Titus lesson 5
Titus · Courtney Hemenway · Sep 3, 2023
Titus, No. 16
Holly Hills Bible Church
https://www.hollyhillsbiblechurch.org/teaching/messages/49261932321475

Transcribed from the recording by SermonAudio, so expect the occasional misheard word.

We are in Lesson 5. Let me get organized here. Get my phone out of the way. We are in Lesson 5 and we are in Titus. And we're studying verses 13 through 16. I think Mike said it's always good to go through the verses. So I always agree with that and usually go through them too. So it's on the top of your lesson. You can follow along. Titus 1, 13 through 16. This testimony is true.

For this reason, reprove them severely, so that they may be sound in the faith, not paying attention to Jewish myths and to the pure... I don't know. To the pure. All things are pure. I think a chunk is missing there, actually. Yeah. Yeah, to the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both their mind and their conscience are defiled. They profess to know God, but by their deeds they deny Him, being detestable and disobedient and worthless for any good deed. I think I wiped it out when I was doing this lesson, that section of the scripture I noticed wasn't there.

We just started on question one. The word refute found in verse 9 and the word reprove in verse 13 both translate the same Greek word. What is the difference in the context? So we just basically started on that. where we read in, I read 7 through 9, where in verse 9, holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able to both exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict. So basically the principle, and this was in context with the elders, qualifications for the elders, what their role is to be, but by extension it's for us also.

So we see, in contrast with the first responsibility, exhorting in sound doctrine. So we have to have the basis of sound doctrine to be able to refute. If you don't have sound doctrine, what are you refuting based on your own earthly wisdom or something else? If you're not based in or grounded in the word, how can you refute somebody?

That's a key, and that's for an elder, but again, it's for us, too. If somebody contradicts the Word, how do you refute them if you can't draw them to Scripture or to what God's Word is? You just can't, or it's going to be misleading. You're going to be almost in the same boat that they are. You're not in accordance with the Word. If you're not in accordance with the Word, your refuting is Again, I think the key is first knowing God's Word, being grounded in God's Word.

I think I just got to the part where I think Wanda used to hate when I went to either Zodiaty's or Webster's Dictionary. She always was thrilled when I did that. Whenever I do this, I keep thinking of her and looking at me with a stern look. I went to Webster's Dictionary to see what refute means. to prove wrong by argument or evidence, show to be false or erroneous, to deny the truth or accuracy of. So I thought those are pretty good in what we're talking about here.

So they said, how effective or correct can you refute someone if you do not accurately know God's word? Kind of going back to you have to be grounded in it. And I thought that was interesting that in Webster's it was refuting based on accuracy. So it fits the biblical sense of refuting.

But to further irritate Wanda wherever she is, I went to Zodiaty's on that to see what the word is. And this is again the same word, it's just different breakouts of it. And if I could say it's el-eng-co, el-eng-co. which Zodiatis defines as, of uncertain affinity to confute, admonish, on the King James Version, convict, convince, tell a fault, rebuke, or reprove. So again, that word is the same in each one of them.

But I did notice, you know, is there a difference between those and refuting and reproving? And really, could you see any difference, before I kind of get into what I think is helpful, did you see anything between refute and reprove differences, just from the context? In the end, the point I was trying to make was contradicting to convince.

So, yeah, just a little different. So, I guess, anybody else? Thoughts? Before I... I think it's the Greek-y part, which is kind of helps me, helped me at least figure it out a little bit. Donnie, you have, looks like... So, in verse 9, really looking at breaking down on the Greek, it's kind of interesting.

The verb is present tense, active voice, and I hadn't seen this much, infinitive mood. So, I had to go back to actually your mom's list that I have in my Bible and I have on here, too. There was that great cheat sheet on that, because I hadn't really seen infinitive very often. If you break it down, that means that we, active voice, are to continuously, the present tense, and the infinitive is to, it means with purpose, statement of purpose.

