# Is Titus 2 about familial or ecclesiastical relations?



## Afterthought (Sep 20, 2012)

I had always been taught and thought that it referred to women (and by parity of reasoning, presumably men too) teaching others within the church (e.g., a ladies bible study, Sabbath school, some sort of missionary context, unofficial women leaders within the church); that is, that the context of others teaching others is ecclesiastical. However, it has recently come to my attention (from another thread) that the context may show that the others teaching others to be familial (which I understand to mean that the teaching takes place amongst family members of one family, not one from another family unit teaching another in a different family unit; my understanding could be mistaken here).

I look and I look, but I'm not sure how "aged men" "aged women", etc. are necessarily familial language. The only term I can recognize as possibly familial is "servants", which would have been part of the household. At best, I can see that the "teaching others" takes place among those in the Church; that is, members from one family unit could be teaching those in another family unit; and the teaching is related to familial things mostly, it seems. If this is familial language (is it?), and if this familial language implies the "teaching others" is familial (not ecclesiastical), can it only be recognized in the greek, or is this consistent language in Scripture that I'll need to pay attention to?


----------



## MW (Sep 20, 2012)

A number of points confirm this. First, Titus is to teach "the things which become sound doctrine." Again, the aged women, are to behave as becomes holiness. Again, the concern with young women is that the word of God be not blasphemed. The passage itself is dealing with the life of professing believers, not with the things to be professed. So there is no suggestion that the truths of Christianity are the content of the teaching of the aged women. Secondly, the inclusion of "servants" suffices to place the passage in a familial context as there is no such subjection of a specific class of men within the membership of the church. Thirdly, it is obvious from the subordinate clause in v. 4, that the teaching is primarily by example, that is, living as becomes holiness for the purpose of teaching the young women, etc. Fourthly, the absence of any ecclesiastical context in chapter 2 (in contrast to what is found in chapter 1) gives no positive warrant for regarding the teaching of the aged women as ecclesial.


----------



## a mere housewife (Sep 20, 2012)

Rev. Winzer, while I don't have any doubt that family is included in such teaching, and that the teaching of older women of younger is much more related to practicalities than doctrine (or perhaps to some degree doctrine as applied to those practicalities?), would there not be a wider scope for that passage than simply to be understood in light of family? I have learned most from my mother but a great deal from other ladies in my church and in the church in general (and I know a few ladies even outside the church who have taught me something of graciousness in relating to loved ones). And I know many women who have not had the example I have had in my mother. In Mexico there were very few 'whole' families in our church, and both there and here I have known something of the church itself being a true, 'blood related' family with older women taking up that role of mothering of the younger ones?

It is so good to see your posts again, dear Rev. Winzer.


----------



## Afterthought (Sep 20, 2012)

Thank you! Those are some good things I hadn't noticed before. Just two things!



armourbearer said:


> Thirdly, it is obvious from the subordinate clause in v. 4, that the teaching is primarily by example, that is, living as becomes holiness for the purpose of teaching the young women, etc.


v. 3-4 reads "The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children"

While most of the context does indeed seem to be teaching by behavior, the last clause "That they may teach the young women" seems to involve more than just behavior, since loving husbands and being keepers at home also would seem to involve some speech, as does "teachers of good things." But further, though the clause "That they may teach" seems it could be understood as "Tell the aged women that they are to behave in this way that by this behavior they may teach" or it could be understood as "Tell the aged women to behave in this way. And also, that having such good behavior, they might be capable of teaching the younger women." It could be I just need a review of English grammar here though...

Secondly, couldn't the teaching by example (the teaching mentioned in this text) be done from one family unit to another? That is, couldn't the younger women in one family unit see the behavior of the aged women--who are members of the same local congregation--and learn from them, so it is not a day to day sort of teaching (or perhaps day to day, but the families in the Church live near enough to each other to learn from the day to day behavior, in contrast to the behavior they see while and shortly after and before the congregation has assembled together)? Or are you not arguing that all this teaching that Titus mentions (since in general, it seems clear that such teaching does take place outside of a family unit, though Titus might not be referring to that sort of teaching here.) takes place within one family unit?

Edit: Ah. It appears I have been beaten in one of my questions!


----------



## Scott1 (Sep 20, 2012)

> Titus 2
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think the context here is broad, by behavior at home and in church. Verses 1 and 7 talks about doctrine- that can be shown by an exampled life, at home and in the church, and in teaching other women that way in the church. It's exhortational as well, and that could be in either sphere, home or church.

It's not exclusive, doesn't replace the role of male ecclesiastical authority (e.g. officers like bishops, ministers, elders and deacons), but it does offer opportunity for older (more mature) women to minister to younger (less mature) ones.

