Book of Titus - Ch. 1, v. 7

All right, if you want to turn to Titus chapter 1, we'll continue trucking our way through here. We took a peek at verse 7 last week, the kind of opening phrases of verse 7, and we'll press on with that today, probably finish up this verse, and then, and then keep going, of course.

As I said, I continue to throw out this qualifier that we are taking our sweet time through these qualifications of the eldership of God's churches, and that is intentional. It is not only because we will be able to set the groundwork for our continued study as we go right into 1st Timothy later, but this is very meaningful stuff for me, given the position I'm in.

This is, this is exactly to some degree, the job description, but also the character traits, the necessary character traits of the job as well, and so I picked going through the pastorals for this very reason.

I felt that it would be very meaningful for me at this point in my life, given the the recent ordination and things like that, the recent call to the ministry, but as I've said numerous times as well, it's wonderful for every member of a local church, because this isn't just exclusive to pastors.

In fact, the pastoral qualifications take up a very brief section of Titus and 1st Timothy. The large majority of these letters are just your standout stuff for Christian living, God's standards and imperatives for Christians in general, members, not just the church leaders, as well as some very, very deep doctrinal truths as well, very deep doctrinal themes.

The Negative Qualifications for Elders in Titus 1:7

So, take a look at verse 7 one more time with me. It says, for a bishop must be blameless as the steward of God, not self-willed, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre.

Now, of course, this flows directly from verse 6, where we learned that they also are to be blameless, the husband of one wife having faithful children, not accused of riot and unruly. So, all of these are part of the same package.

Verse 8 starts to turn a little bit and shifts into some of the positive, kind of the positive side of the coin, of course, where it starts talking about being a lover of hospitality and things like that.

But first, Paul is tackling the negatives, the don'ts. An elder cannot be these things, a bishop cannot do these things, their character can't be marred by these specific things. Just briefly, we looked at the word bishop, episkopos.

It's also translated as overseer in many places. In fact, even the KJV has some places where they chose overseer over bishop. But it's the same Greek word. And, of course, we looked at that in detail last week.

It has... The meaning of the word carries a lot more of the job description in within it with regard to, again, overseeing, superintending, viewing the congregation. Yes, sir.

Absolutely.

So, I...

Yes, let me... I'll give you the nutshell study that we did there. No, that's perfectly fine. 100%. 100%. So, basically, the first place to start would be just observing Paul's use of particular Greek words, the phrasing that he uses here.

And while the KJV makes it somewhat tough because of the way it's phrased, the more, you know, literal meaning, which I believe can be substantiated with what I'll say here in just a second, is the husband of one wife, meaning a one-woman man.

With the main focus being on his faithfulness to his wife, faithfulness to his woman, only having eyes for her. And, of course, that points directly back to what every other qualification in this context refers to, which it comes back to his character.

So, one of the ways... a couple of the ways we substantiated that that could be... that should be the proper view, a one-woman man over against... he can only have one wife ever, is, number one, if you take that interpretation that it means he can only have one wife, one wife ever, or else he's disqualified, number one, that would assume that they have to be married in the first place.

Of course, we talked quite a bit about the fact that Paul, the one that's giving these qualifications, of course, was a celibate single man. Of course, it requires the gift of celibacy in order to approach ministry in that fashion.

But we actually had the blessing of experiencing that even in our own church with Brother Bill Nichols, who served as our elder, one of our elders from 2016, until he passed away in 2022. He was a celibate minister who lived with his family to hold him accountable and he was able to serve faithfully in that position, regardless of the fact that he didn't have a wife or kids, obviously.

However, we were still able... you can still look at these qualifications and see that someone in that position, like the Apostle Paul, in our case, like Brother Bill, or many others, is that we still knew he was able to keep a well-ordered home because of the fact that he was living with family.

He practically raised his niece, Georgette, and all of the character traits that go into being a good dad, he had. But he was still a single man his whole life. The second thing, so there's that. If you take the interpretation that it must mean he is married and can only be married once, then that would exclude those who were never married by implication.

But secondly, we also talked about some of the interesting aspects of pre-conversion life. So in other words, let's say you have a man who, or a young man, who got married in his teens. It could be 18, 19, 20, 21.

He was an unbeliever at the time. He married an unbeliever.

