never referred to as faithful. That fact alone argues strongly for the rendering here of children who believe, that is, who have placed their faith in Jesus Christ. Even if the idea were that of faithfulness to parents, the use of pistos in those other passages would argue for its referring to the faithfulness of believing children. In an elder’s home, especially, a child who is old enough to be saved, but is not, can hardly be considered faithful. He would be unfaithful in by far the most important way.

If a man’s children are too young to understand the gospel and to trust in Jesus as Lord and Savior, then the standard given to Timothy applies. An overseer, or elder, “must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?)” (1 Tim. 3:4-5; cf. v. 12). As children grow older and the issue is no longer control, the more demanding criteria in Titus 1 come into play.

Many Christian men who work hard to support and manage their households utterly fail in leading their children to salvation, to godliness, and to Christian service. It is not that a faithful and conscientious father is responsible for his children’s rejection of the gospel. He may have made every effort to teach them their need of salvation through trust in Jesus Christ and have set a godly example for them to follow. Nevertheless, such men are not qualified to be elders if they do not have children not only who believe but who also are not accused of dissipation or rebellion. Successful spiritual leadership of their own families is their proving ground, as it were, for spiritual leadership in the church, because they are to be models of Christian living.

Asōtia (dissipation) carries the ideas of prodigality, profligacy, and even of rioting (as KJV). It was commonly used of drunken revelry at pagan festivals (cf. Eph. 5:18). Anupotaktos (rebellion) does not in this context refer to political or military insurrection but rather to personal unruliness, refusal to recognize or submit to proper authority, of parents or of society. A man whose children are profligate and unruly, even if they are genuine believers, is not qualified for pastoring or for other elders’ duties.

No matter how godly and self-giving a man himself may be in the Lord’s service, children of his who do not believe and who are known for their dissipation or rebellion distract from the credibility of his leadership. If he cannot bring his own children to salvation and to godly living, he will not have the confidence of the church in his ability to lead other unbelievers to salvation or to lead his congregation in godly living. Unbelieving, rebellious, or profligate children will be a serious reproach on his life and ministry.

Based on a defective understanding of God’s sovereign election, some interpreters argue that Paul could not possibly hold a man responsible for the failure of his children to be saved if God has not elected them. But that sort of thinking is unbiblical. Scriptural predestination is not fatalism or determinism. God’s sovereign election, as clearly taught in Scripture, in no way mitigates against Scripture’s equally clear teaching that salvation comes only through personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and that the Lord uses believers to witness the gospel to unbelievers by what they say and by how they live.

Jesus commanded, “Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 5:16). A life that reflects the light of the gospel draws men to that light. It is used to bring salvation to the lost and glory to the Lord. After Pentecost, believers in Jerusalem “were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. … And day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart, praising God, and having favor with all the people. And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved” (Acts 2:42, 46-47). Paul testified:

Paul knew that everything he did, as well as everything he said, had an impact in drawing the unsaved to salvation. Later in that same epistle he admonishes, “Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God; just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of the many, that they may be saved” (1 Cor. 10:31-33; cf. Phil. 2:15-16). “Beloved,” Peter wrote, “I urge you as aliens and strangers to abstain from fleshly lusts, which wage war against the soul. Keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles, so that in the thing in which they slander you as evildoers, they may on account of your good deeds, as they observe them, glorify God in the day of visitation” (1 Pet. 2:11-12). In both of the last two passages the apostles stress the twofold requirement for successful leadership—the negative of not giving cause for reproach and the positive of living a godly example. Paul charged Timothy, his son in the faith and an elder he had appointed in Ephesus: “In speech, conduct, love, faith and purity, show yourself an example of those who believe” (1 Tim. 4:12).

It should be noted that, just as it is not necessary for an elder to be married, neither is it necessary for a married elder to have children. But where there is no marriage or parenthood, a man must prove his spiritual leadership in other areas of family life.

It should also be noted that Paul assumes that, if an elder is married, his wife is a believer. The command “Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?” (2 Cor. 6:14) has implications for marriage and applies to all believers, but especially to church leaders. In his comment about having “a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas” (1 Cor. 9:5), Paul makes clear that “a believing wife” is the only kind of wife that any church leader is to have.