Sorely needed, anecdotal evidence, e.g. godly women teaching biblical modesty to the immature ones, but I think supported here in Scripture, and in context with other portions of Scripture, e.g. I Timothy 5.


----------



## MW (Sep 20, 2012)

Please allow me to reply to three posts in one.

Ecclesial authority to teach is just that -- it is an authority given by the church. Where the church gives authority to teach it has no right to limit the sphere in which the teaching is given. Prelacy claims that it does. Presbyterianism rejects the claim. Thomas Manton took his limited license under prelacy, acknowledged the authority of the church to license him, but rejected its limitation, and thus regarded himself as licensed. This was perfectly reasonable. The same would apply with any ecclesial role where women are teaching women. There is no way to limit the charge to women. And so it is usually just a matter of time before the prohibition for women to teach men is regarded as a cultural convention.

Please also observe, where the teaching is "ecclesial," it must be more than persuasive; it must also be coercive, accompanied with the power of the keys to administer church discipline in connection with other teachers. Where a mother has power to teach her children, she carries authority to discipline her children. That is the nature of the function. So when a person calls someone their "teacher" they are effectively saying they submit to that person's persuasive and coercive authority. I know there is a looser use of the term "teacher," but loose terms have no place in the reverent interpretation of the word of God.

Blessings!


----------



## a mere housewife (Sep 20, 2012)

Thank you, Rev. Winzer. Can you point me to a commentary where the view is restricted to family? Neither Calvin nor Matthew Henry seem to do so? (Though I could well be confused in understanding your answer: certainly I don't have any conception of any official ecclesiastical role). Calvin says that while 'Paul instructs elderly females what they ought to be, he at the same time holds out to the younger the example which they ought to follow' -- so that it would seem his view was that the younger women are to be discerning in whom they learn from -- ie, the teaching on his view does not seem to be strictly a conception of family roles?


----------



## MW (Sep 20, 2012)

a mere housewife said:


> Calvin says that while 'Paul instructs elderly females what they ought to be, he at the same time holds out to the younger the example which they ought to follow' -- so that it would seem his view was that the younger women are to be discerning in whom they learn from -- ie, the teaching on his view does not seem to be strictly a conception of family roles?



The terms we are using might not be matching up. By "ecclesial" I am speaking in the sense of WCF 25.3, the constituted ministerial church. When we speak of "teaching" in terms of the church, this is the only proper sense in which the term "ecclesial" may be taken. It could be that you are referring to something like 25.2, the catholic visible church. It is correct that members of different families might share a visible connection to the catholic church, and so there is a communion between them, but "teaching," in the proper sense of the term, is not a part of that communion. All are members of Christ in the same way in that communion, and all are to teach and admonish one another. Where there is authority in a family structure it is owing to the "familial" tie, not the "ecclesial" tie. Otherwise there would be as many "churches" as there are social connections among Christians.

Calvin places the teaching of Titus in the ecclesial sphere. He nowhere places the "teaching" of the aged women in that sphere. Unless he explicitly places it in the ecclesial sphere there is no reason for taking him as referring to it. On his words "ought to follow," it is "the example" that is in mind. We are all morally bound to follow a godly example, so there is nothing of a positively binding nature in it.

Blessings!


----------



## Scott1 (Sep 21, 2012)

armourbearer said:


> The terms we are using might not be matching up. By "ecclesial" I am speaking in the sense of WCF 25.3, the constituted ministerial church. When we speak of "teaching" in terms of the church, this is the only proper sense in which the term "ecclesial" may be taken.



Thanks for clarifying the presumption.

Some of us are not making that presumption generally, or from the Titus 2 text.

Some of us understand that the authoritative teaching of the Word as an ordinance of corporate worship is reserved to the offices, qualified by Titus 1, I Timothy 3, implicit in the creation pattern, etc. (one of the qualifications is men).

By "teaching" the younger women, this passage does not substitute for those offices. But would, to teach "in the church" and at home, e.g. teach a women's Sunday School class, teach children at home, etc.

There obviously is a special circumstance Paul is speaking of here- the role of godly, mature women in helping (in a broad way) of helping bring up younger (less mature) women in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. The text includes teaching (by words) and by example. 

While we don't go by experience to form our doctrine or any substantive practice, the role of discipling and modeling this to younger women (and later in the text to younger men, e.g. v. 6) is in view here- one aspect of that, not the only aspect, but one aspect of that is in the church.

Both.


----------



## Scott1 (Sep 21, 2012)

We might also note Titus 1 contains explicit qualifications for church officers, e.g. elders.

So, logically and in a consistent way, this continues to speak of conduct both in and out of "the church." Relationships that exist in both spheres of life seem to be the theme. Titus 1 speaks of an elders behavior both in church and in life, so it speaks broadly.

And there is careful distinction of the role of formal church office, and church roles, yes. And this is not speaking of that.