So, we are to continuously with the purpose of refuting, convicting, convincing those people who contradict God's Word. So, it's a little bit different than what we'll see on the second one. where that word is used. So I thought this is with purpose. For the elders, and for us by extension, our purpose is to refuse them or to convince them that they're wrong, that they're interpreting scripture wrong. That's the purpose is to refuse, convince, or convict them of their error. So that's on the first one in verse 9 where we refute. Now we get into reprove. For context, I go to verse 10, starting at verse 10 and we'll read through 14.

For there are many rebellious men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, who must be silenced. because they are upsetting whole families, teaching things that you should not teach for the sake of sordid gain. We went over that in Mike's lesson last week. One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons. This testimony is true. For this reason, reprove them severely so that they may be sound in the faith, not paying attention to Jewish myths and commandments and commandments of men who turn away from the truth.

So I went back to Webster's again just to see what reproved means in the dictionary. So Webster has it this way, to scold or correct, usually gently or with kindly intent. Interesting. Or the second is to express disapproval, censure. So do you think those fit? No, the verse says, reprove them severely. That's what I was wondering when I read this. It's like, with kindness, gentleness, with kind intent. Then you read this, it's like, reprove them severely. So a little bit off of what Webster has for the definition. But I also look at the definition of censure. And Webster's for this, for reprove, means to censure. You think that fits? Yeah. Silence them. Send to silence them. So again, if you look at, you know, I basically said from verse 10, we get, especially those of the circumcision who must be silenced, censured. Also from verse 12, we get a not glorious description of the Cretans.

Then from verse 13, for this reason, reprove them severely. that's a little bit different than the Webster's, scold them with kindly intent. So I guess you would do that with I think of some in the elders or how you address somebody, you're doing it to bring them back. So I can kind of see the kindly intent, even though it says severely, what your purpose is, is to bring them back to the Word and to the foundation of God's Word. So I can kind of see how Webster, even though we're severe, it's done in love to bring them back. If it isn't, we'll get to it, who are they, too. We'll get to that part of it in a minute.

Did you talk about the severely part, that word? I didn't. I still want to jump ahead. I didn't really, I looked at it and it, I can pull up Zodiatis. I did look at it and I kind of got it is with strong or, you know, Just to cut off severely, abruptly, curtly, the manner that cuts, cutting off. Right. It's almost like I'm cutting you off right now to tell you the truth. Right. And I guess I looked at it and it was kind of like similar to what we're saying. It's to, you know, shut them down. And, again, I guess what I backed off with censure was kind of that saying, you censure. Censure means you can't, don't speak anymore. We don't listen to you anymore.

So, yeah, severely was kind of the oomph to the... Dictionary said critically. Critically. I don't mean, it makes sense. It's not in, I don't know that it's used that way in Greek, but abruptly... cut off. So I imagine that working out in real life, right?

So you've got someone who takes issue with the gospel message or whatever, and they're doing it in front of the families and the church members, and you say, no, wait a minute. Because that's what we're seeing here in verse 13, is that this testimony is true. So first of all, it's not my testimony. I'm the pastor here. But this has to be stopped. We can't speak this way because this testimony of the scripture says this, and it's inconsistent with what you're teaching the rest of these families are speaking about, right?

So it's a, there is a severeness to the extent in which they continue, right? Yeah. Well, again, that's kind of, I looked at both of them, but what I thought was from the censure, censure means, you know, if you're censured in the, in the legislature, can you speak anymore? You're cut off. And so, yeah, the severely part it matches that, but I did look at that, but it was kind of, um, it is.

And, and the other that you bring up for it though, is you've got to, you've got to know the scripture in order to do that. And that's what the, when you go back to the elders in the first part, seven through nine, is that the elders have to be grounded in the word in order to refute or approve. We do too. So, again, by extension, even though this is for qualifications of an elder, for Titus to address these lazy, glutton, beast, evil, cretins, you know, he has to address them severely.

