Elder's Children Discussions

The following exchange took place on an Internet discussion list that consisted of a number of members, about one hundred of whom were preachers. The first part pertains to if "children" in I Timothy 3: 4 and Titus 1: 6 is capable of meaning only one child and the second part, the meaning of "faithful children" in Titus 1: 6. As a result of this discussion, there were several preachers who changed their views both regarding the number of children and the meaning of "faithful" (pistos) in Titus 1: 6. Be sure to read, "Elders, Their Work and Qualifications."

Jason, thanks for your reply posts relative to "children" in I Timothy 5: 10, 3: 4, and Titus 1: 6. We are in agreement regarding either "child" or "children" will satisfy the requirement of I Timothy 5: 10. However, we are in disagreement regarding the children requirement of I Timothy 3: 4 and Titus 1: 6.

I think the above should be of interest to other list members. We both are conversant with the Greek grammar; therefore, why do we differ? I look forward to corresponding with you on the list regarding this difference. Again, thank you, Jason, for the exchange. I look forward to it and I believe good can be accomplished. I know that both you and I will avoid personalities and will focus on the issue: can a man with one child serve as an elder?

Don Martin to Jason Foster and the list (the immediately following is taken from, "Elder's, Their Work And Qualification" found in Bible Truths):

The elder must be the father of faithful children (I Tim. 3: 4, Tit. 1: 6). Out of the twenty-four qualifications, not a single one has had more controversy surrounding it than "the father of faithful children." The two areas of controversy involve whether or not the children qualification means more than one child and if the children must be Christians. Allow me to commence our examination by first examining the singular/plural argument.

In the first place, the word used for children is tekna. The grammatical information regarding tekna is nominative, accusative, or vocative plural (The Analytical Greek Lexicon, pg. 399, teknon is singular). One cause of confusion among those not conversant with the Greek grammar is when they use such works as Young's Analytical Concordance, they see teknon listed as the word in I Timothy 3: 4 and Titus 1: 6 (teknon is either nominative, accusative, or vocative singular or genitive or ablative plural, see the declension of omicron nouns using ergon in Beginner's Grammar of the Greek New Testament, 5th Edition, pg. 33, 34, by William Hersey Davis). Rather than providing grammatical detail, Young's concordance just presents the nominative singular form of our word. However, the actual word in I Timothy 3: 3 and Titus 1: 6 is tekna, plural in number. Plurals and singulars are not interchangeable. However, this is not to say that the plural does not include the singular. A determination of the singular application or inclusion when the plural is used is more a matter of interpretation.

In all fairness, there is what is called plurals of class. Plurals of class involve the plural form being used when it can have a singular application, as well as the plural (see A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, 7th Edition, by Dr. Gottlieb Lunemann, pg. 175 and A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, by A. T. Robertson, pg. 408, Heb. 1: 2; 9: 8, are given as examples of plurals of class). There are a number of examples that fall under the heading of plural of class. For instance, the children (tekna, plural) of a widow are to assist their mother/widow (I Tim. 5: 4). We know that tekna in this case includes teknon (a single son/grandson) because verse eight mentions a single son or grandson. However, there is not anything in the context of I Timothy 3: 4 to indicate the presence of the plural of class (the scriptures recognize plurals and singulars, Gal. 3: 16, notice "seed," opermati, and "seeds," opermasin). It must be remembered that plural of class is the exception and not the rule. Just because plural of class occurs in some cases does not mean it can be argued as present when there is no reason for such an assignment.

The argument is advanced that Paul had no other way to have worded this qualification. If the Holy Spirit had said, "having a faithful child," then more than one child would not be permissible." This argument sounds convincing and lends credence to the plural contains the singular; therefore, the elder may have only one child and serve. The problem is the Holy Spirit could have easily worded the requirement so that one child or a plurality would be meant. In fact, the Spirit did precisely this in the case of the domestic requirements for deacons. A prospective deacon may have one child or children and be qualified. Consider the construction of the requirement: "Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well" (I Tim. 3: 12). Notice how the Spirit used "deacons" (plural) with "children" (plural). The plural used with the plural means one or more children are meant. In the case of the elder, though, you have this construction: "One (singular, dm) that ruleth well his own house, having his children (plural, dm) in subjection with all gravity" (I Tim. 3: 4, see vs. 1-3 and Titus 1: 6). It is evident that Paul wanted the plural in the case of the children understood as more than one child. As far as the reason for requiring more than one child, I can only speculate. I do know that there is by far more challenge in raising children (addressing the problems they have with each other) than in raising just one child. The elder will be dealing with people (plurality) in the church and often having to address their conflicts and relationship problems. Having raised children (plural) better qualifies him for the task he will be facing.

Jason, thanks again for discussing the singular/plural aspect of children in I Timothy 3: 4 and Titus 1: 6 in regards to the qualifications of elders. Many brethren believe today that "since the plural contains the singular," a man can serve as an elder with only one child." Is this so or did the Holy Spirit word this requirement in a way to exclude the singular and require the plural (we have seen that in the case of "children" in I Timothy 5: 10, one or more will suffice)?

As I have pointed out, the word used for children in I Timothy 3: 4 and Titus 1: 6 is tekna. The grammatical information regarding tekna is nominative, accusative, or vocative plural (The Analytical Greek Lexicon, pg. 399, teknon is singular). Again, tekna is plural. The Spirit could have elected to have used a grammar or syntax circumstance that would have muted the singular/plural concern, to where number did not matter, but he did not.

Jason wrote:

If, indeed, this is a valid interpretation of the requirements of elders and deacons, I don't believe there is any grammatical evidence which will throw the weight of interpretation on way or the other. If "deacons" being plural lends weight to the necessity of "children" being considered to be only plural, may be valid. However, the weight of the evidence, as far as I am concerned, is that one child fulfills the qualification.

Don comments:

Jason and the list, let me be very simple as to why I believe we must teach that more than one child is required for the elder:

1. Tekna (children in the elder qualification verses) is plural, more than one. This is especially significant in view of the fact that wording or construction could have been such as to make the number requirement mute.

2. In the same context, Paul used syntax and construction relative to deacons that conveys the meaning of one of more offspring (children, I Tim. 3: 12). I say this because when the plural "deacons" is used with the plural "children," the idea of number is de-emphasized and is rendered inconsequential. Deacons (plural) are to have children (plural); however, the bishop (singular) must have children (plural, I Tim. 3: 12; cp. 4).

3. The primary point involved in the children requirement is to show the elder's ruling ability. The elder is to rule in the circumstance of multiple people (the elder is not over just one member). Having served as an elder twice, I know first hand that many of the problems originate regarding people, their relationships and difficulties one with another. A test of an elder's ability is often how he handles such problems that involve people (plural), not a person (singular). For about four years, we only had one child. When the second child came, it was entirely a different scene and climate. Common sense, then, confirms and illustrates, I am persuaded, why Paul requires more than one child in order to serve as an elder.

Jason, I shall await your reply. Again, I maintain that the requisite children qualification for the elder calls for more than one child.

Jason wrote:

However, the weight of the evidence, as far as I am concerned, is that one child fulfills the qualification.

While we wait for Jason to reply, I thought I would share the following with you. Jason Foster and I agreed that the compound word rendered children in the qualification for "widows indeed" can be satisfied with either singular or plural understanding (I Tim. 5: 10). We came to this agreement because of dialectic and grammatical sound considerations. However, Jason and I are presently in disagreement regarding the plural posture of tekna (children) in I Timothy 3: 4 and Titus 1: 6. I have reasoned thus regarding the plural being understood in I Timothy 3: 4 and Titus 1: 6:

1. Tekna (children in the elder qualification verses) is plural, more than one. This is especially significant in view of the fact that wording or construction could have been such as to make the number requirement mute.

2. In the same context, Paul used syntax and construction relative to deacons that conveys the meaning of one of more offspring (children, I Tim. 3: 12). I say this because when the plural "deacons" is used with the plural "children," the idea of number is de-emphasized and is rendered inconsequential. Deacons (plural) are to have children (plural); however, the bishop (singular) must have children (plural, I Tim. 3: 12; cp. 4).

