1:6 An elder must be blameless, the husband of one wife, with faithful children who cannot be charged with dissipation or rebellion. 1:7 For the overseer must be blameless as one entrusted with God’s work, not arrogant, not prone to anger, not a drunkard, not violent, not greedy for gain. 1:8 Instead he must be hospitable, devoted to what is good, sensible, upright, devout, and self-controlled. 1:9 He must hold firmly to the faithful message as it has been taught, so that he will be able to give exhortation in such healthy teaching and correct those who speak against it.

We have here another example of ‘pistos‘.  The interpreter needs to consider whether on this occasion it should be translated in the passive sense of ‘faithful’ (so also AV, CSB, LEB, LSB), or in the active sense of ‘believing’ (NASB, ESV, NIV, NRSV, NLT).

Clearly, the difference is theologically and pastorally significant.  Does Paul limit the role of elder to those who have ‘believing’ children?

‘Believing’ is favoured, not only by the translated listed above, but by a majority of the lexicons and commentaries.  However, Norris Grubbs has found that the passive sense of pistos (faithful) predominates in the LXX, in Josephus and in the Apostolic Fathers.  This is so also of NT usage, including the Pauline writings.

In support of the ‘active’ reading, it is often stated that, in the ancient Greco-Roman world, children were expected to take the religion of their parents.  But early Christianity was counter-cultural in ths regard: it is clear from 1 Pet 3:1f that a husband and wife might not share the same Christian faith, and from Eph 6:5-8 that slaves were not expected to embrace their master’s gods.  Although we do have instances in the NT of entire families embracing the Christian faith, the emphasis is on personal response (John 3:16, 36; Acts 2:38; Rom 10:9–10).  It is entirely against the tenor of the gospel to suppose that one individual could compel another to become a Christian.

But perhaps ‘faithful’ implies ‘believing’ anyway?  Is it not impossible to be ‘faithful’ without also being ‘believing’?  No, it is not impossible, since a ‘faithful’ son in Paul’s day could be one who fulfilled his obligations within the family.  A son could be dependable and reliable without necessarily being a believer.  Such ‘faithfulness’ is applied in the NT to servants in a household (Mt 24:45; 25:21, 23; Lk 12:42; 16:10; 19:17).  A son or servant is ‘faithful’ when he is obedient to his father or master.  The word applies to roles within a household.

The passive meaning (‘faithful’) is consistent with the context, which emphasises roles within the family (the elder must be a one-woman man).  If a man cannot manage his own family, how can he hope to manage the family of the church?

Furthermore, when Paul mentions ‘faithful children who cannot be charged with dissipation or rebellion’, the most natural reading is to regard the latter part of the expression as explaining or expanding the first part.  It is all about the conduct of the chldren, not their confession of faith.

Moreover, this reading is consistent with the overall purpose.  Miller writes:

‘According to Fee, the dominant theme of Titus concerns “good works with exemplary behavior, with a concern for what outsiders think.”  Smith agrees, noting that the “entire ethical concern of the letter is with observable behavior that affects the church’s reputation with outsiders.”  In the ancient world, it was expected that the leader of a household keep his house in order.  The reputation of the church would be greatly harmed by placing in leadership a man who was unable to lead his own family well. Accordingly, Paul’s admonition for “faithful” children fits quite well within the overall framework of the letter.’

Another contextual reason for understanding pistos in its passive sense is the parallel nature of 1 Timothy 3:4f, where the elder is required to manage his own household competently, having his children ‘under control’.  In a footnote, the ESV translates the present verse, ‘whose children are faithful’.  So AV and several other translations.  In v9 of the present chapter, Paul uses the same word, and it is translated, ‘trustworthy’; cf. 1 Tim 3:11.  The immediate context of v6 supports the translation of the relevant word as ‘trustworthy’.  The elder, then, should be capable of keeping his children under control.

Bill Mounce asks: ‘faithful to what?’, and finds the lack of an object a weakness to this interpretation.

Miller discusses the issue in relation to the doctrine of election.  How can a human father be held responsible for his children’s salvation when this depends on the sovereign will of God?  Much as I believe in divine election, I find attempts to pit it against human responsibility to be generally unfruitful, so I will not pursue this now.

More straightforward, I think, is Miller’s comment that some of the godliest men in the Old Testament (including David, Samuel and Hezekiah) had children who were not believers.

It is a father’s duty to raise his children in the love and nurture of the Lord.  However he has not ultimate control of the outcome.  What the church should assess in an elder is whether he has followed the Lord’s will in those things he has some control over.  If he has shown himself to be a good steward in his own household, then he is more likely to find success in the wider household of God.

Miller discusses some practical questions raised by the two rival interpretations:

(a) If the issue is about believing children, does this only apply while they are living at home?  How old does a child need to be before the required profession of faith?  What if an adult child departs from the faith?  What if a potential elder has become a Christian in adulthood, but has adult sons who are not believers?

(b) If the issue is about faithful children, what kind or degree of unfaithfulness would disqualify an elder?  (Verse 6 implies that the sinful rebellion should be both morally serious and publicly evident).

I suspect that Miller is, at this point trying too hard to derive a set of rules from teaching which is more intent on establishing principles.

In conclusion, it is probably best to understand this as meaning

‘a man whose children are trustworthy and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient’

Still, the emphasis is not so much on the children’s character as on a man’s ability to manage his home, which will be evidenced in the behaviour of his children.

Footnote

In a review of the IVP Women’s Bible Commentary, Gilbert Bilezikian notes that

‘the same passage that forbids women to teach and to have authority over men also requires that men who want to lead, teach or manage the affairs of the church must be married (husbands of one wife) and have children who are believers, obedient, and show proper respect (Titus 1:6)…Such rigorous provisions exclude from church leadership ministries not only women but also single men, childless married men, married men with only one child, married men with children too small or too obstinate to profess faith, married men with disobedient believing children, and married men with obedient believing children who are not respectful in all things.’

The implication seems to be that the Pastoral Epistles are equally rigorous about men’s and women’s ministry, and that such high standards must have

‘unique historical circumstances that necessitated exceptionally restrictive measures not mandated in the rest of the NT.’

There may well be circumstances within the Cretan church which mean that we should not simply transfer, without remainder, these instructions to modern church life.  However, Bilezikian is, I think, guilty of misconstruing the present passage (which does not insist on elders being married, but rather that husbands are faithful to their wives; and which does not insist on their children being believers, but rather that men who are to have oversight of the church show evidence of godly oversight of their own families).