When they walk off and go this way, shut it down and base it on Scripture. And I think, to your point earlier, you can shut down false teaching and gentleness and be done in this case. Right. And I think that's my point. Do it. But if it comes to a point where they continue, you know, they have to be removed. You know, you do it in love. And that's why I think I think the Webster is kind of was kind of answering with kindly intent. I think that's the start of it. Kindly intent to bring them back to the word. But if they don't, that's that severe, severe and censure.

You know, you can't say this here. You can't, you know, be out in the parking lot or be in, you know, upsetting and it going back to the whole thing in the context of this upsetting whole families and all that. If you're out there in a busy body or you're, you're going to people's homes and spreading this as an elder, you have to stop that immediately. And if you're, you know, out there talking to somebody in there, telling somebody completely opposite the scripture, it's incumbent upon us to say no. And here's the scripture, our basis for it, to stop you from spreading this and bring you back, with the intent of bringing you back, I think. It's like a parent sometimes, sometimes you don't even want to tell them why, you just say, you have to stop now. You're not talking about it anymore. It's done. I think that, and it's out of love, of course. Out of love, yes.

Anyway, so anyway, I did look at it's kind of interesting remember us on the first part was infinitive in verse 13 The verb is in present tense active imperative Again, so it's a little different on this one. So means we again active are commanded the imperative moods to Continuously the present stent will prove that those people who contradict God's Word. So it's a command and It is, you know, not with a purpose. I think the first one is with the purpose of trying to bring them back. This is, you do this. You don't let it continue. You don't let it go on. You severely censure them.

So, again, I thought it was an interesting one just from a Greek tense, the two different uses of the word. So, any other thoughts? Yeah, I find it very interesting. I think I notice different things culturally where I go and visit and, you know, as compared to here and different cultures have different tolerances for, you know, things like, you know, abrupt remarks or that sort of thing. Did you live in Jersey? Did you live in New Jersey or New York? No, I just, I just, I just noticed it.

So I'm just kind of curious what, you know, but it seems that Paul had to be pretty clear with Titus that this is going to offend people. This is going to, this is going to be a little bit cutting when you, um, when you have to abruptly, um, you know, refute somebody.

And he had to be encouraged in that, that, yeah, it is for the good. It is for the purpose that they may be sound in the faith, but it's going to be severe, and you're not going to necessarily feel great and wonderful about having to do this, but it's a necessary thing for the good. So it's, yeah, interesting that way. Yeah, and I think it's kind of the, again, looking at the Greek tense, two different ways. One with the purpose of reproving, the second one is done.

You know, harder, harder censure, you know, stop it. And it's after, you know, addressing the cretins too, these lazy, evil, nasty people. They're not going to, you know, don't let them go off the rails very far. Shut it down. Yeah. Here's maybe what I was trying to get at.

In the Canadian culture, people are very sensitive. You can't say much without offending someone. So everybody's treading on eggshells. JD could tell you if that's true about being in Canada. I don't know. We tend to have this very polite Canadian because we just won't say things like it is. to go around the edges of things all the time.

And so, I mean, you would definitely have to, in our cultural context, you'd kind of have to tell someone, sometimes you're just going to have to say it like it isn't, you know, on the basis of scripture, this is, you know, and people will be offended, but it's for the right purpose, if that makes sense. Well, I think this fits that, you know, it may be uncomfortable. You know that that it's that you have to do this and again looking at the Greek tense. It's a command I Didn't want to offend him, so I just let him go It's telling you know the statement is you're commanded to do this and so that's where I think you know It you're gonna offend people and I should probably get into my offending what? what offending means but the I do that and Echol gets back at me all the time on that one. He always gets me. So, well, I have to do it now, I think.