They were together.

And he, at some point, was converted. The Holy Spirit regenerated him. He called upon the name of the Lord and started moving into his spiritual growth, the sanctification process. But his wife at the time was a ardent atheist, and she hated the fact that he is now becoming more spiritual.

And she leaves him, which is a scriptural ground for divorce. If the unbeliever leaves, then the saved person, at that point in the letter of divorcement, things like that, the saved person is now free from that particular covenant vow.

And so then let's say he progresses into sanctification. Maybe he gets called to the ministry. He goes to seminary. He's going to college. He meets a godly girl. And they end up marrying. Long story short, they have a faithful marriage of 25 years.

Hypothetically, they have kids that are faithful to the Lord. All these things. I don't believe Paul is excluding a man like that from the eldership in his qualification in verse 6, because he is still faithful.

He is a one-woman man. He doesn't have eyes for other women. He is faithful to his wife, even though he had a divorce in his youth. So that's the position that I take. I know that we had some men that you probably remember in a position where, well, Brother Bill, he was reluctant to take the call of eldership because of what I just described.

And Dad, of course, walked him through a very detailed study and all of that to show that he was qualified and why. But there was another man who we, the church, called to be deacon and he refused because he had a previous marriage in his younger years and remarried later and, of course, had a very faithful marriage after that.

But he felt convicted that he wasn't qualified. I would disagree with that for some of the reasons I just said. But to your point, it can be a sticking point for some. And so that's the nutshell version of it.

We spent at least two or three Sundays on that verse, on verse 6, and I fleshed it out quite a bit more. Of course, we have all the recordings for it, but that's the quick version. Okay, so back to verse 7 now.

Okay. So another thing is, you know, elder was the term being used in verses 5 and 6, and then in verse 7 he shifts to this term bishop, overseer. He's the superintendent. He's the overseer of the flock.

Kind of plays into the job description of all of that. And then at the very end of last week, we started the very early stages of discussing this aspect of not being not self-willed. So if you look at verse 7, of course, we covered the importance of being as a steward of God as well.

We covered all that last week. And then there's this phrase, not self-willed. Not self-willed means, essentially, not to have, that a person should not have this self-loving arrogance about him. In other words, being an arrogant person, being totally consumed with themselves, seeking their own gratification.

This man, a man that's like that, that has that personality type, that has those types of character flaws, would not be qualified to be an elder. Because how can you be a self-sacrificial shepherd for the flock of God that has been given to you as a steward, as it says right before this phrase in verse 7?

How can you be a self-sacrificing shepherd if you're self-willed, if you search for your own gratification, if you are seeking your own gratification, your pursuits are driven by your own gratification?

That type of man can't be an elder because he would not be fit to be the self-sacrificial shepherd that is needed in a pastor, in an elder, in a bishop. He is stubborn, he is headstrong, but not necessarily about the right things.

So you can have, in fact, as we progress through Titus, we're gonna see that the elder has to be willing to stand up to false teaching. He has to be willing to have.

The.

Fortitude to be able to do that. And so if you want to define a person that stands up to the fundamentals of the faith, that defends the foundation for biblical truth, if you want to call a person like that headstrong because they're not willing to budge, that's fine.

But there's also a negative side to being headstrong, and that is when it's driven by selfishness. It's driven, again, by your own selfish pursuits. If a person is so headstrong that they are deaf to any of what maybe their fellow elders are telling them, okay, so let's assume for a second this person was ordained erroneously, and he is now serving as a pastor, but he only cares about himself.

He only cares about his own gratification. And all of a sudden, this pattern starts to be shown, and maybe the other elders see it. They're concerned by it. Maybe the deacons see it and are concerned by it.

And so, in keeping with Matthew 18, they go to him privately, and they say, Pastor, you know, we see that we see a pattern here, a negative character flaw in your life. And we see that you seem to be more focused on your standing, a good reputation as a great pastor, and the pastor of a big church, and numbers, and all these types of things over against shepherding the flock.

You know, we have families over here that are in need of this kind of counseling. We have families over here that need leadership and discipleship here. But it seems like you're more concerned with making sure the city knows about our church growth than any of that.

And we want to bring that to you so that you can explain, you know, are we making this up? Do you feel that this is legit? And then he responds by saying, you don't know what you're talking about. You know, I'm in authority here.

