8  The Preacher’s Authority  (2:15)

These things speak and exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you. (2:15)

This single verse is one of the clearest and strongest statements in Scripture about the spiritual authority of men whom God calls to minister His Word and shepherd His people. Because the phrase with all authority is the foundational truth both for what precedes and what follows it in this verse, its meaning should be considered first.

Authority translates epitagē, which refers to something that is in its proper order or place. The term came to be used figuratively of an official command, directive, or injunction. The verb form (epitassō) is used of Jesus’ power over both the supernatural forces of demons (Mark 1:27; cf. 9:25; Luke 4:36) and the natural forces of “the winds and the water” (Luke 8:25). It also was used of King Herod’s authority to order to the executioner to bring him the head of John the Baptist (Mark 6:27) and of the high priest Ananias’s command to “those standing beside him to strike [Paul] on the mouth” as the apostle stood before the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem (Acts 23:2). In his appeal on behalf of the slave Onesimus, Paul referred Philemon (the slave owner) to his apostolic authority, saying, “I have enough confidence in Christ to order you (epitassō) to do that which is proper, yet for love’s sake I rather appeal to you” (Philem. 8-9).

Jews of Jesus’ day were used to their religious leaders speaking and acting as if what they said and did carried great weight. But even the common people sensed the difference between religious ostentation and genuine spiritual authority. After listening to the Sermon on the Mount, “the multitudes were amazed at [Jesus’] teaching; for He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as their scribes” (Matt. 7:28-29).

Scribes had rigid religious views and standards, based largely on interpretations handed down by noted rabbis over the previous four or five centuries. Those interpretations, or traditions, eventually became dogma and often were given more honor than Scripture. On one occasion a group of scribes and Pharisees from Jerusalem chided Jesus for allowing His disciples to “transgress the tradition of the elders” by not washing their hands before they ate. Jesus countered by asking, “And why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death.’ But you say, ‘Whoever shall say to his father or mother, “Anything of mine you might have been helped by has been given to God,” he is not to honor his father or his mother.’ And thus you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition” (Matt. 15:1-6; cf. Mark 7:8). Paul testified that, before his conversion, “I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my countrymen, being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions” (Gal. 1:14).

After Jesus’ first cleansing of the temple, “the chief priests, and scribes, and elders came to Him, and began saying to Him, ‘By what authority are You doing these things, or who gave You this authority to do these things?’” (Mark 11:27-28). “These things” referred not only to His driving out the moneychangers from the temple (w. 15-16) but also to His authoritative teaching (w. 17-18). Those leaders knew that Jesus had not been educated in a scribal school or personally tutored by a leading rabbi. Nor did He ever credit venerated scribes or rabbis as the source of His teaching. When the men declined to answer Jesus’ question about whether John the Baptist’s ministry was from heaven or from men, He refused to answer their question about the source of His authority (w. 29-33).

Jesus’ authority did not come from an ecclesiastical title, scribal training, or sacerdotal position, none of which He possessed. Nor did it come from the popular Jewish beliefs of His time, many of which were based on myths, legends, and religious and racial prejudice (cf. Titus 1:14). It clearly did not come from rabbinical tradition. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus specifically exposed many of those traditions as being far short of God’s standards. One such tradition asserted, “You shall love your neighbor, and hate your enemy” (Matt. 5:43). The first part, loving one’s neighbor, was biblical (Lev. 19:18), but the second part, hating one’s enemies, was not. Like many other traditions in rabbinical teaching, that tradition was a half-truth, making it all the more deceptive.

On one occasion in the temple, Jesus did choose to tell the Jewish leaders the source of His authority. “My teaching is not Mine,” He said, “but His who sent Me. If any man is willing to do His will, he shall know of the teaching, whether it is of God, or whether I speak from Myself” (John 7:16-17). In other words, if a Jew, or any other person, sincerely seeks and obeys God the Father, he will recognize the divine authority of the Son. “When you lift up the Son of Man,” He said a few days later, “then you will know that I am He, and I do nothing on My own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me” (John 8:28; cf. vv. 38, 40; 12:49).

If Jesus, the sinless and perfect Son of God, limited Himself to speaking nothing during His incarnation except the truth He received from His Father, how much more should those who have been called into His ministry speak only on the authority of divine Scripture. That principle is consistent with what Paul wrote in Titus 1:9 and 2:1, as well as with his command to Timothy to “preach the word” (2 Tim. 4:2).

The preacher is called to accurately interpret and proclaim Scripture with sympathy, compassion, and humility. But he also has the divine charge to present biblical truth with strong authority, commanding God’s people to hear, believe, and obey God’s Word.

It is equally important, however, to understand that no pastor has authority of any sort outside of God’s Word. In a journal article titled “The Preacher and Preaching,” theologian J. I. Packer writes,

As long as he is faithful to God’s Word, a pastor has the awesome privilege of ministering with God-given authority. He is not called to share personal insights or opinions, to philosophize or even theologize, and certainly not to entertain with words that appeal to the whims and prejudices of those to whom he ministers (cf. 2 Tim. 4:3).

