Someone who aspires to be an elder must manage his household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity. Does this mean that all elders must have children? Must an elder's children be Christians?
Pastor Kerry Kinchen, Bridgeway Bible Church
Please turn to 1 Timothy 3:4-5 in your Bible. Also turn to the parallel passage of Titus 1:6 and bookmark it. Once again, 1 Timothy 3:4-5 and Titus 1:6. As you are finding those, I will take the time to remind us that we are examining the qualifications for overseers. The qualifications shed light on a man's eligibility to be an elder, also known as a pastor. The qualifications help us determine his level of spiritual maturity. They help spotlight his giftedness for being a steward in God's household. As attributes, they point out what is already there. All this is true. It is just as true for us to recognize that God never intended for the qualifiers to be legalistic requirements for perfection. Further, it soon becomes apparent that there is an element of subjectivity to how strongly certain qualifiers are interpreted and applied. For example, an overseer must be respectable and sensible. We need wisdom to recognize what that should mean. You may think that a certain man is respectable and sensible. I may not. Since this is true, there is a need for all of us to manifest the grace of Christ in wisdom. If we do not apply grace to the more subjective elements of God's qualification markers, we can easily find something in a man's life that we think is not respectable or sensible. Consequently, we may discount him as a Holy Spirit ordained pastor. So, as we go through these qualifications, we need to seek God's wisdom backed by His grace. Let's do that as we read through our passages. Continuing with the flow of qualifications for being an elder, Paul says in 1 Timothy 3:4,
"He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity 5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?)," 1 Timothy 3:4-5
Now Titus,
"namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who are faithful, not accused of dissipation or rebellion." Titus 1:6
Please prepare your hearts to learn, along with me, in this continuing sermon series,
Recognizing Biblical Pastors and Pastoring (5 of 8)
"Household Care and Faithful Children"
[prayer]
As we get into this teaching, let's look at 1 Timothy 3:4. Notice that Paul says,
"4 He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under subjection with all dignity" 1 Timothy 3:4
/1/
Based upon this, there is a first principle I want to get to at the outset. It is something we looked at a few weeks ago. It has to do with what this qualification does not suggest. Essentially the first principle is that this is not a requirement that either necessitates that an elder be married, or that an overseer must have children. The problem is that some people think that it does. Nevertheless, most scholars reject the conclusion that Paul means that pastors must be married and have children. There are reasons for this.
{1a}
The first one is textual. What I mean is that just as Paul is referring to the number of wives a man is allowed to have, rather than actually saying that a man must be married at all, Paul is mentioning the manner of how a man relates to his children in 1 Timothy. Then in Titus, Paul is mentioning the manner that children relate to their father. In other words, Paul is not showing that this qualification has anything to do with mandating that an elder must have children. To read such an assertion into the text comes from a personal bias that wants to see something there that isn't there.
{1b}
Another reason to consider is Paul's own marital state; add to that, his teaching about marriage in respect to serving the Lord in undistracted devotion. Paul was an apostle like Peter. Peter calls himself a fellow elder of the church elders in 1 Peter. This is important, because though Paul never explicitly gives himself the same label, Paul demonstrated, as much as if not more than Peter, that he operated as an overseer in respect to God's household as the apostle to the Gentiles in planting and nurturing the churches. Keeping this in mind, we must recognize that Paul was single. In fact, Paul called singleness his "gift" (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:7) as his appointed state that he declared that God had assigned to Him in 1 Corinthians 7:17. Paul was obviously qualified as a single. As such, we must remember that Paul recommended that other ministers stay single in 1 Corinthians 7 too. The apostle Paul wished all men were single so that they could serve the Lord in undistracted devotion, which would mean men who want to serve the Lord in the ministry of pastor. But Paul also recognized God's appointed determination for each one in either the gift of marriage, or the gift of singleness. The point is that Paul is not contradicting himself by saying that he wished that men were single to serve the Lord, and then say that men are more qualified to serve the Lord when married which, of course, includes himself.