----------



## Shawn Mathis (Sep 21, 2012)

Afterthought said:


> (which I understand to mean that the teaching takes place amongst family members of one family, not one from another family unit teaching another in a different family unit; my understanding could be mistaken here)



For clarification: the text does not necessarily mean intra-family but inter-familial instruction. The words are not "mother" and "daughter" but "older woman" and "younger woman" [neos]. The details of how are left to Christian prudence [contra some Family Integrated Church models].


----------



## Afterthought (Sep 21, 2012)

Thanks, Rev. Winzer! That makes sense. It appears then, that ladies bibles studies, et. al. cannot be justified as an application of this text. And from you explanation about ecclesial teaching not having a limited sphere, it would appear that such cannot be justified at all....not as an ecclesial activity anyway. It would seem there is still room for some sort of unofficial gathering for "teaching" in the sense of the "teaching and admonishing" that belongs to all (whether such gatherings are restricted to ladies or not); though I'm not sure whether such could be endorsed by the Church or the congregational level...or at least not endorsed in the sense that it would make such a gathering come under the oversight of the local congregation. But perhaps that is getting off topic from the text at hand.



Shawn Mathis said:


> For clarification: the text does not necessarily mean intra-family but inter-familial instruction. The words are not "mother" and "daughter" but "older woman" and "younger woman" [neos].


Yes, indeed. I understood the original claim to be that of intra-familial instruction; but it appears the real concern was whether the teaching was ecclesial, and that the original claim was about familial instruction _in contrast to_ ecclesial instruction and so allowing for inter-familial instruction (and such instruction coming primarily by example).


----------



## a mere housewife (Sep 21, 2012)

Rev. Winzer, thank you for such patient clarification. What a wonderful thought to carry with me, that we are always bound to follow a good example. Yet I thought too that we cannot all be bound to follow a good example in every sense (something I have often learned too much the hard way), but in keeping with our own sphere. And as someone who is often confused about what is in keeping with my own sphere -- and how to translate all the things I value in others into my own calling -- I have understood this passage to be a very valuable admonition to the older women in the church to be that example for the younger, of what is appropriate in the feminine calling (and of course in Christ a place of submission as regards authoritative office/teaching is appropriate to us). I hadn't understood that to call for women to for instance, have special Bible studies and prayer times for this sort of exampling per se -- anymore than I think it would necessarily forbid them to do so? I can understand better from your explanation how necessary it is to separate the spheres in the passage lest there is confusion in what seems like opposite directions (as with the FIC movement which I understand to mix up the authority of the church with male familial headship, or as with women in positions of ecclesiastical authority).

I think those without birth family in the church can feel that they have no place relationally in the body of Christ if these passages are only ever applied intra-households, and that not having such, they are somehow on a different, and a qualitatively lower, plane in the Lord: left out of all this learning and growing and relating that comes of being not just an individual but a member of a family. But I can see that is not at all what you were saying.

(Added: just a thought about the related topic of women's Bible studies, which is something I have often wondered about in such discussions and not known quite what to think: if women aren't able to meet and discuss the Bible as it relates to our calling among ourselves, then I don't see any justification for my being able to log in and discuss even this part of Scripture with men here? -- For if women are supposed to have little liberty to speak about Christ with one another, we have even less in the presence of men.)


----------



## MW (Sep 21, 2012)

a mere housewife said:


> if women aren't able to meet and discuss the Bible as it relates to our calling among ourselves, then I don't see any justification for my being able to log in and discuss even this part of Scripture with men here? -- For if women are supposed to have little liberty to speak about Christ with one another, we have even less in the presence of men.)



I am not sure from where the idea is derived that "women are supposed to have little liberty to speak about Christ with one another." As noted, it is the duty of all Christians, as a part of the communion of saints, to teach and admonish one another in charity. Problems only emerge where "authority" is assumed. Who grants this authority? If it is ecclesial authority it must be such as accords with the principles of church government. If it is familial authority it is that which follows the social structure of the family. On this board I take it we have all been invited onto the board owner's virtual property and are all showing the usual courtesy and respect of being in another person's home. Blessings!


----------



## a mere housewife (Sep 21, 2012)

Rev. Winzer, that is helpful. It did not sound to me like you were advocating such a view and I did not mean to imply such: but to elicit further thoughts on how your explanation of this passage relates specifically to what women would legimitately be able to do, and on what grounds. For it is not uncommon in my experience to encounter the idea that women should not be allowed to have Bible studies on the belief that it necessarily involves a usurpation of 'teaching' authority which never belongs to them except over their children. (The admonitions to teach and admonish one another generally are read in light of the woman keeping silence, rather than as belonging to a different realm of 'teaching'.) I appreciate more precise explanations in an area which tends to be confusing (and of some importance) to me.


----------