So, a guy told me years and 30 years ago, 40 years ago, and it's helped me immensely, is in offending people, you choose to be offended. It's your choice. If I say something to you, it's your choice to be offended. So if I'm offended, that's my choice. You can do anything you want to me. You can scream at me. You can tell me I'm an idiot. You can tell me and I, it's my ultimate choice to be offended. So that really helps because a lot of times when somebody does something and you're offended, they go off and they're fine.

You're the one burning inside because you, you chose to be offended. Choose not to be offended and your life goes so much easier. just don't choose to be offended because it's an active choice of you choosing to be offended. So it's a life lesson if you do that. So when somebody, Miles, you address them, it's their choice to be offended. And even though you're sensitive and want to be loving, they're choosing to be offended. It's their active choice to be offended.

And so you, in accordance with scripture, are doing what you should be. If they're offended, they choose to be offended about it. So you do things in love, obviously, you know, you're doing it in love and with the purpose of love. If you're doing it out of malice, that's obviously wrong. But you choose, it's your active choice to be offended.

So when you're offended, just remember that's your choice. So that's my morale builder, teardown, whatever, I don't know. That's my life lesson that I learned many years ago, and it's helped me. If you don't choose to be offended, it's a whole lot easier in life. And again, you're the one burning, and the person who offended you is off having a great time, so.

Okay, question two. What is the reference of the pronoun them? So from verse 13, this testimony is true. For this reason, reprove them. So my wife can probably attest to how many times do you hear people say, well, you know what they say, or they wouldn't do that, or whatever. It drives me nuts.

Well, they wouldn't do that. Well, who are they? Who is they? I think it's the same. People put those lights in your ear in the middle. That's true. But I know who they are. I do know who they are. It's the amorphous they. You know, it just drives me nuts. I have a few things that irritate me and I choose to be offended. No, no, I guess. I didn't mean that at all. But it is that, you know, it's got a funny way. If you ever hear that, it just bothers me when, well, they wouldn't do that.

Who are they? Are they behind me? Who are they? So, this is a little different. We have an actual them and what it means. So, the question is, who are they? Your thoughts. Who are they? So, this testimony is true for this reason, to prove them. Who are the them?

At verse 10, basically. Okay. Go ahead and read it. Sure. For there are many rebellious men, empty talkers, and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision. Okay. Any other thoughts? They're false. False in their teachings, so they're liars. Yeah. Given their cretins. Yeah. Okay. Other thoughts? Could it be the people who receive the word?

I was going to mention that, you know, Paul would, he would go to, on his missionary journeys, he'd go to the synagogues, and then he would tell them the truth about faith in Jesus alone saves you. And then he would start just hitting his head against the wall. So he'd say, I'm done with you. I'm going to the Gentiles. And in one of the cities, he went to a building nearby and just started a church there and just started teaching. And so at some point, it's sort of like, I'm done. Your heads are too thick. I'm done with them? Yeah, I'm done with them.

So Mike actually had his notes, which He had two different aspects of it, either that they were the people receiving the word or the actual teachers of the word. So, referencing Constable, he said, Paul evidently believed that these bad qualities marked the false teachers especially. Therefore, he charged Titus to reprimand them severely.

Failure to confront problems within the church, whether theologically or practically based, may be indicative of a basic indifference with regard to God's truth or nurturing of truly Christian relationships. The fear of giving offense, we just talked about that, and a highly individualized view of personal faith may discourage church leaders from following the biblical mandate to rebuke.

Kind of what we were just talking about, Miles. The restoration that is possible both in fellowship and in sound doctrines is compromised by this reluctance to confront. Loving, sensitive, yet firm confrontation can result in stronger relationships and restored unity or perhaps a needed purging of those who deny the truth. That's all the things we've been talking about.

You do it in love, with the purpose of bringing them back to God's Word, if not, censured. you stop them. McCauley has this, Because of the intended results, i.e., that they may be sound in the faith, it is best to refer the pronoun to the potential audience of the false teachers. This positive aim will involve a negative achievement, drawing attention away from myths and commandments of men. So, after listening to both arguments, does they refer to false teachers or to those who would be an audience who would receive the teaching? Change anybody's mind listening to either Macaulay or think it's false teachers? I can kind of see how it could be both. I'm not sure which one. Okay. I think it's interesting if it Let's say it's the false teachers. What's the purpose of reprimanding false teachers? Why would you do that? To bring them back.