The preacher must put himself out of the way and let God’s Word speak through him unhindered. No matter what his training, experience, or personal abilities, he has spiritual authority only to the extent that what he says conforms to God’s Word. But as with Jesus’ own teaching, when a minister of God does faithfully proclaim that Word, those who reject his teaching reject God’s truth and are as much accountable for their rejection as if the Lord had spoken the truth with His own lips. It is in that way, and only in that way, that a pastor is able to speak with spiritual authority. It is also in that way that he is commanded to speak with spiritual authority.

A brief digression from the text will help to emphasize the importance of the biblical line of pastoral authority. As in the past, the church today is plagued by many false kinds of authority. The first might be called personal. Some pastors assume authority over people’s lives in matters of temporal choices and issues, wielding dictatorial control. That is false authority. Others contend that God is obliged to give a positive response to every demand they make on Him “in Jesus’ name.” But a request that is not made in a spirit of meekness and obedience and that is in any way contrary to Scripture and to the purposes of God cannot rightly be made in Jesus’ name. Anything that is truly asked or done in His name (cf. John 14:13-14) is asked and done in accordance with God’s revealed Word and in the spirit of humility and total submission to the will of the Father. Pastors have no personal spiritual authority at all. They speak authoritatively only when they speak the Word of God accurately. They may have insight into earthly matters, have an unusual measure of common sense, and be smart and wise—but none of those attributes make what they say spiritually authoritative. They cannot command as representatives of God except when they speak Scripture.

Others who have official positions in the church arrogate to themselves authority that not only is not granted in God’s Word but that, in many cases, clearly contradicts that Word. They may, for example, claim to have apostolic-like power over disease, demons, and even Satan. They sometimes invoke power over angels, presuming to command those holy servants of God to do their own human bidding. But they command in areas where they have not the slightest jurisdiction.

While Paul was ministering in Ephesus, “some of the Jewish exorcists, who went from place to place, attempted to name over those who had the evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, ‘I adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preaches.’ And seven sons of one Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, were doing this. And the evil spirit answered and said to them, ‘I recognize Jesus, and I know about Paul, but who are you?’” (Acts 19:13-15). The consequence of those men’s presumption was immediate, painful, and embarrassing. “The man, in whom was the evil spirit, leaped on them and subdued all of them and overpowered them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded. And this became known to all, both Jews and Greeks, who lived in Ephesus; and fear fell upon them all and the name of the Lord Jesus was being magnified” (w. 16-17).

A second area of presumed authority is ecclesiastical. Certain cults and church organizations claim to wield it. For example, for over fifteen hundred years, the Roman Catholic Church has claimed to be the only true church of Jesus Christ and often has claimed authority over human governments and society, indeed over the very souls of men. Although that church affirms that Scripture is the Word of God, it maintains that, because it was given through the church, the church therefore stands above Scripture rather than under it. Because it believes itself to be the only true church, the Catholic Church also claims that it is the sole reliable interpreter of the Bible and the channel through which divine revelation has been, and continues to be, given. According to Catholic dogma, when the pope speaks ex cathedra (literally, “from the chair,” that is, from the papal chair, or throne), he speaks with divine authority. It is also asserted that traditions composing the magisterium, the accumulated pronouncements of church councils and papal decrees, hold the same authority as the Bible. The Catholic Church presumes to grant its priests the authority to forgive sins, not only when prescribed confession is made but also through last rites (extreme unction), even if a person is completely unconscious at the time. All such authority is man-made and false.

A third kind of mistaken authority is intellectualism, the notion that one’s own ideas carry authority. The Renaissance and Enlightenment periods brought unqualified trust in man’s ability to solve his own problems and determine his own destiny apart from God or any other supernatural power. For many people, reason was elevated virtually to the status of deity.

Man’s intellectual power is a gracious gift from God to the creatures He made in His own image. But that divinely bestowed gift is not sufficient to lead men to God. Like all other aspects of his being, man’s intellect was corrupted by the Fall. Paul makes clear in his letter to the church in Rome that “that which is known about God is evident within” even unrighteous and rebellious men; “for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse” (Rom. 1:19-20). The overwhelming evidence not only of God’s existence but also of His power and glory is inescapable. But despite that evidence, sinful mankind does not honor God or give Him thanks. Because men trust in their own intellect and are determined to have their own way, they become futile in their speculations, and their foolish hearts are darkened (v. 21). The best of human ideas are impotent to transform the soul, to bring spiritual life, to make a new creation, or to break the power of sin.

In our own day, many theologians and biblical scholars think they have authority over the Bible. They presume that their education and erudition qualifies them to decide if and when Scripture is true and binding. On a less scholarly but equally disastrous level, many pastors suppose that, with their own skills and insights, they can help people solve their problems and surmount whatever moral, spiritual, or emotional shortcomings they may have. But Paul would say to such people what he said almost two thousand years ago to believers in the worldly-wise city of Corinth: “When I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:1-2).

A fourth kind of mistaken authority, perhaps the dominant one in our day, is experiential. Such statements as “I know this is right (or true) because I feel it is” are tragically common, even among Christians. But intuition is not knowing. Feeling and emotion cannot discern truth and have no necessary relation to the truth. There is no reliability or authority in mere experience.

