I was recently in a FB Reformed group, a dangerous pastime indeed, and heard yet again the interpretation of Titus 1:6 that takes the phrase τέκνα ἔχων πιστά as “having believing children.” Now, I have heard this interpretation for the past thirty years from my undergrad on, and I cannot tell you how eisegetical this interpretation is. This would mean that anyone who did not have a believing child would be disqualified from ministry. Some of the people in the group were disqualifying from ministry all sorts of elders/pastors they knew had unbelieving children.
One of the
weird things about this is that it’s often held by various credobaptists like
John Macarthur who would have to admit that when their children were young,
they were not believers. Indeed, any man with an infant in Baptist theology
would immediately be disqualified.
Of course,
they would never condemn themselves in such ways, so they want to say that
these are adult children. Yet, it is clear that these are children in the household,
as the parallel passage in 1 Timothy 3:4: “He must manage his own household well, with all
dignity keeping his children submissive.”
Of course,
there is no need for these eisegetical gymnastics because the phrase doesn’t
mean “believing children” here. If you’re paying attention, the verse I just
quoted, which is the parallel verse to Titus 1:6, tells us what Paul means. He
means “faithful children,” as in “loyal and submissive children.” It has to do
with whether they are in submission to the father in the household, whether
they are Christians or not.
I also
would concur that this is likely adult children (only because not a lot of 4 year olds are given over to wild living), but adult children in the
household, as the text makes clear. Anyone with a rebellious child in the household, and lets that child remain, is not raising his household well and is therefore disqualified. A rebellious
child needs to be put out of the household in the same way that a rebellious
person in the church should be put out. That’s the point. If a man will not do
that in his own household, he is not going to do it in the church either.
Relational connections are too important to him for him to obey Christ, and he
is therefore not a mature believer.
Now, of course, with modern laws as they are, one might have to send the child to boarding school or find other measures, but the point would be that he disciplines his children in a godly way.
Of course,
all of this is made clear in Titus 1:6 itself, so it amazes me how the context
is never considered. The text states, “having faithful children, not open to
the charge of debauchery or insubordination.”
Did you
catch the end that explains what Paul means by “having loyal children”? Not
open to the charge of out-of-control living and insubordination.” In other
words, they are obedient children, faithful to their parents, whether
Christians or not.
This also
means that anyone with believing children who are not in submission to their
parents is not qualified for ministry. How much easier would it be to get your
kids to say a prayer so that this hoop can be cleared than to actually train
your children to submit to your authority, and if they do not, to remove them
from the household.
But let’s
take this alternate interpretation for a moment and see the absurdity of it. Jesus
had 12 disciples. They were like the children of his household. He had one that
was an unbeliever. Is He disqualified? God had three children in the garden.
All three rebelled as unbelievers. Is He disqualified? In fact, aren’t all
unbelievers God’s creation and in some way His children who have become
traitors and joined the devil’s family instead? Only people more godly than God
and Jesus can be elders? How absurd it would be if anyone was judged based upon
whether their children were believers or rebelled. We could mention numerous
people who were godly men with wicked children (e.g., Samuel, David, Hezekiah,
etc.) But if we understand that these texts are referring to children who are
in rebellion and participate in wild living while the father lets them live in the
household and does nothing about it (e.g., Eli and his sons), then we don’t
have to be quite so much qualified more than God and Jesus. If you haven’t gotten
the hint yet, I believe this interpretation leads to blasphemy apart from the
fact that its exegetically unfeasible.
Now, the eisegesis comes in because translators see the word pista and think, "Oh, I'm used to that word group having to do with belief." So they simply assume that it means "believer" here.
The problem, as pointed out before, is that words don't work in isolation from one another and the context makes it clear that the word refers to loyalty and allegiance, not having faith in Christ. Likewise, this is not the normal way Paul uses this word in the Pastorals, although he does use it this way a few times.
In 1 Tim 1:12, Christ has judged Paul pistos faithful/loyal. In verse 15, the statement Paul has made is pistos "trustworthy/faithful," as are also the statements in 3:1; 4:9; 2 Tim 2:11; Titus 1:9 and 3:8. Timothy is to entrust the apostolic teaching to "faithful men" in 2 Tim 2:2. In 2:13, Paul cites a hymn that talks about Christ remaining faithful/loyal if we become unfaithful.
1 Timothy 4:12 is a bit ambiguous but likely has to do with Paul encouraging Timothy to be an example of those who are loyal to the apostolic ministry in their teaching.
The definition of "believer" is given four times in the Pastorals in 1 Tim 4:3, 10; 5:16; and 6:2, so this is still a possible definition, but once it is defined by the context that has to do with not being insubordinate in both Titus 1:6 and in the parallel passage in 1 Timothy 3:4 that option is excluded.
