Elders – The Number of Children
April 24th, 2007THE MEANING OF “CHILDREN”
INTRO:
A. One of the predominant controversies, unfortunately, is over the word “children.”
1. Does it include families of only one child?
2. Does it include families only of two or more children?
3. Does it include only biologically produced children? (This is addressed in an addendum)
B. The more prevalent interpretation is that both biological and adoptive children meet the qualification; and that “children” is used generically and therefore includes one or more. It is my goal to prove this interpretation correct.
C. Each position is not given ample representation to aid as a study guide for all. If one is interested in that, I can supply another, longer edition, of this paper.
D. TEXT ? 1 Timothy 3:4?5; Titus 1:6
BODY:
I. GREEK (CHILDREN)
A. Tekna (5043) – accusative; plural; neutral of teknon.
1. Same in both 1 Tim.3:4 and Titus 1:6
II. LEXICONS: DEFINITION OF TEKNON.
A. “a child (as produced): ? child, daughter, son.” [1]
B. “a child, a descendant; an inhabitant,”[2]
C. “offspring; plural children;”[3]
1. Notice that a synonym of “children” is offspring and that word – offspring – contains both plural and singular within its meaning.
D. “a child (akin to tikto, to beget, bear), is used in both the natural and figurative senses.”[4]
III. COMMENTARIES
A. It is interesting that out of eleven various resource materials, [i.e. commentaries, study Bibles, handbooks, etc.], only one commented at all on the number of children. And that lone exception is associated with “The Restoration Movement” – Sweet Publishing Company. He wrote and published it. This made me think that our circle is alone in this question. Now this means we are either extremely conscientious or excessive.
1. “Children is generic and includes one or more (cf. the plural in Eph.6:4).”[5]
IV. ARGUMENT #1 – Overall Approach to Interpreting the Qualifications
A. How do we understand the qualifications? What is our approach to understanding the qualifications? What I mean is, “Is there a connection between the qualifications, or are they each and every one of them separate?” I would like to suggest that we should not interpret the qualifications as a list of unrelated items, but rather characteristics that are related:
· As Amplifications of Being Above Reproach
o Teaching
o Character
o Family
· As Examples of being a “Spiritually Mature” Man in the following areas:
o Teaching
o Character
o Family
· As Preparation for performing the work of an elder
o Teaching
o Character
o Family
B. In reference to the number of children, we can apply the above reference points in the following manner:
1. If a man has only one child, can he prove himself as being either blameless or blameworthy in how he managed his household? Yes.
2. If a man has only one child, can he prove himself as spiritually mature in managing his own household? Yes
3. If a man has only one child, can he prove he can manage his household? Yes.
C. Therefore I conclude from this argument that “one child” is in harmony with the overall approach to interpreting the qualifications.
V. ARGUMENT #2 – Elders: Grammatical Construction Of “Children”
One of the predominant controversies concerning the eldership is the number of children each elder must have. The question is whether or not “children” (1 Tim.3:4; Titus 1:6) necessitates a plurality? Our purpose is to the word “children” includes the singular in the lists for a pastor.
Some supporting the `one child’ theory state, “the singular is always included in the plural” (Gen.21:7); but they also say, “sometimes writers use the plural for the singular to give the expression a more general turn” (i.e. 1 Tim.5:4). Words like always and sometimes contradict each other since one dictates no exceptions while the other allows them. A conclusion based upon contradicting premises cannot be valid.
Because of this contradiction, the “two or more” theorists ask some good questions. One is, “If the plural always includes the singular, then the appointment of ‘elders in every church’ (Acts 14:23) authorizes a one man eldership.” If this was the only scripture (along with Titus 1:5), then the possibility would exist. We always have to accept conclusions regardless of their agreeability with our presuppositions.