Yet it is common for people to believe something is true simply because they feel it is true or because they experience something that leads them to conclude that it is true. With utter disregard for careful biblical study and interpretation, they whimsically mishandle the truth and thereby forfeit true spiritual authority.

The challenge for the preacher is to keep his own intuition and experience out of the text and to keep himself out of the sermon so that the voice of God alone is heard. Again J. I. Packer offers helpful insight:

Congregations who for decades have heard only a preacher’s insights and learned the most recent psychological and social theories are shocked and offended when they hear “Thus says the Lord.” To them the truth and the standards of Scripture seem unloving, inhibiting, and outdated. And the man of God who preaches that truth and holds believers to those divine standards is himself considered insensitive, judgmental, unloving, and perhaps even irrelevant.

Many churchgoers simply do not want to hear authoritative and demanding preaching about an authoritative and demanding God. Like those about whom Paul warned Timothy, they are not inclined to “endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they … accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires” (2 Tim. 4:3). In our own day, there is no shortage of preachers who are willing to oblige such self-centered hearers. By and large, the most popular preaching is broad-minded, anecdotal, entertaining, ego-building, and, above all, never confrontational or dogmatic. It offends no pride, disturbs no conscience, and is a clear reflection of the humanistic spirit of the age, in which tolerance and unity at any cost are the supreme virtues.

It is essential to preach the Word with authority in order to counteract the prideful rejection of God’s truth and authority that is the root of all sin. Satan rebelled against God in heaven and later lured man into rebelling against God on earth. Consequently, fallen man has no regard for God’s law, God’s will, God’s holiness, or God’s sovereignty. And when God and His Word are rejected, it is inevitable that spiritual and moral absolutes are rejected. All beliefs and all standards become relative and optional, a matter of personal choice. Only an authoritative Word from God that is heard, believed, and obeyed can rescue sinners from their rebellion.

A generation of parents who have failed to discipline their children has added to the anti-authority mentality, and they have produced a generation of young people who fail to respect their parents, their teachers, the police, or the government—not to mention God. That general rebellion against and resistance to authority is, of course, exacerbated when both parents work and have little time for their children. Even more destructive is divorce, especially when accompanied by the sexual infidelity, physical and mental abuse, or alcohol and drug addiction of parents. Preaching authoritatively to such a generation is a challenge.

For over half a century, educational philosophies have accommodated natural resentment of authority by exalting personal rights, personal choice, personal independence, self-expression, and self-sufficiency. During this time, the secular media has waged an ever-increasing campaign against social authority—parental, religious, police, and political. Personal vengeance and civil disobedience are glorified as legitimate answers to injustice, real or perceived.

Even many church leaders are far from being models of virtue and integrity. Moral and ethical scandals involving preachers and leaders of Christian organizations have become almost commonplace and do devastating damage to an already weakened church that has been infected by those who reject authority.

The message that Titus was to proclaim with authority is summarized in the phrase with which the verse begins—these things, which refers back to what Paul has mentioned so far in this chapter regarding holy living and the precious gospel, summed up in the phrase “the things which are fitting for sound doctrine” (2:1). It was these divine truths that Titus was, in turn, to speak and exhort and reprove as he ministered in the churches on Crete.

Speak (from laleō) points to the pastor’s responsibility to preach, announce, reveal, and disclose, with the intent of making clear God’s truth so that those who hear may understand. Careful and faithful biblical preaching gives them knowledge of that truth.

Exhort is from parakaleō, which carries the ideas of beseeching, entreating, and pleading. It involves more than simply stating and explaining truth. The preacher who exhorts seeks by every means at his disposal to persuade and encourage his hearers not simply to understand but to believe God’s truth.

Whereas exhort is a positive command to do what is right, reprove (elenchō) is a negative command meaning “to convince and correct one who does not yet recognize or admit that he must turn away from what is wrong.” William Barclay writes, “The eyes of the sinner must be opened to his sin. The mind of the misguided must be led to realize its mistake. The heart of the heedless must be stabbed broad awake. The Christian message is no opiate to send men to sleep; it is no comfortable assurance that everything will be all right. It is rather the blinding light which shows men themselves as they are and God as He is” (The Letters to Timothy, Titus and Philemon [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960], p. 296).

Summing up, the preacher must strive to bring his hearers to understand, believe, and obey God’s truth.

Paul’s closing admonition in this chapter, Let no one disregard you, adds muscle to the command to speak with authority. The phrase let no one clearly allows for no exception. No believer should be allowed to reject or disregard God’s truth. In effect, Paul is giving a call to church discipline as outlined in Matthew 18:15-17, 1 Corinthians 5:1-2, and Titus 3:10-11.

Disregard is from periphroneō, which has the literal meaning of “thinking around something, usually for the purpose of evasion.” Eventually, the word came to be used almost exclusively in the negative sense of strongly disagreeing with an idea and of treating it with disrespect or disregard. God’s truth is to be proclaimed with authority, and obedience to it demanded in the church. No disobedience can be tolerated or overlooked.