Lesson 11 - “The
Elder and False Teachers” - Titus 1:1-16
ID:
Inductive Questions (Asking the text questions like who, what, where, when,
why, & how?”)
CR: Cross
References (Comparing Scripture to Scripture, understanding the vague by the
clear.)
WS: Word
Study (Understanding definition, theological meaning, and usages in other
passages.)
The WORD: What does the Bible say?
Context: Read all three chapters in this book if you have
time. Pay attention to the purpose and
theme of the book (1.5; 3:14). Read Titus 1 again in a more literal or
more dynamic translation
than you usually use.
1.
ID: (1:1-4) Compare and contrast the salutations of the
three “Pastoral Epistles” (1 & 2 Timothy and Titus). How did Paul describe
himself and about the recipient of each letter?
2.
WS: (1:1-3) What are the key words in
this salutation?
3. ID: (1:1-4) What do we learn about our salvation
and the character of God in Titus 1.1-4?
4. ID/CR: (1:6-9) How do these verses describe a “blameless”
man? Do you notice any groupings or
progression in this list? How does it
compare with the description Paul gave in 1
Timothy 3:1-7?
5. ID: (1:10-16) How
do these verses describe “those who contradict (oppose)?”
6. ID: (1:13-14) What
purpose is given for rebuking the false teachers?
7. ID: (1:9-16) What insights do the surrounding verses give
to the meaning of verse fifteen?
The
WALK: What should I do?
1. Paul describes himself as a bondservant and an
Apostle. How would you describe
yourself?
2. Which characteristics of an elder are the biggest
challenge for you. Which ones do the
elders in your church best exemplify?
3. The expression “sound
(hygiainÅ)
doctrine” in verse nine might be paraphrased “healthy doctrine.” What makes doctrine (or faith v. 13)
healthy?
4. CSBI: Since we no longer possess the original
documents of the Scriptures, how confident can we be with the copies we
do possess? What are the limitations of translations? What
version did Jesus use when he was on earth?
Going Beyond: What areas of theology are touched on in
this passage?
q
The Bible (Bibliology) q
God (Theology Proper) q
The Father (Paterology) q
The Lord Jesus Christ
(Christology)
q
The Holy Spirit (Pneumatology) q Man (Anthropology) q
Salvation (Soteriology) q The Church (Ecclesiology)
q
Angels & Satan (Angelology)
q Future Things (eschatology)
THE WORD OF GOD AND INERRANCY
Articles IX through XII deal with the matter
of greatest present concern: inerrancy.
They seek to define terms and answer the chief questions that have been
raised: If the Bible has come to us
through human authors, which the earlier articles acknowledge, and if it is
natural for human beings to err, which all confess, isn’t the Bible necessarily
errant? Doesn’t it cease to be
authentically human if it does not have errors?
Again, if inerrancy applies properly only to the original manuscript,
called autographs, and if we do not possess these, as we do not, isn’t the
argument for inerrancy meaningless? Or
doesn’t it stand only by appealing to documents that do not exist and whose
inerrant state cannot be verified? Why
can’t inerrancy be applied to those parts of the Bible that deal with salvation
and not to those parts that deal with history, science and other “unimportant”
and “non-essential” matters?
ARTICLE
X: THE AUTOGRAPHS
We affirm
that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture,
which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with
great accuracy.
We further affirm
that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent
that they faithfully represent the original.
We deny
that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of
the autographs.
We further deny that this absence renders the
assertion of biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.
Article X deals directly with the perennial
issue of the relationship of the text of Scripture that we presently have to
the original documents which have not been preserved except through the means of
copies. In the first instance,
inspiration applies strictly to the original autographs of Scripture, to the
original works of the inspired authors. What
this does indicate is that the infallible control of God in the production of
the original Scripture has not been miraculously perpetuated through the ages
in the copying and translating process. It
is plainly apparent that there are some minute variations between the
manuscript copies that we possess and that the translating process will inject
additional variants for those who read the Scripture in a language other than
Hebrew or Greek. So the framers of the document are not arguing for a
perpetually inspired transmission of the text.