3. The primary point involved in the children requirement is to show the elder's ruling ability. The elder is to rule in the circumstance of multiple people (the elder is not over just one member). Having served as an elder twice, I know first hand that many of the problems originate regarding people, their relationships and difficulties one with another. A test of an elder's ability is often how he handles such problems that involve people (plural), not a person (singular). For about four years, we only had one child. When the second child came, it was entirely a different scene and climate. Common sense, then, confirms and illustrates, I am persuaded, why Paul requires more than one child in order to serve as an elder.

Jason has used the following reasoning:

The plural comprehends the singular. That is not always the case, but I believe it is the case when considering a natural relationship as "children". When asking a newly married couple "Do you want to have children?", the singular is certainly comprehended in the use of the plural.

Don comments:

I have granted and illustrated the plural of class in Greek grammar (the instance in which the singular/plural is not important, the plural containing the singular). However, I have pointed out that the plural of class is the exception and must be established and not just arbitrarily assigned.

"One can argue anything from the original" is an argument that greatly disturbs me. One reason, no doubt, the Holy Spirit used the frozen Koine Greek is because of the precision inherent in the grammar. As we have seen, if the Holy Spirit had wanted the student to understand one or more offspring (children) in the case of the elder, He would have used syntax and grammar to so express the idea, as he as done elsewhere. However, he did not, but rather used very deliberate construction to stress the natural plural aspect of tekna.

I invite you to consider Jason's argument in favor of singular or plural when he makes his answering post. This is a serious issue as we are having more one child elders being appointed in churches. I do not know of a good grammatical exchange on the issue. Hence, I am looking forward to Jason's replies.

While we continue to wait for Jason Foster to respond to my posts on more than one child being required in the case of the prospective elder, I thought I would comment on Terry Newborn's post.

Terry wrote:

By the reasoning of some on this list, Paul himself could not have served as an elder of the church. This is amazing in the light of his service as an apostle.

Don comments:

We do read that Peter served as an elder (I Pet. 5: 1-4). Peter was married, according to Matthew 8: 14. In view of the children qualification for elders, Peter also had "faithful children" (I Tim. 3: 4; Tit. 1: 6). It appears that Paul was not a family man; thus, he would not be qualified to serve as an elder. Could it be that this is why we never read of Paul serving as an elder, unlike Peter?

Terry continued:

Rachel said, "Give me children or else I will die." How many did she have? If someone asks you if you have any children and you only have one child, you do not answer, "No, I don't have children." You answer, "Yes, I have a son." Or a daughter as the case may be. God surely wants us to use common sense as we rightly divide the Scriptures.

Don remarks:

I have stated many times that we find numerous instances of the plural of class, a case wherein the plural contains the singular and the number element is muted. However, I have also shown that the plural of class is the exception and must be established. Otherwise, numbers have no meaning. There is not a scintilla of evidence in the case of I Timothy 3: 4 and Titus 1: 6 of the plural of class being present. To the converse, every indication, grammar, context, and syntax, is that Paul meant to require more than one child in the children qualification for elders.

I have simply explained this based on the challenge of raising children as opposed to a child. The elder is over people, not a single person. Many problems elders have involve people problems. Hence, the plural requirement (I Tim. 3: 4, 5).

Hear Terry again:

True Case Scenario: A man was wise and taught adult Bible classes and lived the life of a devoted disciple. He had a company with over 500 employees. Those employees thought of him more as a father figure than a boss. He was bypassed as an elder because he was single and had not a wife nor children. (I personally believe the prohibition of "but one wife" was to keep polygamists out of the eldership. Great spiritual leaders are sometimes biologically unable to reproduce. Legalism would have them unable to ever serve as elders.) Back to the Christian man above. He was bypassed as elder material over and over again, in spite of the glaring fact that most of the members used him as a shepherd before they would use the official elders. Guess what? He married a widow lady who had two believing children. He suddenly, overnight, became elder material and was ushered into the eldership next go round. Is there something extremely legalistic about this? Comments please.

Don comments:

It appears Terry Newborn not only thinks a man can serve as an elder with only one child but that he does not even have to be married and he can be childless!

Terry and legalism:

"...He suddenly, overnight, became elder material and was ushered into the eldership next go round. Is there something extremely legalistic about this?"

Don remarks:

Across the land, the qualifications for elders are being compromised. More men are being appointed that are obviously not qualified. The thinking is becoming more: if you teach and require the qualifications be met, you are a legalist!" At least Terry is consistent: an unmarried man with no children can be qualified.

I know of a case in an non-institutional church of the preacher being approached to serve as an elder. He was married, but only had one child. He also was 29 years old (I was that young man, many years ago, I might add).

Brethren and concerned readers, if we can compromise one qualification, why can we not do as Terry Newborn and compromise others? There is a "Christ of Christ" meeting just a few miles from where I preach that is in the process of appointing women to the eldership. The preacher and existing "elders" just announced that they were going to allow a little more time before they aggressively push for women in the eldership. Why not? If the qualifications mean nothing and are situational, why not have the situation of women serving (cp. I Tim. 3: 2)?

If the devil can accomplish a compromise in the leadership, he has gained much ground. Believe me, he is presently at work to do just this! I know there are many who view my teaching on the children qualification as extreme. However, most of these men will not walk up to the plate and discuss the matter. They, like Terry, just want to apply the label of legalist. To Terry's credit, though, he was willing to state his position.

Jason, thanks for the reply post. However, I must say that I am confused (perhaps my fault). I see the I Timothy 5: 10 (number of children of the widow indeed) and I Timothy 3: 4 (number of children for the prospective elder) as two different subjects and scenarios. Thus, I have become more confused by you combining them. I have affirmed that I Timothy 5: 10 does not place any stress on the number of children (the compound word used); hence, one or more will satisfy the requirement. I have also affirmed that in the case of I Timothy 3: 4 and Titus 1: 6, more than one child is required to satisfy the requirement of tekna (Greek word used for children). You have said one child will satisfy the requirement. Herein we have differed.

Jason wrote:

Don, something changed from a year or two ago, because then you made the argument that the stem TEKNO in ETEKNOTROFHSEN (1 Tim 5:10) was singular, from which you deduced that the TEKNA of the elders (and deacons?) qualifications must be plural (2 or more children). I'm wondering why you changed in the assessment? Would you mind filling me in on why you no longer hold to that view?

Don remarks:

Jason, there is an abiding misunderstanding. I have attempted to remove it, however, it is persisting. I, therefore, have endeavored to move on, focusing on our actual difference regarding singular/plural in I Timothy 3: 4 and Titus 1: 6. Since we agree regarding the compound word in I Timothy 5: 10, I want us to see if we can work out our difference regarding tekna in the case of elder's children. As I have explained, I have tried to illustrate why scholars believe the number posture (in the case of eteknotrophesen, I see we have a different spelling) is muted, to where one or more "offspring" can be understood (one of the two words forming the compound word is teknon, singular). Please understand that I am not differing or arguing about I Timothy 5: 10. Again, I repeat, I agree with you regarding I Timothy 5: 10.

Jason asked (first, quoting me):

"Jason, as you and many of the readers know, the koine Greek is a reconstructed grammar."

What does that mean? Are you suggesting that scholars have looked at the language and found the rules of grammar which they used and so recognized them?

Don answers:

Again, I am a little perplexed. Jason, I assume you know that Koine Greek grammar is mostly a case of reconstruction: studying the syntax, construction, and usage and establishing rules; hence, grammar.

Again, Jason tarries over I Timothy 5: 10 (first, quoting me):

"Again, 'children' in I Timothy 5: 10 simply requires one or more (singular/plural)."

The verb requires the action (that's what verbs do) of raising the children.

Don comments:

Good point, Jason, one with which I concur. Again, my point was to say that one cannot bind a plural "offspring" on the widows under consideration, as some do.

Jason quotes me again and then remarks:

"It is a serious mistake to say that the scriptures do not ever distinguish between the singular and the plural, as some say. Consider Galatians 3: 16 and notice "seed," opermati, and "seeds," opermasin. Paul's whole argument depends on the singular/plural matter."

This is not having to do with children, per se, this is having to do with the distinguishment between the Israelites and Christ. The first are many, Christ, of course, is one.

Don answers:

Jason, my above point was simply to illustrate how the scriptures do pay attention to the singular/plural posture on occasion.

