ELDERS, "CHILDREN"
Introduction:
1. 1 Timothy 3:4; Titus 1:6
2. For an elder to be scripturally qualified, must he have a
plurality of children? Or, will one child suffice?
I. THE PLURAL WORD IS USED:
1. The word in both passages is in its plural form.
(1) The singular word in the Greek is TEKNON. The plural
form is TEKNA.
(2) If the word is singular in application in any passage,
it must be determined by the context and not from the
Greek word itself.
2. Plurals and singulars are not interchangeable. If so, there
would be no need for the two forms.
(1) The plural always includes the singular. In Romans
16:16, the plural "Churches of Christ," includes the
singular "Church of Christ" (the local congregation).
The greeting was not from only one congregation.
(2) "Children of Israel" includes each child of Israel, but
the term "Children of Israel" does not mean "only one
child."
(3) The elder's children includes a plural of the singular,
"child." But, does it mean that the elder has only one
child?
(4) When Paul appointed "Elders" in every church (Acts
14:23), can one change the plural for the singular and
conclude that one elder is scriptural? Why will this
work with "children" and not with "elders"?
(5) It is agreed that sometimes the plural has a singular
application. It is not agreed that the plural and
singular are interchangeable. How then can it be
determined when "children" has a singular application?
It must be by proper Biblical Interpretation.
II. A RULE OF BIBLE INTERPRETATION:
1. Sacred Didactics, page 8, by J. W. McGarvey:
(1) Determine the primary meaning of the word.
(2) Use the primary meaning unless forbidden, either by
context or by other scriptures.
(3) Determine the secondary meaning and how it may differ
from the primary meaning.
(4) Determine which fits the context.
(5) If two meanings are equally suited, decide by Old
Testament or New Testament usage.
(6) The primary meaning should be used, unless (1) context
or (2) another passage, teaches to the contrary.
2. John 3:3-5:
(1) What word would Jesus have used to mean "water" if
"water" doesn't mean "water"?
(2) John 4:10 -- "Living water."
(3) Revelation 22:17 -- "Water of Life."
(4) "Water" means WATER, unless qualified by context or
other passage.
3. 1 Timothy 3:4; Titus 1:6.
(1) Is there anything in the context that forbids the
primary use of TEKNA (plural)?
(2) Is there another passage that forbids the primary use
of TEKNA (plural), and demands the secondary TEKNON
(singular) meaning?
(3) The answer is NO. Then why conclude that the
qualification means "child"? Unless, one has already
decided that a man is qualified with only one child.
(4) Is it possible that one seeks to prove what has already
been decided?
4. A Possible Objection:
(1) "But," someone says, "there are other scriptures where
TEKNA is singular in application."
(a) The unusual meaning in other passages must be
determined by each passage and/or another passage
that deals with the same subject.
(b) The fact that a word has a peculiar meaning in one
passage does not mean that it has a peculiar
meaning in other passages.
(c) The passages where TEKNA (plural) allows the
singular "child" do not forbid the normal meaning
in 1 Timothy 3:4 and Titus 1:6. Because an abnormal
meaning of a word is used in one passage, it does
not follow that the abnormal meaning is to be used
in other passages.
(2) Singular application in other passages:
(a) 1 Timothy 5:4. If the widow has only one child,
would he/she have an obligation toward the widow?
Obviously, yes. 1 Timothy 5:8 so requires, as do
many other passages.
(b) Where is another passage which requires the
singular application in 1 Timothy 3:4 and Titus
l:6?
(c) Because TEKNA may have a singular application in
one passage does not mean it should have a singular
application in all passages?
(d) Context and/or other passages determine whether an
abnormal meaning must be used. If these are
lacking, then the normal meaning is demanded in
proper Biblical interpretation.
(3) An Illustration:
(a) Swingli said, "We will practice only what the Bible
authorizes."
(b) Luther said, "We will practice anything the Bible
does not forbid."
(c) A vast difference in these two statements:
a. We will take the normal meaning, except where
context and/or other passages forbid.
b. We can insert the abnormal meaning anytime
context and/or other passages does not forbid.
III. ARGUMENTS SOMETIMES OFFERED WHERE "CHILDREN" MAY BE SINGULAR
IN APPLICATION:
1. Genesis 21:7.
(1) Since Sarah had only one child, the plural "children"
has a singular application of "child."
(2) Thus, Titus 1:6 and 1 Timothy 3:4 where "children" is
used has the singular application "child."
(a) Is one saying that everywhere the plural is found
the singular is meant?
