In the study of the qualifications for elders, one of the most frequently asked questions is regarding the “children” (I Timothy 3:4; Titus 1:6). Does the expression necessitate a plurality, or does it mean that a man is qualified with either (A) one child, or (B) a plurality of offspring? Stated another way, does “children” have a singular application, meaning that the elder must have at least one child, and may have a plurality, or does it mean that he must have a plurality of offspring and one child will not suffice?<\/p>\n
The word tekna<\/em> in I Timothy 3:9 and Titus 1:6 is in the plural form. Its declension is:<\/p>\n [William Hersey Davis, Beginner’s Grammar of the Greek New Testament<\/em>, 5th Edition, p. 39].<\/p>\n Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible, as is customary, gives the nominative, singular, form under the heading “children.” Some, consulting Young’s, and not being conversant with this technical point, have concluded that<\/p>\n The Greek word is plural in form in I Timothy 3:9 and Titus 1:6. Its inherent significance is “children’ (a plurality of offspring). If the word is singular in application in any given passage such meaning is not derived from the Greek word but is determined from Biblical interpretation.<\/p>\n Plurals and singulars are not interchangeable. If they were, there could be no reason for having differences in forms in declension. Singular and plural forms of words are not interchangeable in Hebrew, Greek, or English.<\/p>\n This is not to say that the plural does not include the singular. The plural always includes the singular! “Churches of Christ” (Romans 13:13) includes a plurality of the singular: “church of Christ” (local congregation). But the greeting was not from only one congregation, but a plurality. “Children of Israel” includes every child of Israel, but the phrase does not mean only one child. The elder’s children include a plurality of the singular – child. But it does not mean the elder has only one child.<\/p>\n If plurals are interchangeable with singulars does this include all words of the Bible? If not all, by what rule does one determine which are interchangeable? For example, a Roman Catholic could take the various passages that speak of a plurality of elders (bishops) in each local congregation and declare that one elder overseeing a congregation is perfectly scriptural! If it works with “children” why wouldn’t it work with “bishops?”<\/p>\n It is granted that sometimes the plural of teknon<\/em> has a singular application (this does not mean, however, that the plural and singular are interchangeable), but this is not true always, nor in the majority of cases. Then how does one determine when the word “children” has a singular application? This brings me to a basic rule of Biblical interpretation upon which my position is based.<\/p>\n The rule is so simple that often we don’t realize that we are using it in our study of the Bible. It is set forth precisely by J. W. McGarvey in Sacred Didactics, page 8:<\/p>\n In other words, in the study of the Bible, words should be understood as having their most commonly accepted meaning unless the context or another passage teaches to the contrary.<\/p>\n How many times has it been said that “water” means just that in John 3:5, and what would Jesus have used to mean “water” if “water” doesn’t mean “water?” The figurative usage of the word is evidenced by context and another scripture: “Living water<\/em>” (John 9:10); “water of life<\/em>” (Revelation 22:17). We understand that “water,” unqualified by context or another scripture, simply means H2O.<\/p>\n Jacob Ditzler and J. S. Sweeney were having a debate on the scriptural action of baptism. Ditzler showed that a secondary meaning of the word “baptize” was “to wash or sprinkle” (according to the dictionary definition). In reply, Sweeney showed that a secondary meaning of “believe” was “to have an opinion” and a secondary meaning of “saved” was to be “pickled.” He gave the resulting translation of Mark 16:16: “He that hath an opinion and is sprinkled shall be pickled.” Sweeney then raised the question, “Is it our aim to see what we can make of the Scripture, or is it our aim to find out what God has said? We must be careful lest we fall under such an indictment.<\/p>\n With regard to the elder’s children, what is the primary (normal) meaning of t<\/em>ekna<\/em>? The normal meaning is “children” (a plurality of offspring).<\/p>\n The answer to both questions is no<\/strong>. Then why say that the qualification means “child?” Could it be a desire to qualify a man for the eldership who does not have children? Please don’t misunderstand me. I am not accusing anyone of dishonesty. I am only pointing out the human weakness to which we are all inclined: to unconsciously seek to prove from the Bible what we already believe to be so.<\/p>\n “But there are other scriptures where tekna<\/em> is singular in the application, so McGarvey’s rule, B-2, comes into action.” Not so. The unusual meaning in other passages is determined by each passage’s own context or another passage dealing with the same subject. The fact that a word has a peculiar meaning in one passage does not make it acceptable in another passage. The passages where tekna<\/em> means child do not forbid the normal meaning in Titus 1:6 and I Timothy 3:4. Are we allowed to place an abnormal meaning for a word into a passage simply because the word had an abnormal meaning in another passage and nothing in the passage at hand forbids such? Or does sound hermeneutics require that we maintain the primary meaning unless the context or another passage forbids the primary meaning and demands a secondary meaning for the sake of logic and consistency with the rest of the Bible?