But what if they, if they're Jewish and they're not believers, they're just the kind of guys that go around, follow and follow around to refute whatever he's doing, then, uh, you're not going to bring them back. Right, but that's assuming that they're not believers. Right. If these are Jewish believers returning to the Jewish customs, myths, and that, then it's... Maybe. Well, yeah, that's... So... Yeah. Verse 15, help us with that.

Another word jumped way ahead there. Go ahead. Well, just the unbelieving, the defiled and unbelieving. I'm just trying to make sure that that's connected. Yeah. Not an additional thought, but obviously they're paying attention to Jewish commandments, moving away from the truth. And I don't know if that's, like, the faith. I'm not sure what truth that fully is. Do you think it's the gospel? Yeah.

A whole book was written to Jews who were Christians to warn them not to go back to Judaism and give all the, you know, salient arguments not why not to go there. But at the same time, you know, these people that followed Paul around from town to town. Right. And they were Jewish zealots who didn't believe what he was teaching and that they were in essence, persecuting him. Those people, you're not going to change their mind. I don't think. Maybe you'll do that. Does Paul tell Titus to stand up to those guys and get in their face a little bit about what they're teaching?

I would think the focus would be more on the believers, either, well, believers who were beginning to buy into what they were saying. or a warning that, you know, don't listen to those people. Yeah, I kind of fell kind of in the middle. You know, I felt more with Constable that this was all about the false teachers, that they are the false teachers. I didn't see as much the connection to those who received the word, but because if you with the direction, remember, right before this is, these are cretins, liars, lazy beasts, and all that.

So to me, the focus is on those guys. That it's saying, hey, these are the false teachers. That's they. So I fall much more into the category of gospel saying, because all the things about what in the first verses, seven through nine, where he's addressing as the elders you're addressing and those people who contradict, refute, reform, that's about the teachers to me, I think.

And then, like I said, right before this is those horrible cretins. They, and so it may not be with the intent of their believers. That's a whole different question, whether they're believers or not. If they're not believers, you censure them and you try and give them the gospel or bring them to Christ. But, you know, and then also for us to today, you know, who would we be addressing? You know, with the application for today, who would we be addressing? I'm certain we'd have to have the legalists. the teachers. Yeah, we would be. Yeah, these are wolves in sheep's clothing. They're in family environments, they're in the church environment.

I think Timothy helps us a little bit with the parallel passage, the time will come when they will not endure, meaning they were enduring it for, at least they were interfering with something for a while. They were enduring sound doctrine, but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths." And these are these Jewish myths they're talking about. So, we've used the term, like, professing believers before, and this is not going into a reformed, are you sick or not? We're going to sit in your class, we're going to go along with the things that you're saying until it gets to a certain point, and then we're going to pull off part of the herd, or the flock, and we're going to separate them and start to indoctrinate them in these myths, and getting them back to what their heritage and their culture is all about, and using unsound methods to do that. I think these sound or these false teachers or professing You know Christians potentially even never really believe never were believers They were just waiting for their opportunity to pounce and separate the portion of the flaw. So I bring it back up to Contemporary, you know again, who would we be addressing here?

I think I think that's kind of where I fall into a little bit of both. I in that you address the teachers who are separating the sheep and doing that, but you also have to go to those families and all that. And if they're now suddenly expounding on these incorrect things, you're addressing them too. So the people who heard and are misled. So I kind of go to both both sides of this. I think Titus is really talking more to the false teachers, because in Titus 10 and 11, again, this is right before this, is for there are many rebellious men, empty talkers, deceivers, especially those in circumcision, who must be silenced because they're upsetting whole families, teaching things that they should not teach for the sake of sordid gains.