Jason wrote regarding the plural containing the singular:

Is there a rule of English that so states? I got that from noting the way the Bible used the term. Every place where "children" is used, it comprehends the singular. Would you show me the verse where "children" necessarily can only be understood to mean 2 or more, coming from one set of parents? I have shown you the verse where "children" is used and it necessarily can only be understood as ONE. I noticed you didn't want to comment on it.

Don replies:

Jason, it appears that either I am not writing intelligibly or you are not reading my posts. I have many times conceded the plural of class (plural including the singular and number not really consequent). I am perfectly familiar with Abraham/Sarah, etc. and the many occurrences of plural of class. Please take note. However, I have also said many times that the plural of class is exceptional and not the rule and that the exception must be established. I have then shown why the grammar, syntax, and context of I Timothy 3: 4 requires us to understand that Paul stressed the plural nature of tekna, more than one child. Here we are, back where we started.

Jason, may I make a suggestion and request? Please drop the matter of I Timothy 5: 10 (eteknotrophesen), as it is separate and confusing our study of tekna in I Timothy 3: 4 and Titus 1: 6. In my next post, I shall repeat for you to answer and for the list to consider why I believe we must understand tekna requiring more than one child in the case of elder's qualification.

This post is designed to get the discussion of whether or not the children requirement in I Timothy 3: 4 and Titus 1: 6 requires more than one child back on track.

As I have pointed out, the word used for children in I Timothy 3: 4 and Titus 1: 6 is tekna. The grammatical information regarding tekna is nominative, accusative, or vocative plural (The Analytical Greek Lexicon, pg. 399, teknon is singular). Again, tekna is plural. The Spirit could have elected to have used a grammar or syntax circumstance that would have muted the singular/plural concern, to where number did not matter, but he did not.

Jason and the list, let me be very simple as to why I believe we must teach that more than one child is required for the elder:

1. Tekna (children in the elder qualification verses) is plural, more than one. This is especially significant in view of the fact that wording or construction could have been such as to make the number requirement mute.

2. In the same context, Paul used syntax and construction relative to deacons that conveys the meaning of one of more offspring (children, I Tim. 3: 12). I say this because when the plural "deacons" is used with the plural "children," the idea of number is de-emphasized and is rendered inconsequential. Deacons (plural) are to have children (plural); however, the bishop (singular) must have children (plural, I Tim. 3: 12; cp. 4).

3. The primary point involved in the children requirement is to show the elder's ruling ability. The elder is to rule in the circumstance of multiple people (the elder is not over just one member). Having served as an elder twice, I know first hand that many of the problems originate regarding people, their relationships and difficulties one with another. A test of an elder's ability is often how he handles such problems that involve people (plural), not a person (singular). For about four years, we only had one child. When the second child came, it was entirely a different scene and climate. Common sense, then, confirms and illustrates, I am persuaded, why Paul requires more than one child in order to serve as an elder.

Jason, I shall await your reply. Again, I maintain that the requisite children qualification for the elder calls for more than one child.

Jason wrote:

However, the weight of the evidence, as far as I am concerned, is that one child fulfills the qualification.

A member of this list privately sent me an email regarding the "children" requirement (number) in I Timothy 3: 4 and Titus 1: 6 that I want to share with you. He is a member whom I respect and view as knowledgeable. He did not send it to the list because he did not want it to appear publicly. Therefore, I shall respect his desire for anonymity (it is a good email and worthy of being read by all). The email is prompted based on my comments as to why I believe tekna must be understood as requiring more than one child in the case of the elder's qualifications. I have specifically made the point that Paul made the number of children inconsequential just a few verses later in regards to the deacons (I Tim. 3: 12). By using the plural (deacons) with the plural (children), there is no emphasis on the number; hence, one or more will suffice.

John Doe wrote:

Don, with the above reasoning, it appears to me that the group of deacons needs to have only one wife. Rather, Paul is saying that each deacon is to have a wife. The deacon and the wife are to have "children."

(Don explains: I Timothy 3: 12 reads, "Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well." Notice the plural "deacons" and "husbands" and then the singular "wife." Now, please consider my answer)

Don answers:

John, strictly speaking, this could very well be the case (grammar wise, "all the deacons having the same, one wife," parenthesis added for this post). However, we know it is not because of augmenting teaching (Gen. 2, Matt. 19: 5). The point I am making about the children requirement for deacons is that the plural/plural prevents any emphasis on number. In the absence of any augmenting teaching, I must conclude that a man can serve as a deacon with one or more offspring (children). In verse 12, the deacons as a class are being considered; hence, the language. This class, deacons, is to have children. Will a deacon making up this class, only having one child satisfy the requirement: yes. However, the bishop is being separately and individually viewed and he is to have children (tekna, vs. 4).

I appreciate "John's" comments. Notice how I did not arbitrarily arrive at the conclusion that the deacons are being viewed as a class and that Paul is not meaning to be understood as teaching polygamy by using augmenting and modifying teaching found else where. This is how we arrive at the plural of class: based on the verse, context, and/or remote context showing that the plural contains the singular and that number does not really matter. As I have said, though, I see nothing in the construction regarding elders to conclude that one child will satisfy the children requirement. It could very well be the case that the plural (deacons), plural (husbands) accompanied by the singular (one wife) is stressing monogamy as opposed to polygamy. Hence, grammar is often pointed and emphatic.

Again, I hope I am understanding what different one are saying. I sincerely do not want to misunderstand, misquote, or incorrectly reply to any. There can be a challenge in understanding one another. I have gone back over some of my writing and wondered, "what am I saying, anyone?" Please be patient with me, therefore, and if I misunderstand, please so inform the list and me. For instance, the above quoted email may be agreeing with what I have said in my posts. It could also be attempting to play down the arguments that I have made based on grammar.

Jason, thank you again for your posts and patience. I agree with so much that you have said; therefore, I see no point to take the time to reiterate such matters. I am attempting to focus on the areas where we disagree to see if we and the readers can clearly establish why you believe a man can serve as an elder with only one child and I believe more than one is required.

Jason wrote:

...So noted. However, you, for some reason think that because "children" is used in the qualifications of elders, then that changes from the plural comprehends the singular, as it does in EVERY case of which I am familiar, to one where it does not comprehend the singular. I have shown that there is only one way to understand Sarah stating that she nursed children. Yet, you have not shown me one instance where using the plural children of necessity comprehends only 2 or more.

Don remarks:

Again, I have conceded the plural of class (I believe I was the first to mention this), where the plural includes the singular in the circumstance where number (singular/plural) is muted. However, such does not negate the simple grammar and possibility of emphasis being placed on the singular and the plural. Elders (plural) are to be appointed in every local church and the promise to Abraham involving not "seeds, as of many, but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ: (Acts 14: 23; Gal. 3: 16, Jason, I understand this does not involve tekna, plural for children or teknon, singular for children but it does illustrate singular and plural awareness in general).

Let us revisit the grammar in the case of the omicron declension of nouns, involving teknon, a child (to those of you who do not know the basics of Greek grammar, please be patient):

Case	Singular	Plural
Nominative	teknon	tekna
Genitive Ablative	teknou	teknon
Locative Instrumental Dative	tekno	teknois
Accusative	teknon	tekna
Vocative	teknon	tekna

(Compare William Hersey Davis' Greek grammar, pg. 34.)

It will be observed that in every instance, tekna (the word used in I Timothy 3: 4 and Titus 1: 6) is plural.

I have granted that the plural contains the singular; however, in the pure grammatical sense, it takes more than one singular to make a plural. If Paul, in our case, had wanted to use tekna in its pure grammatical sense to stress plural and eliminate the singular application, how would he have done it (the grammar has this potential)? He would have used tekna in connection with a singular in a context free of any indication of de-emphasizing the plural requirement and in such a way as to experience no conflict or number muting from a remote context.

Jason and the list, I submit this is exactly the case of I Timothy 3: 4. Paul used tekna (plural) in reference to bishop (singular) and within eight verses in the matter of deacons and children, used tekna with the plural (deacons) thus de-emphasizing, in the case of deacons, number requirement.