{1c}
Another supporting consideration which I think has strong merit, has to do with the marital status of both Titus and Timothy. Both men were overseers who went about appointing more overseers in God's church. To investigate their singleness, we must notice that Paul addresses four letters to specific individuals in the New Testament. One is to Philemon. When Paul addresses the letter to Philemon, He greets Philemon and Apphia. Apphia is thought to more than likely have been Philemon's wife. Church history tradition has maintained this to be the case. This makes sense. The reason is because greeting the husband and wife was the common and expected practice for an opening or closing greeting in personal letters. Paul would be demonstrating in the Philemon letter that he is no different. He would be greeting his friend and his wife. This cultural custom is important to know as we examine the only other three letters that Paul addresses to individuals. Interestingly, two of those letters are to Timothy. The remaining one is to Titus. The important consideration is that in all three of the remaining letters of personal address, Paul makes no reference to Timothy or Titus having a wife. Paul says to Titus:
"4 To Titus, my true child in a common faith: ... 5 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you," Titus 1:4-5
Titus is a mobile minister in Paul's apostolic team. He traveled from city to city. As such, in accordance with the details that we know about him, there is no reason to think he had a family along with him. Further, there is nothing in the epistle that hints at Titus having a wife. This holds true for every place that Titus is mentioned, whether in Acts or the epistles. We also find the treatment of young Timothy to be the same way. In 1 Timothy, Paul greets,
"2 To Timothy, my true child in the faith: ... 3 As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men ..." 1 Timothy 1:2-3
Same thing. Timothy is also a mobile minister. He went from city to city with no mention of a wife in greeting, or any reason to think he had a family along with him. Nothing in 1 Timothy, or 2 Timothy even remotely indicates that he had a wife. This also holds true for every other place Timothy is mentioned in the New Testament.In 2 Timothy, Paul greets like this:
"2 To Timothy, my beloved son: ... 3 I thank God, ... as I constantly remember you in my prayers night and day, longing to see you ... 5 For I am mindful of the sincere faith within you, which first dwelt in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice, and I am sure that it is in you as well." 2 Timothy 2:2-5
There is no mention of a wife. Paul goes on in chapter 2,
"3 Suffer hardship with me, as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. 4 No soldier in active service entangles himself in the affairs of everyday life, so that he may please the one who enlisted him as a soldier." 2 Timothy 2:3
@1 A good _________________ of Christ Jesus suffers hardship, and does not get all tangled up in the daily affairs of life. 2 Timothy 2:3
Entanglement in the affairs of everyday life is essentially what Paul has as the basis in 1 Corinthians 7 in respect to staying single. It is because of these kinds of considerations, it can be surmised that Timothy and Titus were more than likely operating as overseers without being married and having children. The main point is that the qualification that involves children has to do with those men who already have children. Paul is not saying that elders must have wives and children.