I'm the reason this church is growing. You know, you fill in the blank. You can just keep going and going and going. That type of headstrong is what Paul is talking about here. The elder cannot be headstrong in that negative sense.

He has to be headstrong about the right things, like I alluded to earlier, but not about the wrong things. Turn with me really quick to 2 Peter chapter 2. And I want to show you a parallel passage with regard to this self-willed character type, this self-willed character flaw.

What does it look like when a person is headstrong like this, headstrong to the point where they are not qualified to be an elder? Look at 2 Peter chapter 2 and let's start in verse 9. It says, the Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations and to reserve the unjust into the day of judgment to be punished.

But chiefly, them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness and despise government, presumptuous are they, self-willed. There's the same word, same Greek term. They are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.

Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord. Now, that last verse there, verse 11, is a very interesting one. But just a quick broad view for a second.

You can see the same self-willed type of character flaw is right in the mix of all of these terrible, terrible things. Walking after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, despising government, being presumptuous, self-willed is thrown right in the middle of that.

Not being afraid to speak evil of dignities.

What does that mean?

Well, you can start to see why Paul would be quick to bar such a man as this from the office of bishop. When he says, not self-willed in verse 7 of Titus chapter 1, this is the type of man he's talking about.

Do not let this type of man serve as a bishop. If he's serving already because of an erroneous ordination, or maybe it was one of those situations where he played his cards just right and he was ordained and then his true character started to unfold later on.

And now the elders have a really particular problem on their hands. They need to do something about it. Paul is saying, do something about it. Or best case scenario, don't let him be a bishop in the first place.

They're so arrogant. They are so bold in their arrogance. And so self-willed that they will even step into areas where angels fear to step. Verse 11, that's what he's saying here when he says, whereas angels, which are greater in power and might than these self-willed guys, they don't even bring a railing accusation against them before the Lord.

Talking about these dignities that he was talking about in verse 10. And so these guys are so arrogant. They will step into areas where the angels dare not even step because they are so hot-headed, so self-willed, so arrogant.

So headstrong that they just, you know, they feel like they can get away with anything. Well, I didn't get struck by lightning the last time I was this self-willed, so I'm just going to keep it going.

Obviously, I can get away with anything. That is the type of attitude and character that these type of men have. They do not get to serve as elders. Now, contrast all of that with the modern secular view of good leadership for a second.

Think about what we just talked about in being self-willed, being arrogant, headstrong, all these types of things. And then think about the way the secular world views good leadership, quote unquote.

They want men to be aggressive and assertive. They want them to be dogmatic about everything, including his own opinions. Now, let me emphasize that for a second, because I am not saying dogmatics is bad.

Dogmatics is a very necessary thing to purify the church. Pastors have to be dogmatic about what, though? The foundational scriptural truths found in the Bible and, of course, the way the Holy Spirit leads their teaching as well.

But when you take that a step further beyond the bounds intended by scripture and you have a guy that is dogmatic about his opinions about everything, whether or not he even has an argument for them, that is a problem.

You can't have a man like that serving in the eldership. But again, the secular world gravitates toward those type of, quote unquote, leaders. Again, being assertive, dogmatic about their opinions, putting certainty over truth.

What do I mean by that? It means they come up with a particular view of something and they say it has to be this. And maybe they'll give some reasons why. And anything that goes even slightly left or right of this opinion, of this view, is wrong because they would rather be certain about this one narrow view of whatever it is they're talking about rather than the pursuit of truth, which sometimes, as we know, is a little bit tougher to find than we might want.

Not about everything. Again, by grace, the Lord is crystal clear in his word about the most foundational things about the gospel, about salvation, about self-rule, about elders here, the ordination of elders, qualifications therein, so on and so forth.

But there are some areas where, wouldn't you all agree, without the Holy Spirit, without the Holy Spirit's enlightenment in his teaching, it would be very hard to interpret certain things from scripture.

You have to have the Spirit to do it. You can't just do it in and of yourself, across the board. Matt, did you have a thought a second ago?

I did.

What if you had a pastor who had strong opinions on, say, an aspect of marriage or something. That is, I guess, in a way, it's more of an opinion. In the preacher's eyes, you know, he has scriptural backing to his opinion.