So I still think the majority of his focus is on the teachers. These are the guys who are separating sheep. These are the ones that are upsetting whole families. So I can see by extension a little bit of us, the people who receive the false teaching, but I think the focus here is mainly on those false teachers.

I think it's interesting to see the twofold effect of clarity on the Word of God. You know, there are those who are the deceivers and the empty talkers, rebels, the rebellious men. Those ones are going to be silenced. And then there are those who are the deceived listeners. who are going to be exhorted back to sound faith. So it's kind of interesting.

You see that scripture is the dividing line, but it has that effect on both sides, I think. Yeah, I think that's true. Like I said, I think that's The false teachers you have to address, but then they have sown the seed of incorrect scripture. That's where they now start spreading it, not knowing the correct thing. So that's why I kind of fall into, yeah, it may address both audiences. Once those people who have been misled are off here upsetting families, they're the ones who are going to upset more families. So they have to be addressed, too. So I think it can be both on this one. And today in contemporary, I think it's the same. I want to mention too that Constable brought up, which I thought was a really good point.

The fear to give offense prevents the responsibility of a leader to address the issue. that he might offend somebody if he does address the issue, so he lets it go. Right, and absolutely the wrong thing. And I think, boy, you can see it today in contemporary Christianity that we don't want to offend anybody, so we let this cancer come in and we try to smooth it over or compromise it, when in fact the responsibility, especially of the leaders, and notice that he says in Verse 14, not paying attention to Jewish myths. Gee, that sounds like performed theology. And to those, and commandments of men who turn away from the truth.

Well, you got to do this, you got to, it's legalist. Right. You got to confront it. Well, yeah. And I, you know, Miles, I think in Canada, you're going to have to get those sensitive Canadians, you know, you're going to have to confront them, you know, and it's, it's the same here. We were maybe not quite as, you know, maybe we're a little more bold, but, uh, it's the same, same command and it's a command. We don't get in our cars and go down to the Covenant Church and disrupt that place and tell them, you know, you're teaching error here. It's not that, it's a body of believers.

You know, I listened, it's interesting, this week I was listening to Macaulay in the Book of Acts, Chapter 2. He made an interesting comment that I never thought of before. He said that there was When you go through Acts, you don't see any cases of evangelism. The church didn't evangelize. It was God who added the people. It wasn't their effort to evangelize.

And that every church was a home thing. Acts 2.42. Yeah. And you can see that playing out here. The thing that's powerful is God's Word, not the fact that you're an evangelist. Right. Well, that goes with what Corinthians or Paul watered, you know. Paul planted, Paul's watered, and God created the growth. The focus is, no matter where you go, is always on the clarity of God's Word.

What does it say? This is repeating everything. Remember what starts with the whole question number one was, it's based on sound doctrine. If you don't have sound doctrine, you're one of these guys, false teachers. And so, yeah, I think it still goes back to that fact. You have to know God's Word. You can't reprove or refute anybody if you don't have the right words.

I know, I know. I was hoping to get through more. Yeah, I don't want to start question two or three. We're blazing along. Yes, this will be November of 24 or whatever when we finish this lesson. Miles, don't be in a hurry. Yeah, you got time. Let's close.

Heavenly Father, we thank You. We thank You again just for sound doctrine. And we pray that each and every one of us know Your Word and truthfully divide that Word and see what Your Word truthfully says and that we are accurately defining that Word. And we rely solely upon the Holy Spirit to give us wisdom, enlightenment of your Word, and just to convince and convict us of the truths of your Word. So we pray that we are on sound doctrine when we confront people. And again, we just rely upon you ultimately to direct us in those meetings that we have or confronting false teachers that you have prepared us through sound doctrine to refute and reprove those who teach false doctrines. So we just thank you again for this time and again we just ask for all these things in Jesus name. Amen. All right, we will blaze on to question three next week.