However, such is not the case. In answer to the first, proving that the singular is always included in the plural is impossible. That is a weak argument. Yes, the plural always includes the singular as part of the whole. It would be impossible to deny that. However, it is a wrong conclusion to admit the singular can always be separated from the plural to stand on its own. If that were true, then the pluralizing of a subject could never invalidate a singularity (i.e. “elders in every church” – Acts 14:23). A solid answer is that we have both examples and statements that illuminate the number of elders (Acts 20:17, 28; Phil.1:1; Tit.1:5; Jms.5:14; 1 Pet.5:1-4; 1 Thess.5:12-13). These “explain” the command to “appoint elders.” Therefore the correct number of overseers can be established by these other scriptures. In relationship to the number of children, we have no defining examples or further statements. We always must accept the consequences in all areas of belief when based upon sound interpretation.
A second good question is, since sometimes is not always, what proof is there Paul is using the exception for the elder’s qualifications? What proof is there God inspired the non-individualistic “plurals of class” for children?
The proof is the grammatical pattern employed in the qualifications lists (1 Tim.3; Titus 1). The Scriptures contain this pattern in around twenty?five other (English) verses (I am not a Greek nor Hebrew scholar). EVERY one of them, the plural includes the singular. The proof of the singular use is through biblical cross?references, necessary inference, and common sense. In fact, I would doubt even the “two or more” theorists would disagree – except in the qualifications for the elders. Consistency demands agreement. If one argues that I am assuming too much to include 1 Tim.3 and Titus 1, I ask if basing a conclusion upon consistency is `too much?’
The grammatical structure consists of a subject that is a non-personal, singular, literal parent.
· By non-personal, it is meant no one specific, named person is implied (i.e. Abraham).
· By singular it is meant one person, not a collective noun (i.e. Israel is a collective noun) nor any plural noun (i.e. fathers).
· Literal excludes figurative expressions such as “sons of light.”
The second half of this pattern has the qualification children (or equivalent expressions) employed without any further description such as many or more. For example, in 1 Tim.3 the word overseer is a singular noun. A singular, collective noun would be overseership. Overseer is also non-personal because it is not “Bob the overseer”. The father?child relationship is also literal.
The O.T. scriptures are Ex.21:4?6; Ex.21:22 (lit.translation); Lev.25:39?41,54; Deut.28:54?57; 1 Sam.30:22; Job 5:4; Job 17:5; Job 20:10; Job 21:19; Ps.103:13; Ps.109:9?10; Ps.113:9; Ps.127:3; Prov.4:1; Prov.20:7; Prov.31:28; Isa.38:19; Isa.54:1.
The N.T. scriptures where this pattern is found are Mt.19:29 (see also Mk.10:29?30 & Lk.18:29); Mt.22:23?27 (see Mk.12:19?22 & Deut.25:5); Lk.14:26 (see Mt.10:37); 1 Thess.2:7; 1 Thess.2:11; 1 Tim.3:4 (see Titus 1:6); and 1 Tim.5:4,10.
Let us now juxtapose these scriptures.
SCRIPTURE
Ex.21:4-6
Ex.21:22
Lev.25:39-41,54
Deut.28:54-57
1 Sam.30:22
Job 5:4
Job 17:5
Job 20:10
Job 21:19
Ps.103:13
Ps.109:9-10
Ps.113:9
Ps.127:3
Prov.4:1
Prov.20:7
Prov.31:28
Isa.38:19
Isa.54:1
Mt.19:29 (cf.Mk.10:29-30
& Lk.18:29)
Mt.22:23-27 (cf.Mk.12:19-22
& Deut.25:5)
Lk.14:26
1 Thess.2:7
1 Thess.2:11
1 Tim.3:4 (cf.Tit.1:6)
1 Tim.5:4
1 Tim.5:10
SUBJECT
Ownership
Premature Birth
Servants
Cannibalism
Spoils
Foolish Man
Traitor
Mankind
Man & Sin
Compassion
Adversary
Barren Mother
Fruit of Womb
Instructions
Righteous Man
Worthy Woman
Instruction
Parenthood
Discipleship
Levirate Marriage
Discipleship
Nursing Mother
Exhortation
Overseer
Widow
Widow Indeed
QUALIFICATION
“Sons & daughters”
“Children come out”
“Sons”
“Sons & daughters”
“Children”
“Sons”
“Sons”
“Sons”
“Sons”
“Children”
“Children”
“Children”
“Children”
“Sons”
“Sons”
“Children”
“Sons”
“Sons”
“Children”
“Children”
“Children”
“Children”
“Children”
“Children”
“Children”
“Children”
RELATIONSHIP
Slave’s Children
Mother-Children
Father-Sons
Parent-Children
Man-Children
Father-Sons
Father-Sons
Father-Sons
Father-Sons
Father-Children