Would him sticking to that and being strong to that be different than him being dogmatic with an opinion?

Well, sure. But we also need to define opinion as well. So you use the example of marriage. Well, marriage is a pretty cut and dry biblical doctrine. And so that is one that I would say go all in with the dogmatics, you know, the creation order.

One man, one woman, especially in this day and age. Now, I realize you were trying to think of an example. That particular example, that would be a time to call for dogmatics. I wish I had thought of a good example before this lesson.

It would have been helpful. But, you know, there are some passages. Okay, I'll give you a good one just off the top of my head. There are some interesting views on Christ's dissension while he was in the grave.

In other words, what does it mean in Peter when it talks about Christ descending and preaching to those in prison? I have what I believe to be a biblical, I guess you could say, opinion. But it is in contrast with a lot of others views on that particular thing.

That is what you might call a secondary issue. We are not, there's not going to be a church split over how exactly that played out. Number one, because we're given very little information about it. Number two, because it's not a foundational doctrine per se.

He obviously descended. The question is, how did that look? Did he descend into the flame to experience torment for three days on our behalf? Or perhaps did he descend into Abraham's bosom, where paradise was, and his preaching to those in bondage was across the great gulf that Jesus talks about in Luke chapter 19, when Abraham and the rich man were talking back and forth.

That would be the view I take. But others take the view that he descended into Hades, the bad part of Hades, which I take issue with. But again, is that a church splitting difference? I would say no. And so if I got up and I was so dogmatic about my view on that particular issue that I said, you cannot be a member of this church unless you agree with me on this.

That's kind of what I'm talking about. That's kind of what I'm talking about. And maybe you could think of even better secondary issues than that one, where it's just like, whoa, guy, where is this coming from?

Why are you being so headstrong about that particular thing when you obviously have... Well, here's another one. How about how often you partake in the Lord's Supper? Do you not agree that the Lord left that somewhat ambiguous so that local churches could make the decision of what's best for them?

Many of our brothers and sisters take the Lord's Supper every fifth Sunday. Show me that in the Bible. It's not there. But are we going to condemn them for doing that? Of course not. Would we split a church because they believe you should have the Lord's Supper every fifth Sunday versus maybe once a week or maybe once a year like we do it during Passover?

So that's our conviction because we believe you can make an exegetical conclusion there. The Lord said as often as you do this. And what is this? It's the Last Supper.

It's the Lord.

It's the Passover. And so that's our conviction. But does that mean that it's wrong for other local churches to partake every fifth Sunday or wrong for local churches to partake every week, which many of them do?

That's what I'm talking about. Those types of areas. Being super dogmatic about those. Does that clear it up a little bit?

It's not clear enough for me.

Okay.

I'll clear you up on the difference.

Okay.

Now, if you go back to topics like marriage and salvation and the gospel at large, I mean, yes, be dogmatic. We need pastors that are more dogmatic in those areas and less dogmatic about their pet doctrines or pet opinions and things like that.

It's a really odd thing the way the devil works because the ones that you see out there that have boldness, bold enough to be dogmatic about anything, are the guys that are being bold and dogmatic about the weirdest stuff.

And then guys that may have a pretty decent theological foundation pretty solid doctrinal convictions. They're going to be sidestepping issues as they preach, as they deal, because they know that if they're going to grow quickly, they know that if they are going to be viewed in the positive light, perhaps of academia in the theological side of things or their online presence or whatever it may be, then they're going to be sidestepping controversial issues and not being dogmatic enough.

So, yeah.

Got a chat from Brian who said, the problem with dogma is the ditch on either side of the road. The problem with dogma is the ditch on either side of the road. How easy is it to veer so slightly into legalism?

Well, it's 100 valid, Brian. There is a ditch on either side of that road. And you can call this the Sunday school answer, I guess. The way that you stay on that straight and narrow path as a pastor, as a Bible teacher in general, by the way, I would say this isn't exclusive to pastors.

It could be deacons that are also teaching Bible studies. It could be someone like Brother Otis, who outside of any local church's jurisdiction, he was just doing his own Bible teaching in his home. If you're a Bible teacher, I would say you have to rely prayerfully, and I'm talking immerse yourself in prayer and humble yourself to the Holy Spirit's leading in order to avoid either side of that narrow path, either ditch.