/2/
Let's put this qualification on the microscope slide for some more intense scrutiny. We want to examine some key elements in what Paul is saying. For example, Paul says "manages" when it comes to managing one's household. Paul is using an expression (kalos proistamenon) that literally means "to stand before and practice;" "to set before," and "to place over." In actual usage, it means to lead, supervise over, and oversee. In Roman culture, this word was applied to Centurions in respect to supervising over soldiers. The sense that Paul is getting across is that the man is an active supervisor over the affairs of his household and is respected as such in his household. He supervises over his affairs, his business, and his family. There are men in our society, and unfortunately there are men in the church whether married or not, who do not want to accept the responsibility that God gives them. One manifestation is that they don't demonstrate that they supervise over their households well by taking care of the necessities that come with their position. In fact they fail to manage to such a degree that people do not respect, or recognize them as overseers ordained by God. Since the arena of this qualification starts with the man's household, then it is important to understand what a household is. Household has a specific overarching meaning. Notice that Paul did not narrow down his intent by saying, "An overseer should manage his children well." Paul did not say that an "an overseer should manage his personal finances well." Paul did not say that "an overseer should manage his property well." Paul chose the word "household" because culturally it covers all those things and more. It is like saying that a man should practice oversight over his whole life and everything God has entrusted him with. Further, he should do it well so that his household is functional instead of being dysfunctional.His wife, children, finances, investments, property and so on, are all elements of the man's household. It is important to recognize what Paul is actually saying because some people have looked at this passage and have wrongly thought that Paul is concerned with only one little area. There are some who make this a focus, once again, upon children. But Paul is talking about the whole sphere of the household. You do not need to have children to have a household. Managing the household applies whether a man has children or not, or whether he is married or not. You are responsible to actively supervise your household no matter what shape or design it happens to have. Households in Paul's day were varied. A great number of households in the time and culture of this letter had servants or slaves. Many of them had an extended family setup where relatives would be taken care of, especially widows. Paul's emphasis is on a man's stewardship concerning his God given authority over his household affairs--which would be everything that God has put under the man's concern. Many businesses and trades were operated as part of the household. This was particularly true of any agriculturally dependent household. If a man was a merchant who made his living by traveling from town to town, he would pack up and move his whole household to the next town. Bedouin type communities would move their households through different regions. Single men like Paul, Timothy, and Titus would identify their household as their own little sphere of organized living. So this qualification has to do with the man's position of oversight in taking care of all the various categories of his personal living model. Simply put; Paul's point is that a man must show himself to be a responsible leader of his own household if he is going to take care of the household of God.
/3/
This leads to the third point in this qualification. It has to do with the manner that the man manages his household. He must manage his household well. I have already pointed out that some of the qualifications for eldership require a certain level of subjective opinion. This is true for this one too. What is equally true is that such a standard carries with it a certain cultural bias. For example, many of us in our culture would probably have a difficult time with the laid back way the average person operated in Paul's culture. Life for many people in the desert areas of 2000 thousand years ago was not nearly as fast paced, uptight, and rigid, as we are used to. Management would reflect the slow pace of the time. Responsible management was going on, but to an outsider like us, it may appear as if it is not being done well. But there is another polar opposite that is just as influential. What I mean is that from the outlook of the typical person of our culture, we would probably have a difficult time with the harsh authoritarian system that was so prevalent in the way men managed in the Greco-Roman and Judaen societies. For example, a man's wife was considered chattel property. She may be loved and cherished by the regenerated man, but his managing manifestation of that love and cherishing could culturally reflect something that is light years from what we think is proper, or well. Further, if there were children, they grew up into a world where it was expected of them to honor their father's every wish as if he was Caesar himself. Under Roman jurisdiction, a father could have his children thrown in jail if he wanted to. For someone to live according to the cultural standards of slave ownership, and so many other cultural things that we might consider to be unfair or unjust by our current standards, then such men could be accused of managing badly. This is why it helps to recognize that the word "well" in the Greek is also translated as nicely, or good. What this means is that under scrutiny, a man is ruling his household affairs nicely enough in a general cultural sense that reflects the fruits of the Sprit in the Christian sense. I'll repeat that,
Under scrutiny, a man is ruling his household affairs nicely enough in a general cultural sense that reflects the fruits of the Sprit in the Christian sense.
Though he may do a few things a little differently than you or I would do, his management is still considered to be good and godly as opposed to bad, evil, or in failure to manage at all. This is how the Spirit wants us to apply the subjective to the objective principle in respect to spiritual leaders in God's household. A man who is above reproach in this area is not generally seen as failing to manage at all. I want us to think about the spiritual aspect of this. Managing well also means a man manages his household for God's glory with the bigger picture in mind. One of the most important questions that we need to ask concerning anyone who is desiring to be a pastor is:
"Is the man's life and testimony being lived in such a way that God gets ultimate glory in what the man does?"
"Is he demonstrating that spiritual principles are what matters most in respect to managing His household?"
