“Children who Believe” in Titus 1:6 (Part 3)

Fifth, according to Barrick, when the adjective pistos is used to modify a noun (as it does in Titus 1:6), it always carries the meaning “faithful” or “trustworthy/credible.” In contrast, when the adjective is independent and functions as a substantive, it means “believing one” or “believer” (Barrick, “Titus 1:6”). Therefore, the meaning “faithful” in Titus 1:6 would be more consistent with the use of the word elsewhere in the New Testament.

Against this view, it has been argued that every time pistos is translated “faithful” in the New Testament, it refers to believers who are faithful, and never unbelievers. Therefore, it is said, pistos must refer to children who believe regardless of the precise way it is translated. In response, the fact that pistos is not used elsewhere in the New Testament in reference to unbelievers does not mean that the adjective cannot be used in reference to unbelievers (which is what this argument needs to show in order to be compelling). To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing inherent in the word itself that precludes it from being used to describe an unbeliever. Used in this way, it would describe an unbeliever who, though unregenerate, is faithful and obedient to the one in authority over him (e.g., the soldiers described in Matthew 8:9).

The view that pistos means “believing” raises some practical difficulties as well. For example, if a man has a two-year-old daughter who has not repented of her sins and believed in Christ, is that man unqualified to serve as an elder? Most interpreters who say that pistos means “believing” in Titus 1:6 would answer No, but on what basis? If pistos means “believing,” wouldn’t a child who has not exercised saving faith disqualify the father (since “believing” does mean “believing”)?

Some would respond by saying that only an unbelieving child who has reached the age of accountability would disqualify the father. Aside from the fact that Titus 1:6 says nothing about such an age, what exactly is that age? Many believers give testimony to having believed at a very young age—even as young as five—so is five the age of accountability? If not, why wouldn’t it be, since children seem capable of believing at such an early age? In addition, it seems possible that identifying an age as the cutoff might establish something of a high-pressured countdown for an elder whose unbelieving child is approaching that age (i.e., “If my child doesn’t profess Christ by this March, I’ll need to step down from serving as an elder!”).

These difficulties are only compounded by the fact that so many children profess faith but do not truly possess it. It is often difficult to know for certain whether or not a child—especially one raised in a Christian home—is truly regenerate. In many cases, elders would be deemed qualified because their children seem to be saved even though they are not regenerate. On the other hand, it is much easier to observe whether or not a child is obedient to his or her father. These kinds of practical considerations, of course, are secondary to the exegetical ones discussed above, but they are worthy of our consideration.

Overall, then, it seems to me that Paul’s intention in Titus 1:6 is to communicate not that an elder’s children must be saved for him to serve as an elder, but rather that his children must be faithful and obedient to their father, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. Indeed, as Barrick notes, a believing child is far better dispositioned to be obedient and submissive to the authority of his parents than an unbelieving child—and in this way the two views may end up overlapping to a great extent—but saving faith per se is no more in view in Titus 1:6 than it is in 1 Timothy 3:4 (Barrick, “Titus 1:6”).