Because yes, it is easy in the pride of human's hearts to waver even a little bit. And to your point, Brian, what that will look like is one of two things, either legalism, which is the example that you gave, or the other side of that is that big word we've talked about a couple of times, antinomianism, the more left-leaning side of that path, where all of a sudden you start being dogmatic about other people's dogmatics.

You start being dogmatic about basically doing whatever you want to do because everything's under grace, would be just a quick way to put it, which is very dangerous in and of itself. Yes, everything's by grace.

We've covered that many times before, but that doesn't excuse you from either mishandling God's word or living a life like the world, like the goats, because you're under grace. Yes, grace covers everything, but we don't, grace isn't there that sin may abound, as Paul said clearly.

And so that would be, that'd be one side. That'd be one ditch. The other ditch would be legalism. And so Brian, I agree, number one. Number two, I believe that the answer is to, for the Bible teacher is to bathe every lesson, every sermon, every series, every topic, every lecture in prayer, humbling himself, asking and pleading with the Holy Spirit to guide his words, guide his study, to ensure that that doesn't happen.

And it may happen. There may be anomalies. That would be somewhat different than a man having this negative headstrong character trait. If there are anomalies here and there, where maybe, you know, a guy gets fiery and gets super, super dogmatic in a moment about a particular thing.

And then maybe even he realizes later, well, that may come off a little bit strong. I'm talking about more of a habitual character flaw of being headstrong about the wrong things. So very valid point, Brian.

Hopefully, I mean, that was more of just, I agree than a flat out answer, I suppose, but there you go. Really good stuff though. Really interesting stuff. So what started that kind of, I veered a little bit there, went on a little bit of a rabbit trail.

What started that was, again, asking the question, or at least not even asking the question, just taking into consideration the contrast between what Paul has in mind and a good elder here in the way the secular world views good leadership, that being maybe overly assertive about the weird stuff, being dogmatic about their opinions, less about God's order, more about their opinions or their interpretations, which by the way, that's another heated topic is like, well, whose interpretation is right?

Well, the Bible's. The Bible interprets the Bible. That is one of the key 10 rules of Bible interpretation is everything has to be consistent within the whole scope of the Bible. I heard it. Ashton and I were listening to do a debate this weekend.

And man, the proof text, quote unquote, that the guy that on the side that I disagreed with, that he kept harping on, it wasn't that God's words in that passage weren't true or that there wasn't an application for them.

His issue was, is he was applying them in a way that did not take the entire Bible into account. And so who cares about your interpretation? If it is inconsistent in any part with any other aspect of scripture is our esteemed teacher.

Dr. James White says inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument. And so, yes, they're going to be dogmatic about their interpretation. And there may even be a real scripture verse in there, but their interpretation, if it is in any way inconsistent with any other part of the Bible, it's out of there.

It needs to be out of there. And so being overly assertive about those types of things, being dogmatic about those types of things, a lot of times that type of personality trait will be called, quote unquote, natural leaders because people are drawn to that assertiveness.

That's why you have guys, I wish I could think of some good examples of pastors that would be, Ruckman would be a great example. That's why you have people that become Ruckmanites is one example, because they are drawn to really assertive, really dogmatic, really strong headed guys.

It's kind of weird, but it's true. And so, and that's why any cult leader would be, how any cult leader comes into a position of leadership because humans are drawn to that type of thing, that quote unquote, natural leader vibe.

But it is in contrast with Paul. Oftentimes the character traits of those so-called natural leaders are quite the opposite of what Paul would consider to be a strong leader, which of course begins with the fear of God.

It starts with the fear of God. When you fear God, you will fear ever mishandling his word. If you have a healthy fear of God, you will be petrified to ever mishandle his word. And it will happen maybe in some small areas, kind of like the examples I gave earlier,.

Where it's like, well,.

What exactly did Christ's dissension look like? Maybe I'm a little bit wrong there. Maybe others are a little bit wrong there. So there will be times where we may mishandle it unintentionally and subconsciously, not unconsciously, but you still are afraid to ever do it.

And that fear of God and fear of mishandling his word is the driving force behind every Bible study, every sermon you prepare for. That is the kind of leader that Paul has in view here. He doesn't want a headstrong guy.