These questions are the important ones. Why? Because there are Christian men who want to be pastors, or they are calling themselves pastors, in which it is difficult to find a good answer to those questions. But think about this a moment. Bringing this spiritual qualifier over to the church context of taking care of the household of God, is the most important part of the definition of managing well. If the man's life and testimony is not being lived in such a way as to be quickly and easily known as managing his household in godly Christ mindedness, which is what matters most, then that man is absolutely not qualified to be an elder. God wants His household stewards to be men who hunger for the things of the Spirit. Such men are the men who make decisions on how they spend their money, on how they raise their children, on how they treat their wife, and how they do business, and all those things, based on God's word. This is the way to manage nicely. This is why being able to manage businesses and events and so forth with a natural talent for organization does not necessarily qualify you to be an elder in God's household. It does not matter so much that you can plan a budget. The question is are you doing it with God's glory at the forefront. A lot of folks plan a budget because they are selfish, or because they're in trouble financially. A shepherd of God's flock is a man who seeks God's glory in managing by applying some sort of effort in that direction. What I mean is that a man may not be the most successful manager on the planet, but he is managing his household well because he is making the effort that it takes to make sure, for example, that his family fellowships with the body on a consistent and continuous basis. This is managing for God's glory. Now think for a moment about how some Christian men bring hours upon hours of fellowship with the world into their living rooms. How? In the form of movies made by the lost world culture. But when it comes to the Biblically ordained mandate to be in continuous communing, gathering, meeting, interacting with, and closely getting involved with the other members of the church, they act like they don't' see the necessity. So they're hard pressed to spend even a few minutes a week in doing so. We are talking about managing one's household well, which means according to God's will, and way. Any pagan can manage his household according to the world's will, and way. The point is that such a qualified man makes sure that his household understands that the spiritual things are the most important things. He may not be able to filter all the ungodly influences of the lost world culture from his household, but he is doing well because he is relentlessly making an effort to defend His household against the attacks of the sinful world culture--and folks the lost world culture is banging at the doors every single moment trying to get in. It gets in through the computer, on Mp3's, in text messages, in movies, on other social networks over the internet. It never stops. So, this kind of man never stops either. This is the kind of Christian man that is going to be a true pastor in God's household. The question that we are asking here is, "Does he manage his household well?" The question finds it's definitive answer in whether he bases household decisions upon Biblical principles. This is the vital point that has substance in pastoring the household of God, the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth, 1 Timothy 3:15. So we see that a man who wants to serve as an overseer must manage his household well in respect to general wisdom and spiritual insight, which leads us directly into the aspect of children.
/4/
This is the fourth principle. The man must be keeping his children under subjection with all dignity. The word for under subjection is upotagh in the Greek. It is another one of those military terms that Paul was so fond of using. It means to be subjecting others to your authority. Paul uses the verb form to explain that woman should be in subjection to church authorities in 1 Timothy 2:11. Paul uses it in Ephesians 5:22, and Colossians 3:18, for women to be in subjection to their husbands. It is used of slaves being subject to their masters in Titus 2:9, and 1 Peter 2:18. It is used in respect to the church being in subjection to Christ in Ephesians 1:22, and 5:24. Along with this, Paul says that maintaining this subjection must be done with all dignity. The New English Translation makes the meaning very clear by putting that the man must keep his children under subjection without losing his dignity. This qualification makes sense. If an elder has children, and since the man is the authority of his household, then his children must experience their father's authority from his positional attitude of self respect and sober minded dignity. It is up to the father to make sure this is the case. So, the father must be demonstrating that he is making it clear that he has authority, and his children must respect the fact that he actually does have authority while they are part of his household. But this qualification also makes sense for another reason. It has to do with reflecting dignified responsibility in the home in relationship to dignified authority in taking spiritual care of the church. I think Paul makes that clear in what he says next in a parenthetical clarifier that he adds,
"5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?)," 1 Timothy 2:5
Paul is demonstrating a principle of going from making sure that people respect, and are subject to, his authority in his possessing it with dignity in the micro level, and taking it up to the macro level. So Paul asks a hypothetical question that goes from the lesser to the greater. This is made even more clear when we realize that Paul refers to the church group context in a few more verses in 1 Timothy 3:15 as the household of God. The church is God's household that He has ordained to exist in the earthly realm. So, this is why this principle of the smaller being connected to the greater comes into play. It is the principle that demonstrates God's usage of us as stewards in things somewhat greater when we are faithful in those that are somewhat smaller. Even, then if we are to manage our households by bringing everyone under subjection, if we do not do it with dignity, then we will not care for the church with dignity either.