In addition, the general idea lends itself to a plurality of children as opposed to one child, I am referring to the prospective elder's ability to rule over a family. The elder/father shows his ruling skill by successfully ruling over children in his family. Thus, his ability to handle problems arising between children and to keep matters smoothly flowing is seen. The elder(s) will be over people, members (not just one member). His ruling skill will be required to not only handle the problems arising from the individual member, but also problems that involve people, their confrontations and relationships one with another. Hence, the plural requirement of offspring in the case of the prospective elder.

Jason, I appreciate your knowledge and, again, agree with much of what you have said. I also appreciate the fine way in which you have said what you have. However, I must respectfully disagree with you in the case of the children requirement for elders, I believe more than one is meant for the above stated reasons.

I have done my share of posting on this list in the past and I have tried to avoid running an issue into the ground. It could be that we are reaching the end of "children" in I Timothy 3: 4 and Titus 1: 6 requiring more than one child. I do appreciate all the posts, including those that have disagreed with me. I want others to be able to compare and make up their own minds on all issues. Hence, I have always welcomed differing posts.

Gordon wrote:

"...The phrase, 'an overseer must have children' has a grammatical structure found in around 25 places (if memory serves correctly) in both the old and new testaments. The pattern consists of a literal, generic parent coupled with the plural word 'children.' Check it out. By literal I mean the passage is not metaphorical. By generic I mean the parent is not named. In every case, the word 'children' is understood to be one or more. An example of such pattern is Deut.25: 5 (repeated in Mt. 22: 24; Mk.12: 19; Lk.20: 28)."

Don comments:

Gordon, I think I agree with what you are saying. I have never denied plural of class or the plural containing the singular. Here again is my position:

How would an inspired writer using the grammar of Koine Greek require more than one child if he desired to so do? He would use the plural tekna, he would use tekna in connection with a singular, and he would make it plain in the context that plural of class is not meant. Paul used tekna, tekna is used with a singular (bishop), and in the same context, Paul, in writing of deacons and their qualifications used a plural (deacons) with a plural (tekna, children); thus de-emphasizing the number aspect in the case of deacons (I Tim. 3: 4-12). All of the foregoing grammatically constitutes the perfect setting for the plural being required and stressed to the elimination of the singular in the case of elders (one child).

Gordon wrote:

"Your second statement I believe is assumed because you are interpreting too broadly the ;assignment'; Yes it is to show his ability to rule, but then you said elsewhere that a congregation is not made up of one person therefore an elder must have more than one child. Congregations are also not made up of only one sex either. Should we assume that a parent who has both a girl and a boy, is more qualified than a man who has 5 boys? Let's not broaden what the requirement requires. What does the requirement require? My evidence for this assertion is a Greek source called, "The Discovery Bible" which shows the emphasis in Greek (I do not know enough Greek to verify) is not even on the word "children," but rather on "control" (1 Tim.3) and "believe" (Tit.1). Therefore we should not emphasize what is not emphasized in the Greek. That would give further evidence that the "plural of class" is indeed used.

Don answers:

Gordon, you make a good point when you ask: "What does the requirement require?" The children requirement is all in the climate of the prospective elder's ability to rule. I have mentioned that for several years my wife and I only had one child. What a breeze that was. When the second child came along, the atmosphere was changed and the ruling ability was intensified. I have mentioned that in serving as an elder, a large percentage of the challenges and problems incurred involve members, their confrontations and relationship difficulties. Elders must deal with and rule members, not a single member.

I agree, Gordon, to teach that the children and ruling requisite calls for both male and female children is going too far. There is no intimation that the requirement addresses male/female. However, there is plenty of evidence that the requirement involves more than one child.

Gordon, I again thank you and others who have contributed. I know some think I am a legalist and splitting hairs. However, I just want to teach and do what the Book says, no more, but no less

Jason and the list, I trust all are well as we work our way to the weekend.

Jason wrote:

...You believe that the grammar dictates a plurality of children, whereas I believe the grammar dictates that one understand that whenever a person used "children" he also meant that it would include anyone who had one child. You seem to think that a person would be better qualified to serve as an elder if he had two children, rather than one; that may be. But then a man who had 10 children would be better qualified, rather than the man who had two. Gordon Miller suggested that to follow that logic the man would need to have at least one girl and one boy since congregations are made up of both. I believe the emphasis is two fold: the prospective elder is a family man (settled), and that he is able to bring someone up in the gospel (wherein we also disagree).

Don comments:

Jason, I do not mean to come across as a know-it-all, but there was a time when I simply considered the general use of tekna (plural for children) and felt comfortable with a one child man serving as an elder, at least I would not oppose such. However, I never was confronted with the situation. A Greek grammarian presented to me the basic argument that I have presented to this list regarding the grammar in I Timothy 3: 4-12 and I could not answer it. I wanted to kick myself for not seeing it before. I made all the arguments that you and others are making regarding the plural containing the singular and how "children" is used in the scriptures. Again, I do not mean to speak down to you, Gordon, or others, I have been there and done that. I understand your thinking and, in the main, agree with it, except for the text of I Timothy 3: 4-12.

Jason quotes me and then comments:

"If Paul, in our case, had wanted to use tekna in its pure grammatical sense to stress plural and eliminate the singular application, how would he have done it (the grammar has this potential)? He would have used tekna in connection with a singular in a context free of any indication of de-emphasizing the plural requirement and in such a way as to experience no conflict or number muting from a remote context."

Well, I brought this up before and you didn't want to deal with it, I guess:

"any widow has children or grandchildren..." -1 Tim 5: 4

"any man...having children..." -Titus 1: 6

Now, you have the singular (widow & man) with the plural (children). Are you proposing to me that you would think that the widow of First Timothy 5 of necessity would have 2 or more children or grandchildren before that would have any application for them to care for their widowed mother or grandmother? Now remember, you are saying the grammar dictates such a view, are you not?

"EI DE TIS CHRA TEKNA hH EKGONA ECEI"
-1 Tim 5:4

"EI TIS... TEKNA ECWN"
-Titus 1:6

I don't know how you would get much more parallel than that!

Don answers:

Jason, I dealt with this text and argument in one of my first anticipatory posts (this is one reason I asked you if you were reading my posts). Here is what I said:

"In all fairness, there is what is called plurals of class. Plurals of class involve the plural form being used when it can have a singular application, as well as the plural (see A Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament, 7^th Edition, by Dr. Gottlieb Lunemann, pg. 175 and A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, by A. T. Robertson, pg. 408, Heb. 1: 2; 9: 8, are given as examples of plurals of class). There are a number of examples that fall under the heading of plural of class. For instance, the children (tekna, plural) of a widow are to assist their mother/widow (I Tim. 5: 4). We know that tekna in this case includes teknon (a single son/grandson) because verse eight mentions a single son or grandson. However, there is not anything in the context of I Timothy 3: 4 to indicate the presence of the plural of class. It must be remembered that plural of class is the exception and not the rule. Just because plural of class occurs in some cases does not mean it can be argued as present when there is no reason for such an assignment."

As I have mentioned, John Doe is a list member who is privately emailing me. However, his posts are so germane that I really hate to see them not publicly mentioned. I am sure John is seeking to privately correct me without making a big deal out of it. I appreciate John's time, concern, and efforts (I know I can be hard headed). John understands that the weight of my argument regarding more than one child being required for elders rests on the grammar found in I Timothy 3: 4-12. He, therefore, is attempting to show that my arguments are unfounded and forced. If he can successfully show such is the case, then, in view of any decisive external proof that I have, he will have overthrown my understanding of the plural being required in the case of elder's children (John is doing it in the right way).

John writes:

I was not seeking to imply that the one wife would be a wife to all of the deacons. Paul's statement is, "Let deacons be husbands of one wife, ruling children and their own houses well." Based on your argument, deacons (plural) are to have one wife (singular). This would, thus, not require each deacon to have a wife. Deacons (plural) are to have children (plural). This would, thus, not require each deacon to have a child or children, based on your argument.

Don answers:

John and the list, in attempting to teach Greek grammar through the years, I have always stressed two things: an awareness of the grammar and all relevant matters. The grammar involving "one wife" could mean, detached from the verse in which it occurs, all the deacons are to be married to the same woman (the remote context would still forbid such an understanding, Matt. 19: 5). However, I know "one wife" applied to "deacons" does not mean this because Paul said in the same verse, "ruling their children and their own houses well" (I Tim. 3: 12). Each deacon, then, is to be married, having his "own" house and ruling it well. Why did Paul require the deacons (plural) to have one wife (singular)? The apparent answer is that by using this grammar, Paul is emphasizing monogamy and condemning polygamy. After a similar fashion, each deacon is to have a child or children. I know this again because of "ruling their children and their own houses well."