He doesn't want a self-willed guy. He wants a guy that will submit to God, his lordship, and has a fear of God and of handling his word properly. Now, this doesn't mean the men that Paul does have in mind aren't strong and confident, that they lead with conviction and all of that good stuff, that they're not dogmatic about the right things.

So I want to make that crystal clear. I'm not up here trying to say all of those strong personality types are bad and you need these humble, just soft-spoken, you know, I don't know. You picture these guys over here that are just so careful about everything.

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm trying to draw a dividing line here that I believe the apostle Paul is drawing in an arrogant person that is strong-willed and headstrong and arrogant about all the wrong things because he is being driven by his own selfish pursuits versus a man that is strong, confident, convicted, dogmatic because he has a fear of God and a fear of his word and he's dogmatic and confident about that side of it,.

God's word,.

Being a faithful minister in this particular context. So I want to make that extra clear, crystal clear. I do not mean that these men aren't those things, aren't strong, aren't confident, etc. What it means is that the flesh of men can quickly grab hold of any position of power.

Certainly a pastor, especially the bigger churches, the bigger denominations, the bigger associations, all these types of things, there's power there and to some degree, well, okay, so there is certainly a God-given power and a God-given authority.

But remember, earlier in our study, we talked about men in that position have to be worthy of obedience. If they're breaking all of God's qualifications and commandments and all these types of things, they're not worthy of it.

Therefore, they shouldn't be there. But if they do it right, if they're obedient to God and worthy of obedience from their flock, from their congregation, yes, there is God-given power and authority there, but the power and authority is God's, not the man's.

He's just the instrument. But because men know that there is power there, they are driven to those positions, even in spiritual leadership,.

But they're driven.

Because they want the power in and of themselves. They don't want it to be bestowed upon them and to be used as a mere instrument. They want the whole thing. And so the flesh of men can look at that and they can grab that power.

They can have the desire to grab that power quickly and exploit it for their own ego trip over against living godly and living up to his standards and his qualifications here. It makes them self-willed.

That's what Paul is talking about in verse seven. That's not an option for an elder in God's house. You guys have any thoughts or questions or anything like that at this point?

Almost out of time.

Yes, sir.

What do you think? I looked at the word self-willed and it's also self-pleasing.

So selfish.

Yeah, clear way to put it. Um, you think it's a pretty clear line. It's clear that saying you have a man in power, particularly an elder, and they have wants, they have a lack, and their needs over their own.

Say the pastor is wanting the church to grow. I guess it's just, is he wanting that?

Sure. Well, okay. So the church, the leadership of a church can certainly desire growth. That in and of itself is not a problem. The problem is how are they approaching it? If what they care about growth is for growth's sake so that they can go out there and be a somebody in their community and say, you know, look at our numbers.

Look how many baptisms we have. Look how many souls we've won this week. If they care about that, because what they truly care about is the perception of their fellow man out there. They care about their reputation among men and not the reputation to God.

That's a severe problem. Tons of sin. All of that is just bathing in the sins of arrogance and presumption and being self-willed, selfishness, and so on and so forth. But that does not mean that godly elders cannot strive for growth.

In fact, any godly church would want growth insofar as they want to be lights to the people. They want to be sharing them biblical truth and giving them biblical discipleship so that they can grow themselves and be leaders in God's kingdom themselves so that they can be expanding God's kingdom themselves and so on.

And so that desire for church growth is not bad in and of itself. Where's the desire coming from? If it's in the desire of having a soft heart for God's people that are out there in need of discipleship, in need of being fed, that's what it means to be a pastor, to be a shepherd, to feed the sheep.

If you see that there is a lack of that, you're going to want to bring those sheep in and take care of them and care for them because you know they are gods and you know that you as the under-shepherd can do that for them.

And so, yeah, I mean, every elder, I suppose, should examine their heart and ensure, well, do I want the growth just because I want to be able to say that we have X number of members or do I want the growth because I know the Lord can help these people through me and through my other elders and through our deacons and through even our other church members to help them and disciple them?

That is an admirable pursuit there. And so there you go. Hopefully that answers that question.

And then maybe they have just as much just as much of that excitement with people.

Sure.