At this point I think something needs to be mentioned. There is something that is different about ruling in the bigger church context from the ruling of one's household. Paul says something that clarifies details of church leadership that I believe is intentional. Listen for "care" as I read,
"[He] must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under subjection with all dignity 5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household,
[Notice that Paul is talking about the man's household in managing with all dignity. Now Paul gets to how this responsible manifestation is connected to the church, so he asks,]
how will he take care of the church of God?),"
In other words, Paul goes from words of God ordained parental control in the personal household, over to taking care in respect to God's household. We can not miss this vital distinction. Paul does not say that the overseer governs with the church being in full subjection to his every wish, and command, in the same manner as a spouse, or child, or employee, or bond slave would be. Paul only says that knowing how to responsibly apply that certain kind of headship care, in a dignified manner at the household level, is a qualifier that proves his spiritual ability for another kind of care responsibility for the saints. And so based on care manifestation as head of the home, Paul makes a logical connection. Being a caretaker of the church is reflective of the overall care that the man has for his household in governing it. But, Paul is not saying that this is exactly the same way he takes care of the church. This is where something called the "Shepherding Movement" went wrong. What I mean is that the overseer is never described as being some sort of father who must expect complete obedience and submission from each member of the congregation, nor act like he does. To do so is more like cultic behavior than Biblical care. But he must show something. What is it? It is loving, graceful, principled, nurture as a care-taking steward of God's household through preaching, teaching, protection, and doing all things with edification in view. It is loving servant leadership that Paul is talking about.
/5/
This brings me to the fifth principle. It is the important key of understanding the house-steward system of that culture. This is the metaphor Paul uses next verse in Titus;
"For the overseer must be above reproach as God's steward" Titus 1:7
A steward of that culture was the head slave who was in charge of all of the master's affairs of his master's household. He took care of the household. This is what "God's steward" does. This is so important to know because guiding as an overseeing steward does not make the steward into an actual master. Again, it is not like the governing relationship of a husband and a wife, or of a father to child. The relationship of a Father with a child is one in which the child is expected to obey the father's personal wishes because the father is the God ordained head--the master of the house. An overseer is not each church members father. The relationship is not one in which the congregation is like children who are not allowed to make decisions outside the control of the parent. The elder, then is God's household steward who is care-taking according to spiritual principles that he teaches and demonstrates. The nurture should reflect the nurture that the Master and Father in heaven has for his own household. It is one of concern, duty, and a sense of responsible authority in building each member of the household up in the faith through preaching, teaching, and protection from God's word.
/6/
This brings us to a sixth principle. An elder must be able to manage his children in the sense that they demonstrate faithfulness to him. The Titus passage gives us a fuller understanding of what this means. Paul says,
"6 namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who are faithful, not accused of dissipation or rebellion." Titus 1:6
@2 An elder must have faithful children who are not accused of dissipation or ________________. Titus 1:6
This tightly parallels 1 Timothy 3:4.When we think of an elder's children as being faithful and not accused of dissipation or rebellion, we need to be thinking of children who are loyal to their family. Further, they are not known for rejecting the God given headship of the father. The Greek word that Paul uses for "Faithful children," is tekna pista. Tekna pista can mean either "believing children" or it can mean "faithful children." Each rendering is an accurately correct translation of the Greek. This fact can present us with a problem; and it has. The problem is that each translated rendering into English results in a completely different meaning in application. Believing children implies that the children must be Christians. It suggests that they must believe in Christ Jesus as their Lord and Savior in spiritual regeneration. Faithful children, on the other hand, implies that they are faithful to the authority, and position, of their father. There are three reasons that I believe that Paul is not saying that an elder's children must be Christians, but rather, Paul means, as the New English Translation rightly renders this, that the children must be faithful which is in recognizing the authority of the father in allegiance.