John continues:

In the group of deacons there would be at least two with one wife each. This would meet the grammar of Paul's statement. One or more of the deacons could be unmarried. Likewise there would be at least two with a child or children. Some could have no children at all and the grammar would have been met. Note that "their" is inserted by the translators before the word "children" in I Tim. 3:12.

All of this does violence to what Paul is teaching. He is teaching that each deacon is to be a parent. A man without a wife or child would not qualify. In the same way, I Tim. 3:2 and 4, teaches that a man without a wife and a child or children would not qualify as an elder.

As indicated above, it seems to me that your argument could lead to a misinterpretation of Paul's teaching.

Don comments:

Again, I appreciate what John is doing. If a position is tenable, it must be able to stand on its own and not have any inherit flaws. Again, I point out that for whatever reason the Spirit used the grammar in verse twelve (I think I have mentioned the apparent reason), He was not attempting to say that a deacon does not have to have a wife and a child or children. I know this to be the case because of "own house" (idion oikon). By adding "own house," Paul is able to stress monogamy (one wife) and de-emphasize a number of children requirement by using the plural (deacons, diakonoi)) with the plural (children, teknon, genitive or ablative plural). Hence, an instance of masterful use of grammar to maximize the covered teaching.

This brings us back to my original question regarding I Timothy 3: 4-12: How would an inspired writer using the grammar of Koine Greek require more than one child if he desired to so do? He would use the plural tekna, he would use tekna in connection with a singular, and he would make it plain in the context that plural of class is not meant. Paul used tekna, tekna is used with a singular (bishop), and in the same context, Paul, in writing of deacons and their qualifications used a plural (deacons) with a plural (tekna, children); thus de-emphasizing the number aspect in the case of deacons (I Tim. 3: 4-12). All of the foregoing grammatically constitutes the perfect setting for the plural being required and stressed to the elimination of the singular in the case of elders (one child).

I think we have had a good exchange relative to the number requirement of "children" in the case of elders (I Tim. 3: 4, Tit. 1: 6). I have enjoyed it and I commend the behavior of those who participated. Jason Foster, Gordon Miller, and "John Doe" did an excellent job defending the one child elder position. They presented every argument that I ever used when I held that position many years ago (I believe we have exhausted the subject; hence, it is time to end it for now). I especially want to thank Jason Foster for his work. I respect and admire Jason's labors in the Greek grammar and I do not want to even give the impression that I have any desire of deprecating his accomplishments.

Like most discussions, some of the challenge has been focus. I have granted from the very first that the Bible often uses the plural "children" in a way where it is obvious that the number element (more than one) is made inconsequential. Jason, Gordon, John, have done a good job in presenting several of these examples. The total focus of this discussion, though, is on the grammar of I Timothy 3: 4-12. "If Paul had wanted to stress more than one (plural) to the elimination of one (singular) in the case of the elder's offspring, how would he have done it?" I have repeatedly asked. He would have use the grammar found in I Timothy 3: 4-12. This grammar convinced me beyond any doubt that more than one child is required (see bottom of post).

I have shared with you what I believe to be the obvious reason for a plurality of children: to show the ruling ability of the prospective elder (I Tim. 3: 4, 5). Ruling in the case of one child is relatively simple. You just have to focus on that child, their needs, etc. However, when ruling over children, you not only have to address each child, but all the resulting problems of conflict, etc. that emanate from the children's relationships, competition, and confrontations. Herein is the real challenge, I am convinced. Having served as an elder for a number of years, if I may humbly add, I speak with experience. So many problems within local churches involve people problems that stem from conflicts within and between these people. As I have simply noted, the elder(s) does not rule over one member (singular) but over members (plural). I do decidedly believe that a one child man lacks the needed experience to rule over a group of people, the local church. Hence, the plain case of the plural being understood and required to the exclusion of the singular found in I Timothy 3: 4-12.

I not only thank the participates for their good contributions and conduct, but I thank and commend each of you for following this exchange. Some of you have emailed me privately and stated that you are studying the issue. I thank you for your open mindedness and willingness to just do what the Book says.

"How would an inspired writer using the grammar of Koine Greek require more than one child if he desired to so do? He would use the plural tekna, he would use tekna in connection with a singular, and he would make it plain in the context that plural of class is not meant. Paul used tekna, tekna is used with a singular (bishop), and in the same context, Paul, in writing of deacons and their qualifications used a plural (deacons) with a plural (tekna, children); thus de-emphasizing the number aspect in the case of deacons (I Tim. 3: 4-12). All of the foregoing grammatically constitutes the perfect setting for the plural being required and stressed to the elimination of the singular in the case of elders (one child)." (Scroll down for "faithful children" discussion.)

Glenn wrote:

"I would like to make a comment about faithful children of elders. If a child of the elder is rebellious, should that person be an elder? I say no because the Lord says have faithful children. Some say that if the children are gone then it makes no difference. If the children are gone it makes all the difference in the world."

Don comments:

In view of Titus 1: 6 and I Timothy 3: 4, 5, a man cannot scripturally serve as an elder in the local church who does not have "faithful children," those who subject themselves to his rule.

Glenn continues:

A person who is elder material will have a positive effect on his children. They will remain faithful even though they are gone on to their own life.

Don comments:

I grew up in a religion that is famous for teaching "once saved, always saved." When I became identified with God's people, having obeyed the gospel and placing membership in a local church, I was presented another version of once saved, always saved: If the child has parents who are Christians, then the child "will remain faithful even though they are gone on to their own life." The argument stated is, "if you ever fall away having had Christians as parents, then they failed to do their part!"

When I was in the Baptist Church climate, I learned that Calvinists commonly deny free moral agency and free will. When I became a Christian, I saw some of the same basic tenets, just different wording, however, the identical residual concepts.

I would like to see some posts addressing what I have just said, posts that explore the above. What is the meaning of "faithful children" (pista tekna), in what setting are these faithful children being viewed (under the immediate rule of their father, the prospective elder or when they are 50 years old, on their own, having their own rule), and when children of Christians go astray, is this absolutely proof that the parents failed?

I ask for comments regarding Titus 1: 6, "faithful children," especially in view of Glenn's post. Jim has responded by asking:

"If an elder's has grown children, and one falls away, would that not bring s bad report to them that are without, as well as to those that are within?"

Don comments:

First of all, Jim and others, thank you for your input and thought.

I think all agree that it is sad and regrettable when a child, one with whom parents have invested so much time, effort, and prayer goes astray. Some of the great heartaches experienced in this life are the result of children who grow up to disappoint us, I am convinced. I would answer Jim by saying that the prospective elder being blameless and having a good report are certainly requisite qualifications (I Tim. 3: 2, 7). However, the matter of blamelessness ("without reproach," ASV) and having a good report involve matters of sin (in the event that they do not...). If it were true that "A grown child who falls away spiritually is automatically proof that the father failed and thus sinned," the prospective elder would certainly not be without reproach, etc.

Jim's example could indeed suggest the man should not be considered for the eldership. Did the father pamper, defend when the child was wrong, fail to discipline, neglect, set a bad example when the child was at home, etc? Was the child uncontrollably on drugs, etc. when living at home? These conditions would disqualify the prospective elder (Tit. 1: 6).

However, if the father did what he was supposed to do and exercised the rule of his household when the son was at home, how does the later decision of the son to not live as a Christian necessarily disqualify the man? Since Paul makes parallel the matter of rule over family and the local church, when a member goes astray, would not this disqualify the elders (I Tim. 3: 4, 5)?

What I am attempting is to get us to see that I believe we have gone too far with the "faithful children" qualification. I do not believe Paul meant for a moment for the reader to think that a grown son who goes astray necessarily disqualifies a man to serve as an elder, all things equal and understood. The consideration of the qualification in I Timothy 3: 4, 5 and Titus 1: 6 (I believe they are tantamount) is the man's ability to rule and control those over whom he superintends. The elder must of necessity be in control, otherwise, factions can and will take over (Tit. 1: 9ff.). The prospective elder must be a father who has the control of his family. The elder cannot force serving God on the members and he is not necessarily responsible when a member decides he does not want to be a Christian any longer. After a similar fashion, the same is true with a child. This is what we call free moral agency.