Father-Children
Mother-Children
Mother-Children
Father-Sons
Father-Sons
Mother-Children
Father-Sons
Mother-Sons
Parent-Children
Father-Children
Father-Children
Mother-Children
Father-Children
Father-Children
Mother-Children
Mother-Children
One might argue that SOME of these scriptures use the word “children” only as a possibility (i.e. Mt.19:29). Would this then mean that IF a pastor has children, THEN they must be believers? If it did, then we must accept the consequences of sound argumentation. The answer, though, is no. A purpose is given for the children ? that the man may learn how to manage (1 Tim.3:4?5). Learning how to rule does not necessitate a plurality to ensure different personalities. One child, if he has the “right” personality can be harder to rule than three who have easier personalities. If this argument is used, we must then become judges of personalities. That goes further than what Paul stated.
A grammatical argument that the `two or more’ advocators use is, if Paul meant one child qualified the man, then why did he not say so. The answer is – he did. If Paul had simply said `an elder must have one child,’ then some would believe a plurality was wrong. Why then, didn’t Paul say, “one or more children”? Probably because never is that phrase found in the Scriptures. When the inspired writers meant one child or more, they used the term children. We can know this from the twenty?five scriptures listed above.
VI. ARGUMENT #3 – The Grammatical Use of Synecdoche
A. Before defining synecdoche, it is imperative that we understand something about definitions:
1. All words have definitions, but none have application without context. This is explained by respected Lexicographer, J.H. Thayer,
“…the shade of meaning in which the word is to be taken must be discovered from the context in every particular case.” (J.H. Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 581, on word sophia).
2. Another way of explaining this is to recognize the difference between denotative and connotative meanings. Context, by definition, gives specific meaning to definitions. A common example would be elder. Sometimes it means an older man (Tit.2:2); sometimes a specific worker in a local congregation (Acts 14:23) who must meet certain qualifications (1 Tim3; Tit.1). In this text, there is no disagreement over the denotative and form of the word “children.” The form is plural. There is disagreement and discussion over the meaning and application of the words (i.e., connotative meaning).
B. Synecdoche
· Definition – “…a figure of speech by which we speak of the whole by a part or a part by using a term denoting the whole.” (Dugan, Hermeneutics, a Textbook, p.300). Mr. Dugan then gives several examples:
o The whole is put for a part (Acts 24:5; Lk.2:1; Rom.1:8)
o A part put for the whole (Acts 17:16)
o Time is put for a part of time (Gen.17:13)
o The plural is put for the singular (Gen.8:4; 19:29; 21:7)
o The singular is put for the plural (Ex.8:17; 15:1)
o A definite is put for an indefinite number (1 Sam.1:8; 1 Cor.14:19)
o A general name is put for a particular name (Gen.12:6; Mark 16:15)
o Sometimes a special name or word is put for a general (Mt.6:11)
· It is a valid hermeneutical, linguistic form of expression.
C. Due to the above, it is impossible to simply look at the plural form of “children” and say, “Children is the plural of child.” No word can be defined out of its context.
D. For example, look at Titus 1:6 – namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion.
1. To say that “children” has to mean “more than one,” then Paul is telling Titus that a man is disqualified only if he has “more than one” child who is accused of dissipation (wildness) or rebellion (rebellion). If a man who has two children but only one of them can be accused of dissipation (wildness) or rebellion (rebellion), then consistency would require that is he qualified because he does not have a plurality of children who are guilty. But no one argues the use of “children” having to mean “more than one” that way.
VII. ARGUMENT #4 – Context: The Purpose of the Qualification
A. Why did God say an elder must have children? It is proof that he can manage well. Is there any other reason that Paul writes to Timothy? Not that I can see.