--6a--
The first reason is because the context puts "being faithful" along with not being accused of dissipation or rebellion. These are all things that have to do with a child's relationship to the dad. This is made clearer when we recognize that Paul is making a list at this point. It's a list of personal conduct. Conduct being the focus, this demonstrates that Paul is not making any attempt here to describe a child's personal spiritual identity. What I mean is that being lost as an unbeliever in Adam, or being regenerated by God as a miracle action of the Spirit in faith, is one's spiritual identity. Paul is not making a connection with dissipation or rebellion as having anything to do with describing the salvation status of the child. The statement is that the child must be loyal. He must be faithful to his father and his father's authority.
--6b--
The second point is that Paul does not mention salvation in the parallel passage of 1 Timothy 3:4 either. He just says that the children must be managed in the posture of a dignified authority that is assumed to exist. He says they must be kept "under control with all dignity." The point is that salvation is not a consideration in the parallel verse.
--6c--
There is a third reason that I think that Paul is not saying that the man's children must be Christians. Essentially there is no way to prove that one's children are actually Christians. What I mean is that there are many people who fake being Christians. In fact they can do it for years. Later in life they may reveal the shocking truth that they were never really saved. Marjo Gortner is a famous man who did this. He even acted like a minister of the gospel. Marjo's dad was a preacher. His dad had him preach to crowds when he was a small boy. As Marjo got older, he held healing campaigns all across the nation. He worked with, and befriended, hundreds of pastors and ministers for years. All of those men, and multitudes of other Christians, thought that Mr. Gortner was a true believer. In fact, they thought he had what is commonly called among Pentecostal and Charismatic circles "the gift of healing." They said he had a so-called "anointing." Marjo shocked the world when he had a documentary made about himself. In it he revealed how he used mental manipulation tactics at so-called healing campaigns to persuade people that he was legitimate and that they should give him money because he was one of God's anointed ministers. Multitudes of people fell for his ruse. Some of them even thought they experienced something called being "slain in the Spirit" when Marjo would touch them. Droves of devotees claimed that they were healed of their afflictions. If there is anything commendable about Marjo, it would be the fact that he at least had the integrity to reveal that he was conning the Christian masses, even men who thought they had "word's of knowledge" concerning the truth, and the "gift of discernment." The point that I am making is that there is no concrete subjective way to fully know whether a man truly has children who are regenerated whether you claim a "word of knowledge" or a special insight gift, or not.
This leads to another aspect of this particular point. Let's just say for the sake of argument, that if the child lies, or is deceived, and claims to be a Christian, and then later turns out to be a wretched example of Christianity because he or she never was a Christian in the first place, then you have a worse consequence coming from this kind of interpretation of this qualifier that would have been of no consideration otherwise. What I mean is that in considering a man managing his household with his children being faithful to him and trustworthy (which I think is the right interpretation) then you would not have to magnify the scandal of the father, and everyone else, wrongly assuming his child was a Christian; and now the pastor thinks he has to step down from being a pastor.