I recall staying in one elder's house and observing his children. He had three, ranging from about twelve to sixteen. The man had no control at all. They bossed him, threatened him, and flagrantly disobeyed him. The church where he served, however, had no problem with this because they had all be baptized (common meaning of the faithful children qualification). I did not believe the man was qualified to serve and I had no respect for him (it was a very uncomfortable stay). I do believe that in most cases, the children at home who are old enough will be baptized. However, I believe the qualification "faithful children" goes a lot deeper and addresses a matter too often overlooked, the man's ability to rule (I understand that there is a relationship between the two, but they are not necessarily the same. You can not command your child to be baptized because you are the father....).

Gerald, thanks for the comments and for your input relative to elders and their rule.

Gerald wrote:

"Gerald Watson replying to Don Martin

Don wrote:
'The elder must of necessity be in control ....'

Don, I agree with much of what you wrote about "believing children". With regard to the statement above I strongly disagree. Elders are not "controlers", they must NOT be "controllers", they are not "in control". That's essentially the same as saying they may not be "lords" over the local body.

Elders are "leaders". They "lead" by example, not "control" by force. I think this fundamental fact is often missed because of all the micro-examinations to extreme on things like "believing children".

Don comments:

Gerald, you are correct when you say elders are leaders (I Pet. 5: 3). Paul presents the domestic (home) and spiritual (church) rule of elders as "the same" (I Tim. 3: 4, 5; 5: 17, same Greek word). The father who is an elder certainly does more than lead by example. He is in charge and must not allow an insurrection within his family. Thus it is with elders within the spiritual family, the local church (Tit. 1: 10ff.). This was the point that I was making in the post to which you allude. I grant there is a difference between being in charge/exercising rule and being "a lord," both in the domestic and spiritual family (I Pet. 5: 2ff.). An elder will not allow the children under his rule to be out of control (I Tim. 3: 4, 5, Tit. 1: 6). In like fashion an elder(s) will not allow members to be out of control within the local church where he serves. Elders whose families are in a state of chaos and contumacy are not qualified to spiritually serve. In like manner, elders who serve in a local church that is out of control and in a state of anarchy are not qualified. I believe this to be the essential point Paul is making by the "faithful children not accused of riot or unruly" qualification (Tit. 1: 6, I Tim. 3: 4, 5).

Hank, thanks for the below question. I appreciate when one takes the time and shows the interest to test what I teach. Such makes for a good study, for all, I believe. I shall quote you below in full:

"Hank to Don Martin who wrote:

'In view of Titus 1: 6 and I Timothy 3: 4, 5, a man cannot scripturally serve as an elder in the local church who does not have "faithful children," those who subject themselves to his rule.'

A man was being considered to be an elder for a certain church. Without consideration of any other qualification, I'd like for you to tell me if you believe this man was qualified to be an elder: He was a man in his early 30's who had a 4th grader and a 2^nd grader as his children. They were both "faithful" to their father's rule, leadership. Based upon that qualification, and that alone, was he qualified to be an elder?"

Don comments:

Attendant to all discussions, there are many peripheral issues. In fact, so much of the time the real substantive matters are neglected because of preoccupation with the peripheral. Hank has focused on a matter that is certainly of primary relevance in the determination and application of "faithful children" (Tit. 1: 6).

Please allow me to begin by saying that with all the common views as to the meaning of "faithful children" (pista tekna) in Titus 1: 6, there are difficult situations. "Does the man or elder who has two children who are Christians but he and his wife later have a baby become disqualified," sort of thing. I maintain all children under his rule must be "faithful children."

Hank and the list, in the first place, I cannot imagine a man being considered for the eldership who is in his "early 30's." I say this in view of the demanding qualifications resident in I Timothy 3 and Titus 1. I should think "not a novice" would preclude this man from even being considered for the eldership (I Tim. 3: 6).

As I have said, while I do not believe pista tekna means Christian (if Paul wanted to say "Christian," why didn't he, instead of using a term that could or might not mean "Christian"?), I do believe that in most scenarios the prospective elder will have children who are baptized, those accountable. For example, if a man had three children (ages 13, 15, 17) and none of them had become Christians, I would never encourage him to serve as an elder. It would appear to me that in such a case, there are problems and deficiencies. However, if two of the children, for sake of example, were Christians and all three respectful and submissive to their father's rule (the real meaning of "faithful children," I am convinced), I would not oppose his appointment, all things equal and understood.

Hank and the list, it matters not which view one accepts relative to "faithful children," there are going to be judgment calls. When I teach on the eldership, I attempt to point out such matters and urge caution. There is of necessity some "give and take" in these areas.

In my next post, I shall present more thoughts regarding the matter of the "faithful children."

Hank Watson posed a good question for me to answer concerning "faithful children" and I hope I sufficiently answered it in my first post. I again want to thank all who have respectfully posed questions and tested my teaching on any subject.

As I stated, I believe there are some areas involving the application of the qualifications for elders that do require judgment decisions and some give and take. The matter of "faithful children" can be such an instance.

I have personally seen many church problems over what I believe to be extreme applications of what is perceived to be the teaching of Titus 1: 6. I knew of a case where there were two elders serving and one had a grown child who fall away later in life. In view of one of his four children who fell away, their were some in the church who demanded that the man step down, thus dissolving the eldership. Once saved, always saved is advocated as a consequence of the teaching, "if you teach your children right, they will never go astray!" The reasoning following, "if an elder's child ever falls away, this is proof that the man failed as a parent" is the root thinking behind, "the man must step down." As I have expressed, I believe that in the average situation, the prospective or actual elder's children will be Christians. In the case where one or some of his children are not Christians, I believe the local church should carefully consider and look into the matter. I do not say this, however, directly because of the "faithful children" requirement of Titus 1: 6.

Because we have necessarily and absolutely equated the "rule" of the elder with his children being Christians, we have fostered a "parent/child religion" concept that often denies free moral agency. "Sure, I am a member of the church because I am faithful and respectful to my parents," this sort of thinking. I knew a case where an elder's child fall away (after moving out...). "Daddy, I have lost interest in being a Christian and, frankly, I want to enjoy what the world has to offer," the child told her daddy, "but if you order me to attend, I will, out of respect for you." Please stop and think about this for a moment. What would you say if your child told you this?

Brethren and all concerned, we have encouraged an ancestry religion in the Lord's church, largely with our view, concept, and understanding of "faithful children." A father orders his child at home to obey him, pick up his room, be in at a certain time, go to school. This is part of his rule. The father can even order his son to attend, do his class lessons, etc. However, a father cannot, as a part of his rule, order his son to be baptized. Yet, this happens too often. "If you respect me and my rule," the father tells his child, "you will be baptized!" I cannot tell you how many times elder's children have told me, "my father was up for the eldership and I had to be baptized so that the church would appoint him."

Let me be understood, I am all for elder's children being Christians (as well as all children of parents who are Christians). In the main, this is to be expected because of the godly influence that should pervade the family where the parents are Christians. However, I know of no scripture that absolutely requires this and necessarily shows it is a sin when such is not the case, without exception (consider Ezek. 18: 5-20). However, the prospective elder must have "believing children" (children who respect and yield to his rule; in general, this applies to all fathers, Eph. 5: 22-6: 4). The prospective elder must be able to rule his family to show that he can rule the local church (I Tim. 3: 4, 5). "I know brother......does not exercise rule, but he is such a nice man and all his children have been baptized, though they are a little rowdy," is too often the thinking.

Notice what I view as the negation of "faithful children," "not accused of riot or unruly" (Tit. 1: 6). One can argue all day the grammatical aspects of if "not accused of riot or unruly" is an "appositional negative" or an add on to "faithful children." However, in the end the conclusion will have to be it is at least all said in the same climate and generally describing the same thing. In other words, these children must submit to their father's rule and not be out of control and refusing to subject themselves to rule (Greek: asotia and anupotaktos). The rule under consideration is the Father's rule over his family (Tit. 1: 6, cp. I Tim. 3: 4, 5).