· 1 Timothy – 3:4-5 – He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity (but if man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?
B. In considering the word “children” there is the debate as to whether or not one child qualifies or if there must scripturally be more than one. I optimistically hope that can be cleared up with a rather simple observation – optimistic or foolish?
Many arguments have been put forth dealing with the word “children” (teknon). Without rehashing all those arguments, what did God say again was the reason as seen in 1 Timothy 3:4-5? It shows his ability to manage others. That’s it.
Can one child show his ability to manage? Yes. But, some might argue, having more children shows that he is more qualified. Did you notice what that counter-argument tacitly admits? “More qualified” is counter to “less qualified” which is still qualified. The question is not who is more or less qualified, but who is qualified.
Having more than one child will probably give you more experience. But truth be told, some children are more easily managed than others. One child might be a greater test than ten, depending on the child.
But speaking only numerically, can a father of four children show more ability to manage than a father of two? Absolutely. Can having both girls and boys show more ability to manage? Again yes! So should we add that qualification? After all, if we are going to say that an elder needs more than one child because a congregation is made up of more than one person, then we need to say that an elder needs to have both girls and boys because a congregation is made up of both male and females! Can having children who are very diverse from one another better qualify a man? Again yes! What about raising children that are not biologically yours, can that show more ability than when you have them all from birth? Just ask a parent who has adopted children.
We could on and on. The point is simple. God said the purpose of “children” is to show his ability to manage his “household.” Let’s state the same reasoning negatively – after all, the reasoning given to Timothy is stated both positively and negatively:
· Positively – manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity
· Negatively – but if man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?
Here’s the question stated negatively – Can one child prove that a man cannot manage his household well? If we answer yes, then let’s ask the same question positively – Then can one child prove that a man can manage his household well? Consistently demands we answer yes.
One child can prove or disprove our ability to manage our household or else the Holy Spirit would have given a different reason for having children.
C. Let’s say that the above argument that I presented answering the “different personality” position is not convincing enough; let me add an additional thought. In order to qualify, an elder must be able to manage “his own household.” Is there anyone in the household besides his children (or child?) that the husband leads? His wife. Leading a wife and leading a child (or children) definitely qualifies as “different personalities.”
VIII. CONCLUDING QUESTIONS
A. If one concludes that an elder must have more than one child in order to qualify, then consistency requires that be applied to “widows indeed.” And if not, why not?
· 1 Tim.5:3-4, 10 – Honor widows who are widows indeed; but if any widow has children or grandchildren, they must first learn to practice piety in regard to their own family and to make some return to their parents; for this is acceptable in the sight of God…. having a reputation for good works; and if she has brought up children, if she has shown hospitality to strangers, if she has washed the saints’ feet, if she has assisted those in distress, and if she has devoted herself to every good work.
1. Notice in the above passage that if a widow has “children or grandchildren,” they must take responsibility. Would anyone argue that if a widow only has one child, then that one child does not have the same responsibility?
2. Also notice the parallels between 1 Tim.3 and 1 Tim.5:
· Both written by the same author – Paul
· Both occur in the same book – 1 Timothy
· Both involve lists of qualifications – one for elders and the other for widows indeed.
3. Consistency would require that we interpret the use of “children” in both chapters in the same way.
B. If one concludes that an elder must have more than one child in order to qualify, then consistency suggests the same application to deacons:
· 1 Tim.3:12 – Deacons must be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households.
1. To counter this argument, it has been suggested that the word “deacons” is plural while “elder” is singular, therefore deacons can have one child. However, why should we take the qualification any differently? Consistency would suggest the same interpretation since they are alike in wording.
C. If one concludes that it is safer to only allow a man to become an elder if he has more than one child, I question that logic.
· Is it safer when a man has proven he can manage his household – the purpose of the qualification – only to deny him to serve?
· Is it safer when the end result is to not have elders, when there is a man (or men) who has met every qualification – even the ability to manage his household?
· Is it safer to not have elders than to have elders when it is proven that one child is sufficient from a Biblical point of view?