(b) Or, must context and/or other passages forbid the
normal meaning in Titus 1:6 and 1 Timothy 3:4? If
so, where are the passages?
(3) Three possible explanations of Genesis 21:7:
(a) An accusation may be made that Abraham and Sarah
were attempting to pass off a foundling as their
own child. Hence, the people were invited to bring
their infants that Sarah might give them suck, for
no barren woman could suckle children.
(b) Sarah, by bringing the child into the world, as
promised to Abraham, was the mother of a great
nation. As she nursed the child, she was giving
suck to many children -- the descendants of Isaac.
Hebrews 7:9-10 gives a similar thought where Levi
is said to have paid tithes to Melchizadek while
Levi was still in the loins of Abram.
(c) Often, in ancient times, women did suckle the
children of others (Exodus 2:7-9). The passage does
not say that Sarah was giving suck to her own
children (plural). It does state that Sarah had
borne a son and now would be able to suckle
children. A paraphrase of the passage: "Who would
have ever said to Abraham (since I am old and
barren) that Sarah would ever be able to suckle
children? And rightly so, they would never have
suggested (or thought such) for I have not borne
him a son until now, in my old age (when it has
ceased to be with me after the manner of women,
Genesis 18:11)."
2. Matthew 22:24 (Deuteronomy 25:5-6); Mark 12:19; Luke 20:28:
(1) The question is raised, "If a brother left 'one' child,
would the remaining brother have to marry the wife?"
Obviously, no. Thus, "having no children" means "having
no child."
(2) Deut. 25:5 has the singular, not the plural.
(a) The Pharisees may have misquoted the passage.
(b) If they changed the wording purposely, it is a poor
argument that depends upon a change of the inspired
text by uninspired men.
(c) Matthew and Luke do not vouch for the accuracy of
the Sadducees statement. They only report what was
said.
(d) The word "seed" in Matthew 22:24 is singular in
form.
3. Ephesians 6:1:
(1) The objection is raised, "If there is an only child,
must he/she obey the parents? Obviously, yes, an only
child is to obey the parent.
(2) This is a plural of class: All children (as a class)
are commanded to obey their parents (another class).
The command includes an only child, and the child who
has only one parent.
(3) Many other passages teach obedience (child/children) to
parents.
(4) In 1 Timothy 3:4 and Titus 1:6, the subject ("elder")
is singular and the object ("children") is plural. In
Ephesians 6:1, both the subject and the object are
plural; thus not parallel to 1 Tim. 3:4 and Titus 1:6.
4. 1 Timothy 3:12.
(1) A distributive use of the plural.
(2) Deacons (plural) must rule their children (plural).
Each deacon must have at least one child, and may have
more. The distributive plural sets forth a minimum (at
least one each) and not a maximum (not more than one
each).
(3) It is sometimes asked how could Paul have indicated an
elder could be qualified with only one child, but might
have more. This passage answers that question.
(4) Why may deacons have more than one child, but not more
than one house, since the passage says "houses" and
"children." Because other scriptures forbid. Since a
deacon may have only one house, it is evident that
"deacons" having "houses" and "children" indicate a
distributive usage.
(5) Why is "wife" singular with reference to "deacons"
(plural), "children" (plural) and "houses" (plural)? It
must be to emphasize that a deacon must have only one
wife; not more than one.
(6) Thus, this passage is not parallel with elder's
qualifications. "Deacons" (plural) must have the
qualifications, but the "elder" (singular) must have
"children" (plural).
5. 1 Timothy 2:15; 1 Timothy 5:10; 1 Timothy 5:14.
(1) In each of these passages, compound words are used.
(2) In forming these compounds, the singular "TEKNON" is
added to some other word. The emphasis is not upon the
plural or the singular of the offspring.
(3) In 1 Timothy 2:15, "She shall be saved through
childbearing." The English word itself is a compound
word and illustrates the point. "Childbearing" does not
indicate the number of offspring. The emphasis is not
upon the singularity or plurality, but upon the action.
The "neutral" word in English is likewise "neutral" in
Greek. Also true of the compound words in 1 Timothy
5:10 and 1 Timothy 5:14.
(4) 1 Timothy 5:10 -- "If she hath been a child-bringer-
upper."
(5) 1 Timothy 5:14 -- "marry, be child bearers..."
(6) In both, the translators made smooth translations.
6. If Paul had meant to put no emphasis upon the number of
children, there are two ways he could have made it very
clear.
(1) By using a compound word.
(2) By the use of a distributive plural.
(3) How better to express a plurality of children than the
language he used in 1 Timothy 3:4 and Titus 1:6.
Return to Index
Home