--6d--
Aside from these considerations, there are other strong indicators found in the scriptures that pistos here, means "faithful" or "trustworthy," rather than believing (like believing in Christ). Some have wrongly asserted that people are never referred to as faithful in the scriptures unless their faithfulness is being described as their belief in Christ. In other words they say that faithful and belief are synonymous. But such an assertion is wrong. Jesus Christ used pistos when describing someone being faithful with money, and in describing a faithful slave,
"He who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in much; and he who is unrighteous in a very little thing is unrighteous also in much. 11 "Therefore if you have not been faithful in the use of unrighteous wealth, who will entrust the true riches to you? 12 "And if you have not been faithful in the use of that which is another’s, who will give you that which is your own?" Luke 16:10-12
@3 Someone who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in _____________. Luke 16:10
Notice that Jesus describes someone who has not been faithful in using something. Believing is not the issue. What is?--Faithfulness. Another example is in Luke 19:16-17 where Jesus tells a parable of the business savvy of some slaves whom their master gave some money. He said that a slave,
"... appeared, saying, 'Master, your mina has made ten minas more.' 17 'And the master said to him, 'Well done, good slave, because you have been faithful in a very little thing, you are to be in authority over ten cities.'" Luke 19:16-17
It is important to realize that the slave's faithfulness is not his "belief" in business practicing. So what is it? It is being faithful in his business practice. A clear example of a Christian being called "faithful" while already in His believing state is found in 1 Corinthians 4:2. Paul is speaking of himself. He says that a Christian steward minister of the Lord is required to be found faithful which is translated well as "trustworthy." Of course Paul was already a believer. Paul was already regenerated (a Christian). Paul is not describing a Christian steward who must be believing. Paul is just saying that he must be trustworthy. It is imperative that he be found faithful. Likewise, the elder's children may be believers in Jesus as Messiah, Lord, and Savior who was crucified for their sins and resurrected three days later, or they may not believe any of these important facts of the gospel. Nevertheless they need to be "faithful." I think the venerable Scottish reformed Baptist exegete John Gill, expounds on this passage very well, saying
"... for by faithful children cannot be meant converted ones, or true believers in Christ; for it is not in the power of men to make their children such; and their not being so can never be an objection to their being elders, if otherwise qualified;"--John Gill
The summation on this qualification is that Paul's point in Titus and 1 Timothy is that elders should have a Christian leadership presence in the home that is recognized by children (if there are children). It should also be reflected in the actions of the children while they live under the same roof. The father's dignity is preserved as he manages his family in their faithfulness to him as their household authority. The ability to raise children in such a way as to gain their allegiance to one's God given authority, and to be respected in dignity, is a quality that is trustworthy and commendable in a man seeking to be an elder. Overall, what we have been seeing is that the focus in this qualification is nurture and caring in respect to management. This carries over into the church in a distinct manner. The verse starts with a reference to managing a human household institution, but it ends with a reference to caring for God's household as a steward of Him.
Let's recap: In the biblical directive that Paul gives for Household Care and Faithful Children in respect to the qualification for eldership, we must not go beyond what is written and think that Paul means that an elder candidate must be married, or that he must have children. Paul doesn't say that; neither should we. What we have seen is that the man must be an active supervisor over the affairs of his household. He must be respected as such in his household. In fact, an elder must manage his household well. It must be functional rather than dysfunctional. Of course we all have a different definition of what managing well may mean, but the bottom line is functionality. The man is someone who can be trusted as one who is putting out effort to provide, and govern, according to biblical principles. This means that the spiritual aspect of the man's management is key. Let's remember the important questions concerning this,
"Is the man's life and testimony being lived in such a way that God gets ultimate glory in what the man does?"
"Is he demonstrating that spiritual principles are what matters most in respect to managing His household?"
In other words, is he living according to God New Covenant word? This is what matters when a man is entrusted with oversight in the household of God. Then we saw that the man, if he has children, must make sure they are subject to him in all dignity. The father must be demonstrating that he is making it clear that he has authority, and his children must respect the fact that he actually does have authority while they are part of his household. Finally, this is exemplified in the fact that a candidate for eldership must have children who are loyal. If there are any children, they must be faithful to their father and their father's authority. I encourage you to be considering this qualification for overseers as we examine the rest of the qualifications in the coming weeks.
[let's pray]
@1 A good _________________ of Christ Jesus suffers hardship, and does not get all tangled up in the daily affairs of life. 2 Timothy 2:3
@2 An elder must have faithful children who are not accused of dissipation or ________________. Titus 1:6
@3 Someone who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in _____________. Luke 16:10