Based on experience, I can tell you that there is so much more involved in the managing of the local church than just baptisms. Rule is so important. Power struggles and tests of rule regularly occur in families and in local churches. There are power struggles that go on in local churches behind the scenes, regarding which the average member often knows nothing. A man possessing the ability to address and stay on top of these situations is what Paul is requiring (Tit. 1: 6, I Tim. 3: 4, 5). Alas, I have too often see this required trait absent in men serving as elders, both in their domestic and spiritual families. We need to look deeper at "faithful children" in Titus 1: 6.

Ricky Wilson wrote:

"Ricky Wilson to Don Martin.

The Bible states that an elder must have faithful children. Why can't we leave it at that? If his children is 20, 30, or 40 when they fall away it doesn't matter. He isn't qualified to be an elder. He no longer has faithful children."

Don comments:

Does "faithful" in Titus 1: 6 (parallel to I Tim. 3: 4, 5) mean the children are subject to their father's rule or does it, in addition, mean that the children must be Christians?

It is evident from the wording of I Timothy 3: 4 ("One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity") that the qualification has to do with the man's ability to rule. Indeed, elders must be able to rule. Paul presents the domestic rule of elders (their physical families) and their spiritual rule as parallel (I Tim. 3: 4, 5).

At the very outset, I would raise the question that if the Holy Spirit had meant to require a prospective (or actual serving elder) elder's children to all be Christians, why did not he simply word it so there could be no doubt about the matter? As we shall see, "faithful" (pistos, Tit. 1: 6) does not inherently mean Christian. Instead of pistos (pista), Paul could have written christianos (Christian) in Titus 1: 6 and left no room for discussion. Could it be, then, that the Holy Spirit had something else in mind when he wrote "faithful children" (pista tekna)?

Pistos ("faithful," KJV) is found sixty-six times in the Greek New Testament. Although pistos is used in connection with those who believe in God, it has the basic meaning of reliable. Vine comments thus on the passive and active meaning of pistos: "(a) Passive, faithful, to be trusted, reliable, said of God.Active, signifying believing, trusting , relying." (Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words). One can readily appreciate how pistos is used relative to Christians. Paul addressed the Ephesian Letter to the "faithful (pistos, dm) in Christ Jesus" (Eph. 1: 1). The saved are here said to be reliable and trusting, they rely and trust in God. As is the case with so many "ambiguous" words, though, the usage in a particular setting determines the full meaning. Paul had been found pistos by the Lord (I Tim. 1: 12). Here pistos is used of Paul while he was Saul of Tarsus, before he was a Christian (Acts 9; 22; 26). Even before Saul was a Christian, he possessed certain qualities that constituted pistos. Saul was trusting in the rule and discipline that he had accepted as a devout Jew. We read of a "faithful" (pistos) and "wise" servant, one who was reliable in the charge of taking care of the assigned household (Matt. 24: 45). Regarding stewards in general, faithfulness (pistos) was required (I Cor. 4: 2). As noticed, pistos can and is used to describe reliability regarding the Christian in his relationship with God and to a number of relationship applications that do not immediately involve being a Christian. Again, the particular usage and context must decide the application of pistos.

Most scholars admit that Paul is saying the same thing in Titus 1: 6 in writing to Titus concerning this domestic qualification as he had written to Timothy. It is clear that Paul had in mind the subjection of the children to their father's rule when he wrote to Timothy (I Tim. 3: 3, 4). In view of pistos being "ambiguous" and the context determining the exact application, I submit that Paul had in mind subjection to the father's rule when he wrote to Titus "faithful children." In fact, the converse or opposite in Titus 1: 6 is not simply non-Christian but "riot and unruly." Riot (asotia) means profligacy and unruly (anupotaktos) means not subject to rule (Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words). Riot and unruly describe a person who is out of control and in a state of spiritual prodigality, not just a non-Christian.

It is also important that we appreciate the detailed description of I Timothy 3: 3, 4. The house over which the elder exerts the rule is his own house (tou idiou oikou). In other words, these are children who are still under his immediate rule, not those who have established their own households (cp. Gen. 2: 24). It is also apparent from both texts that all his children under his rule are to be pistos. The man rules his house and his children are not out of control. In some families the children rule. I spent a short time with an "elder" who had three children. Two had been baptized but all three were not subject to his rule. He issued orders but they disobeyed and mocked him. Not long after my stay, the church experienced division, the elders were not ruling (two out of the three were not).

We are faced with the challenge of avoiding extreme positions anytime we study the scriptures. Some want to compromise in setting aside qualifications that God has bound, in the case of elders, others attempt to bind where God never bound. The view held by some requires matters of elders that are beyond their control. Men can teach their children, set a good example, and exercise headship (rule), however, they can not always be held responsible for any of their children not being Christians, especially those who are out on their on

Remember the parallel we saw between the domestic and spiritual rule of elders (I Tim. 3: 3, 4)? Those who want to bind the children being Christians and claim a man is disqualified if ever he has a child to go astray, will not make a consistent argument regarding the spiritual side of the comparison, the rule in the local church. "Elders cannot be held responsible for a member who falls away, especially after they have done all they can to teach and persuade," they explain and I agree. However, these same people often claim that anytime a child goes astray, the man ceases to be qualified. While parents exert great influence on their children, we must realize children have minds of their own, especially when they go out on their own (see Prov. 3: 1-12, 4: 1-13). We tend to forget that children are held responsible which is indicative of their own free moral agency, ".A wise son maketh a glad father: but a foolish son is the heaviness of his mother, " wrote the wise man (Prov. 10: 1). The Law of Moses did not automatically assign failure to parents whose children did not turn out right (Deut. 21: 18 ff., see Ezek. 18: 1-13). Godly fathers must rule but they cannot legislate Christianity (each person elects to become a Christian). While this is the case, most children at home who are of accountable age will probably become Christians (cp. Acts 10: 2, 44-48; 16: 34). Alas, many of these will fall away when they are removed from their father's influence.

It is tragic that so much time is spent observing only whether or not the children have been baptized instead of observing the father's rule (they are not exactly the same thing). Men are too often appointed who have children who have been baptized (often the result of their mother's teaching), but they have no ruling ability (cp. Heb. 13: 7, 17, I Thes. 5: 12, I Pet. 5: 2, 3). As a result of lack of ruling ability (the very thing required in I Timothy 3: 3, 4 and Titus 1: 6), insurrections commonly occur in local churches (cp. Tit. 1: 9-11).

We have noticed the work of elders, the need of qualified elders and the twenty-four requirements placed on them by the Holy Spirit. Godly men should be seeking to achieve this appointment and churches should be seeking out such men (cp. Acts 6: 3-6). Scriptural overseers are a must to the completion of the organization of the local church and are a blessing to those who have banded together to serve God as his people (Acts 2: 42, Heb. 10: 25). In regards to these qualifications, we must seek the happy medium of not relaxing or binding where God has not relaxed or bound (Josh. 1: 7).

A study of Samuel and Eli as fathers is very profitable (I Sam. 8; 3). Eli's sons did not turn out well. Eli was held responsible for the behavior of his sons (I Sam. 3: 13). After a similar fashion, Samuel's sons were a disappointment. However, Samuel continued to serve in his capacity as leader of God's people with God's approval (I Sam. 8). What was the difference in the circumstances involving Eli and Samuel as fathers? In the case of Eli, we are expressly told, "and he restrained them not" (I Sam. 3: 13). However, it is evident that Samuel exonerated himself in regards to his parental duties. Samuel is one of the greatest men mentioned in the Bible, one of the few regarding whom no fault is stated. In the person of Samuel we can see the principle of "neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son." (Ezek. 18: 20). In fact, Ezekiel presents an unquestionably godly father producing an ungodly son (Ezek. 18: 5-13). The ungodly son in no way diminished from the godliness of the father. Some have erroneously used Proverbs 22: 6 in an effort to prove that when a child goes astray, the parents are to blame. However, Proverbs 22: 6 ("Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old he will not depart from it") is stating a general truth and not an absolute law (cp. 18: 22 with 21: 9). What I am attempting to say is, the prospective elder's family must be considered, but he is not to be automatically rejected because "he has a child who has fallen away."