D. If one concludes that the qualification should be interpreted as “more than one” child, then certain questions must be ask of that individual:
· Do I believe this is absolutely the only possible answer?
· Do I believe this is a view that I choose to apply only for myself for conscience reasons?
· Do I believe this strongly enough to keep a man from serving as an elder?
· Do I believe this strongly enough to keep a congregation from having an eldership?
· Can I submit to a man as an elder with only one child if that is the view of the congregation?
IX. CONCLUDING CHALLENGE
A I will conclude with a challenge: Challenge: Find one scripture where the word “children” is used to exclude someone with only one child.
Does anyone know of such a scripture? The question is not asking are there any scriptures where we know that the term “children” is used to describe a plurality. The question is asking are there any scriptures where the term “children” is used to exclude someone with only one child.
We can’t use 1 Tim.3 and Titus 1. Those are the disagreed upon passages.
The point is, if the term is never used to exclude the parent of one child outside of 1 Tim.3 and Titus 1, then how should we interpret the elder’s qualification for the number of children?
CONCLUSION:
A. Those who advocate the “two or more” position actually have only three arguments:
1. The form of Children is plural.
2. Even though the plural does sometimes include the singular, how do you know Paul used it that way?
3. More children equal more experience dealing with different personalities.
B. It is honestly and sincerely believed that the article, “Elders – Grammatical Structure of `Children’” answers both these arguments:
1. Based upon the grammatical structure, Paul is using children in a generic sense, which is the secondary meaning.
2. The grammatical structure proves this. Every time the singular is included as when the phrase includes a non-personal, singular, literal parent coupled with children and its equivalent!
C. Again, it is honestly believe that the argument showing the purpose of the qualification answers the “different personality” argument.
D. As we consider the evidence for one child being enough to qualify a man for the eldership, as compared to the interpretation saying the qualifications call for a plurality, let us consider how to weigh the evidence.
The standard of proof is the level of proof required in a legal action to convince the court that a given proposition is true. The degree of proof required depends on the circumstances of the proposition.
There are three levels of proof:
· The Preponderance of Evidence (which is the lowest level, generally thought to be greater than 50%, although numeric approximations are controversial)
· Clear and Convincing Evidence is a medium level of proof.
· Beyond a Reasonable Doubt is the highest level of proof, but defies numeric approximation).
I suggest that the interpretation that one child or more fulfills the qualification has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if the evidence was presented in a court of law, then this position would be conclusive using the highest standard of proof.
When one considers all the evidence given, the multiple children theory is not beyond a reasonable doubt. Every argument that it presents has been adequately answered, in my opinion. However, the advocates of such belief have not, and cannot, answer all the arguments in favor of the generic use of children in reference to the qualifications for the eldership.
ADDENDUM #1
Does children include only biologically produced children? We could be flippant and say, there is no other kind! To quote Robert Turner,
“Having a child, or many children, is not the point of 1 Tim.3:4-5 and Titus 1:6. It is the ability to rule, with gravity, ones own, that is being considered and made a qualifying run. Of course ruled children necessitate children to rule, but we must not allow the issue to degenerate to the level of genetics or progeny. It is no reproach on a man to be childless, but unruled children are a dishonor.”[6]
And also H.E. Phillips,
“The man who has properly trained adopted children has as much experience as the father who has properly trained his own natural children. There is no difference in so far as the experience in ruling is concerned, and that is the purpose of the qualification.[7]
[1]James Strong, A Greek Dictionary of the New Testament, p.71.
[2]George Ricker Berry, A Greek?English Lexicon, p.148.
[3]Joseph Henry Thayer, A Greek?English Lexicon of the New Testament, p.617.
[4]W.E. Vine, A Comprehensive Dictionary of the Original Greek Words with their Precise Meanings for English Readers, p.189.
[5]Carl Spain, The Letters of Paul to timothy and Titus, The Living Word Commentary, ed. Everett Ferguson.
[6]Robert Turner, “Queries and Answers”, Plain Talk, vol.8, no.6, p.7.
Loading...