Since
we do not have the original manuscripts, some have urged that an appeal to the
lost originals renders the whole case for the inspiration of the Scripture
irrelevant. To reason in this manner is
to denigrate the very serious work that has been done in the field of textual
criticism. Textual criticism is the
science which seeks to reconstruct an original text by a careful analysis and
evaluation of the manuscripts we presently possess. This task has to be accomplished with respect
to all documents from antiquity that have reached us through manuscript copies.
The Old and New Testament Scriptures are
probably the texts which have reached us with the most extensive and reliable
attestation. For more than ninety-nine percent of the cases the original text can be
reconstructed to a practical certainty.
Even in the few cases where some perplexity remains, this does not
impinge on the meaning of Scripture to the point of clouding a tenet of the
faith or a mandate of life. Thus, in the
Bible as we have it (and as it is conveyed to us through faithful translations)
we do have for practical purposes the very word of God, inasmuch as the
manuscripts do convey to us the complete vital truth of the originals.
The
further affirmation of Article X is that copies and translations of Scripture
are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original. Though we do not actually possess the
originals, we have such well reconstructed translations and copies that to the
extent to which they do correspond to the original documents they may be said
to be the Word of God. But because of
the evident presence of copy errors and errors of translation the distinction
must be made between the original work of inspiration in the autographs and the
human labor of translating and copying those autographs.
The
denial has in view the important point that in those minuscule segments of
existing manuscripts where textual criticism has not been able to ascertain
with absolute certainty what the original reading was, no essential article of
the Christian faith is affected.
To limit inerrancy or inspiration to the
original manuscripts does not make the whole contention irrelevant. It does make a difference. If the original text were errant, the church
would have the option of rejecting the teachings of that errant text. If the original text is inerrant (and the
science of textual criticism must be depended upon to reconstruct that inerrant
text), we have no legitimate basis for disobeying a mandate of Scripture where
the text is not in doubt. For example,
if two theologians agreed that the original text were inerrant and if both
agreed as to what the present copy taught and further agreed that the present
copy was an accurate representation of the original, then it would follow
irresistibly that the two men would be under divine obligation to obey that
text. If, on the other hand, we asserted
that the original manuscripts were possibly errant and the two theologians then
agreed as to what the Bible taught and also agreed that the present translation
or copy faithfully represented the original, neither would be under moral
obligation to submit to the teachings of that possibly errant original. Therein
lies the important issue of the relevancy of the character of the original
manuscript.
Leader
Notes for…
Lesson
11 “The Elder and False Teachers” Titus
1:1-16
WORD
2. The key words that I was thinking about are faith, truth, and hope, but the
men will probably have other ideas too.
I think the phrases that each of these words appear in (according to
the faith of God's elect - the
acknowledgment of the truth which
accords with godliness - in hope
of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began, but has in due time…) are
rich areas for meditation.
5. Make sure you give at least some attention to the positive
purpose of helping those who contradict to be sound in their faith.
7. This verse contains an
interesting proverb. It will be a good
opportunity to let the surrounding verses inform the interpretation and
application, so compare explanations to the truths in the surrounding verses. I have comments from commentaries on this
verse below.
WALK
2. Part of this question
gives the men an opportunity to be thankful for the areas where their leaders
set good examples. Don’t let it turn
into a gripe session.
EXTRA
The article, “What
version did Jesus use when he was on earth?”, by
John Barnett is very helpful. We want
the men to leave with a realistic idea of what to expect and not expect from
their English translation and a confidence that they have a profitable
rendering of the original. If the
discussion includes comments about specific versions, try to avoid any version
bashing.
Notes on
Titus by Dr. Thomas L. Constable
These “commandments of men” (v. 14) involved abstaining from certain foods
(asceticism; cf. 1 Tim. 4:1-4; Col. 2:20-22). Paul reminded his readers that to
the pure in heart all things, including foods, are pure (clean; cf. Matt. 15:11; Mark 7:15,
20; Luke 11:39-41).