Regarding "the children being at home, under the father's immediate rule," I am not meaning to say that I believe a man whose children are grown and have moved out is disqualified to be appointed or to continue serving. I believe Paul is simply considering the situation of the man whose children are at home under his rule without any design to exclude good men whose children are grown and who have proved their ruling ability. However, if a man has become associated with a local church after his children are grown, this does present a challenge for the local church regarding the man being appointed to serve in the capacity of an overseer. The church must be able, with some degree of certainty, to decide what kind of ruler the man was when his children were at home.

We have had some good posts regarding "faithful children" in Titus 1: 6. Robert Avery makes a good point regarding the almost fanatical fever of some:

Robert Avery here real briefly,

"If you ever hear of someone actually arguing the following, there is a quick and simple solution.

Here is the argument:

'If you teach your children right, they will never go astray!' The reasoning following, 'if an elder's child ever falls away, this is proof that the man failed as a parent' is the root thinking behind, 'the man must step down.'

Here is the reply:

Then we better only appoint men as elders whose children have already died faithfully. Otherwise, we might have accidentally appointed a man whom we did not know was never qualified to begin with. The only way we can know absolutely that a man taught his children right is when they die in the Lord!"

Don comments:

I have lived through a number of elder appointments and I have witnessed all kinds of attitudes and postures. I have seen some good attitudes manifested by brethren who wanted to abide in the doctrine of Christ and only appoint men who are qualified to serve as overseers (I Tim. 3; Tit. 1). There have been brethren who realized the "must" of each qualification and carefully studied them to make sure they were correctly applying and binding them.

I have also seen a troubling matter: the children of the prospective elders being the focus to the point that the men were in their shadow. Please understand, the children must be considered (Tit. 1: 6). However, too often more is spiritually required of them than of their father! Lets face it, a fifteen year old teenager is not mature. When under the microscope, there will be many evident flaws. "Brother Doe's daughter sinned, more than once and even though she went forward, I believe she has disqualified her father from continuing to serve as an elder." Yes, I have witnessed this kind of thing. Some have embraced such extreme notions about "faithful children" that the children would almost have to be sinless. I recall one elder's child went to spend a couple weeks with an uncle and his family. Some of the members repeatedly called the teenager to make sure they were attending and following a list of requirements that they had written down. No, I am not joking.

I personally believe the devil has caused some to embrace a fanatical obsession when it comes to "faithful children" to the point where the strength and function of the local eldership is based on the children of the elders. I have been in many situations of attempting to help some of these stressed out young people. These children are often extremely burdened with measuring up to the unrealistic standards some have placed on them of being mature Christians at the age of fifteen. Some of these young people never overcome this burden and end up giving up and being extremely guilt ridden because they have failed to be the super children some brethren require. Then these brethren charge: the child later fell away, the elder must resign.

I met with one family that was insisting that the eldership was disqualified. I asked them about their objections and they answered, "the elder's children sin." I inquired, how? "They are not perfect and "faithful children" requires them to be mature and perfect!"

Brethren and concerned readers, I will tell you what "faithful children" requires: It requires the children under the father's rule to submit to his rule and not be rebellious and unruly. "I will not obey my father, I will party, not be responsible, etc., and I will do as I wish, just waiting for the time that I can leave home!" This child is not a "faithful child." The father is not elder material, he cannot rule his own house (I Tim. 3: 4, 5). As a norm, the prospective elder's children who are of accountable age will have been baptized. Again, I say this because of the climate of his rule. The real test as to the children's spiritual fidelity to God and God's rule, however, will only come after they leave home. In closing this post, if I held the view that so many do regarding "faithful children," I would have to insist that a man not be appointed unless his children were grown and on their on. This way, the children's true spiritual faithfulness could be seen apart from their father and family. (Keep in mind that the focal point of Titus 1: 6 and I Timothy 3: 4, 5 is on the family and the father's ability to rule his family.)

I again want to thank all for their contributions to the discussion of "faithful children." There have been posts with which I both agree and disagree. Regarding some of the posts with which I disagree, some of the disagreement is in full and some in part. As I have affirmed, while I do not believe "pista tekna" means "Christian children," I do believe that the very nature of the father's rule will normally mean that the accountable children, especially those being discussed, those under his rule, will be Christians. All, though, reflect the father's ability to rule by submitting to his rule (this is the point and requirement of the qualification, I Tim. 3: 4, 5; Tit. 1: 6). I am very glad to see brethren studying this issue more and fine tuning their positions. I think the subject of "faithful children" has been covered and I am about to close my part in this discussion. However, there are a couple of posts that I do want to address.

One wrote:

"Giving instructions to servants, Paul said, 'And they (servants) that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren' (1 Tim. 6:1-2).

Wouldn't the same understanding of believing masters apply to children that believe, that is, they are brothers in Christ as well as trustworthy and obedient?"

Don comments:

As we have seen, the Greek "pistos" does not inherently mean "Christian." Pistos is defined as, "(a) Passive, faithful, to be trusted, reliable, said of God. Active, signifying believing, trusting, relying." (Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words). Pistos is an ambiguous word that is some times used regarding Christians or the saved (Eph. 1: 1). Pistos was applied to Saul of Tarsus (Paul before he became a Christian, I Tim. 1: 12). It was said of Moses of old that he "was faithful" (pistos, Heb. 3: 5). Were Saul and Moses Christians? No, but they were reliable in the matter being discussed. Hence, the usage (occurring 66 times in the Greek New Testament) of pistos in a given instance depends on and is determined by the context in which pistos occurs. The context of Titus 1: 6 is that of submission to the father's rule, his rule of the children in "his house" (tou idiou oikou, I Tim. 3: 4). The prospective elder and actual elder must rule well (kalos) his own house.

Regarding I Timothy 6: 1, 2, the question was asked: "Wouldn't the same understanding of believing masters apply to children that believe, that is, they are brothers in Christ as well as trustworthy and obedient?" In the case of "believing masters" (pistous despotas), there is no doubt but Paul uses pistos in the sense of Christian, reliable to and having a relationship with God. I know this because the context makes this usage plain. However, the context of Titus 1: 6 pertains to the relationship of the children to the father's rule. Yes, involved in this rule is the matter of spiritual nurturing and guidance. Children (domestic rule) and members (parallel rule in the church) each maintain their free moral agency. The father and elder must do his part in this rule, but he is not necessarily held responsible for the spiritual choices of the children and or members. Our understanding of "faithful children" has fostered supermen father/elders and super children, totally and biblically unrealistic.

Another wrote:

"It is a leap to logic to suggest that when children move out of the house they are no longer in submission to the parent. I understand that children 'must leave and cleave' and they must make decisions for themselves, but the requirement to honor their parents never ceases. The form of submission may change but it is still submission, just Christians are to submit to one another in love. There is reverence, consideration and deference implied here. Submission does not necessarily equal total dependence or inferiority."

Don comments:

When I formally debated "faithful children" in 1991, there was much equivocation and ambiguity present. "Don does not believe parents are to continue to exert a good influence on their married children," it was charged. I repeatedly explained: "Parents should always seek to influence for the good their children, grandchildren, and all men, but they do not 'rule' over these who are not under their immediate care." After I would carefully explain, I would again be charged with denying perpetual parental influence (some continue to confuse "influence" and "rule").

One father who was in the audience of this debate stated in a subsequent question/answer session: "I rule my married daughter and I shall continue to do so." I asked him about his daughter's responsibility to "obey her husband" and what if there is a conflict between her husband's desires and his wishes (Tit. 2: 5). "My daughter must submit to my rule over the rule of her husband," was his reply. Little did he know that I had been meeting with his daughter because of all the family interference and resulting problems in view of her father's unwillingness to let go and stay out of another's rule, his daughter's husband (Gen. 2: 21ff.). Yes, a thousand times, the father should continue to influence for the better his children, all their lives. However, this is not the main and essential thought of "faithful children." Brethren need to back off from the extreme and often fanatical position they have taken on "faithful children." The matter being required in Titus 1: 6 and I Timothy 3: 4, 5 is a man who can exercise rule over his physical family. This we must bind, but to go beyond this is to bind where we have no authority, preclude the appointment of qualified men, and disrupt the unity of local churches!