However the impure in heart spread impurity wherever they go through their
words and deeds (cf. Hag. 2:13-14).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth S. Wuest, Wuest’s Word Studies from the
Greek New Testament: For the English Reader (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997),
Tt 1:13–15.
(1:15, 16) The words, “Unto the pure all things are
pure,” are to be understood in their context, which latter speaks of arbitrary
ascetic prohibitions. Expositors says: “This is best understood as a maxim of
the Judaic Gnostics, based on a perversion of Luke 11:41” where our Lord,
speaking of the Pharisees and their man-made ceremonial washings says, “All
things are clean to you.” The purity spoken of in our Titus reference speaks,
not of purity which is the absence and opposite of immorality, etc., but of the
ceremonial purity of man-made regulations. Our Lord tells the Jewish leaders
that there is nothing wrong in eating with ceremoniously unwashen hands. That
is, the person who does not subscribe to the Pharasaical regulations is not
impure or defiled, nor is the food he eats affected in that way. We must be
careful in explaining our Titus passage to make clear that the purity here
spoken of is not moral, but ceremonial purity, lest we by our interpretation
open the flood gates to license. Expositors says: “Paul accepts the statement
as a truth, but not in the intention of the speaker.” Commenting on the rest of
the verse, the same authority says, referring to those who are defiled; “their
moral obliquity is more characteristic of them than their intellectual
perversion. The satisfaction of natural bodily desires (for it is these that
are in question) is, when lawful, a pure thing, not merely innocent, in the
case of the pure; it is an impure thing, even when lawful, in the case of ‘them
that are defiled.’ And for this reason: their intellectual apprehension of
these things is perverted by defiling associations; ‘the light that is in them
is darkness,’ and their conscience has, from a similar cause, lost its sense of
discrimination between what is innocent and what is criminal. That any action
with which they themselves are familiar could be pure, is inconceivable.”
“Profess” is homologeomai (áœÎŒÎ¿Î»Î¿Î³ÎµÎ¿ÎŒÎ±Î¹),
“to agree” with someone as to some thing, thus, “to confess belief” in it.
“Reprobate” is adokimos (áŒÎŽÎ¿ÎºÎ¹ÎŒÎ¿Ï),
“put to the test for the purpose of being approved, but failing to meet the
requirements, being disapproved.”
Translation. All
things are pure to those who are pure. But to those who are defiled and
unbelieving, not even one thing is pure. But even their mind and conscience are
defiled. God, they confess that they know, but in their works they deny, being
abominable and disobedient and with reference to every good work, disapproved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Warren W.
Wiersbe, The Bible Exposition Commentary, vol. 2 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books,
1996), 263.
Titus 1:15 is one of those verses that some ignorant
people try to use to defend their ungodly practices. “To the pure, all things
are pure” is used to excuse all sorts of sin. I recall warning a teenager about
the kind of literature he was reading, and his defense was, “Beauty is in the
eye of the beholder. Your heart must be filthy if you see sin in what I’m
reading. After all, ‘To the pure, all things are pure.’ ”
To begin with, Paul was refuting the false teaching of
these legalists with reference to foods. They were teaching that Jewish dietary
laws still applied to Christian believers (see 1 Tim. 4:3–5). If you ate
forbidden food, you defiled yourself; but if you refused that food, you became
holier.
“It is just the opposite,” Paul argued. “These
teachers have defiled minds and consciences. Therefore, when they look at these
innocent foods, they see sin, because sin has defiled their vision. But those
of us who have pure minds and consciences know that all foods are clean. It is
not the foods which are defiling the teachers; it is the teachers who are
defiling the foods!”
But this principle must not be applied to things that
we know are evil. The difference, for example, between great art and
pornography is more than “in the eye of the beholder.” A great artist does not
exploit the human body for base gain. For a believer to indulge in sinful,
erotic experiences and claim that they were pure because his heart was pure, is
to use the Word of God to excuse sin. The application Paul made was to food,
and we must be careful to keep it there.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