<\/p>\n It is freely admitted that there are passages where “children” very evidently include the singular application. For example, Paul writes, “but if any widow has children or grandchildren, let them learn first to show piety towards their own family, and to requite their parents<\/em>” If the widow had only one child, he would have the above-mentioned duty. Why say this tekna<\/em> applies to an only child of a widow but rejects a singular application in Titus 1:6? The answer is the simple rule of interpretation: context or another passage.<\/p>\n Certainly, the only child has a responsibility to his widowed mother. There are many passages that teach such an individual responsibility. In the immediate context Paul wrote, “But if any provideth not for his own, and specially his own household, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever.<\/em>” Hence, I know that tekna<\/em> here is singular in its application. But where is such a passage concerning the elder’s qualification?<\/p>\n Is there anything in the context or another passage to indicate that “children” means “child” in Titus 1:6? Then should not the word be accepted for what it commonly means? Granting that “children” means “child” in application in other passages does not prove that it means such in Titus 1:6. It begs the question to assume that tekna<\/em> has an abnormal meaning in Titus 1:6 because it has an abnormal meaning in another passage when the context or another Scripture does not demand the abnormal meaning in Titus 1:6.<\/p>\n The basic difference in approach is comparable to that between Zwingli and Luther. Zwingli said, “We will practice only what the Bible authorizes.” Luther said, “We will practice anything the Bible does not forbid.” Regarding the elder’s qualification, one says, “We will take the normal meaning except where the context or another passage forbids.” The other says, “We can insert the abnormal meaning anytime the context or another passage does not forbid.”<\/p>\n The argument for the one-child-elder is, at best, built upon a weak foundation. The best argument for this position is only a possibility, not a certainty, and begs the question. The argument (as I understand it) is basically this:<\/p>\n This is my affirmation: I maintain that the normal meaning of the word must be used unless forbidden, this being based upon a rule of biblical interpretation. I maintain that tekna<\/em> is plural in form and meaning in normal usage. I maintain there is nothing in I Timothy 3:4 and Titus 1:6 nor in any other passage, that indicates that tekna<\/em> has anything but its normal meaning regarding the elder’s qualification.<\/p>\n To prove my position to be false, it must be shown that<\/p>\n If this should be done, there is yet another problem. A rule still must be found to determine which passages are singular in the application and which are not.<\/p>\n But think seriously now: How does one determine that a particular passage containing “children” uses the word abnormally? The only way one can know that “children” doesn’t mean a plurality of offspring, in any given passage, is because the context or another passage forbids the normal meaning and demands an abnormal meaning for the sake of sense and consistency.<\/p>\n An argument has been advanced to prove the rule invalid: The commonly accepted meaning of “teknon<\/em>” is one’s own fleshly offspring by natural birth, so the argument goes. So this would prove that a man could not be qualified whose children were adopted.<\/p>\n Actually, even if this argument were valid, it would not disprove the rule of interpretation. But the argument is false. “Teknon<\/em>” is from the classical Greek word “tekein<\/em>,” which means “that which is borne or born, a bairn, child” [Liddell & Scott], without reference as to who the natural father is. In I Timothy 3:4 “his” is in italics (King James Version), indicating that it is not in the original Greek. It was added by the translators to clarify the meaning of the passage. In this case, it is questionable if it does. Neither I Timothy 3:4 nor the Greek word itself necessitates the elder’s children being his own fleshly offspring.<\/p>\n by Jerry C. Ray The Gospel Guardian, 26 November 1964 In the study of the qualifications for elders, one of the most frequently asked questions is regarding the “children” (I Timothy 3:4; Titus 1:6). Does the expression necessitate a plurality, or does it mean that a man is qualified with either (A) one child, or…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[27],"tags":[123],"class_list":["post-57292","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-article","tag-elders"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":46592,"url":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/why-does-my-source-say-teknon-instead-of-tekna-in-i-timothy-34\/","url_meta":{"origin":57292,"position":0},"title":"Why does my source say\u00a0teknon\u00a0instead of\u00a0tekna\u00a0in I Timothy 3:4?","author":"Jeffrey Hamilton","date":"December 1, 2015","format":false,"excerpt":"Question: Good afternoon, Thank you for your labor and articles. Recently my brother sent me this article:\u00a0Must elders have more than one child? In this article, you state: \"The Greek word in both I Timothy 3:4 and in Titus 1:6 is\u00a0tekna.\" I follow the logic, but when I checked (according\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Answer"","block_context":{"text":"Answer","link":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/category\/answer\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":52505,"url":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/could-titus-15-6-be-a-plural-of-class-case\/","url_meta":{"origin":57292,"position":1},"title":"Could Titus 1:5-6 be a “plural of class” case?","author":"Jeffrey Hamilton","date":"February 1, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Question: Hello, I have been diligently studying the qualifications for Elders. I recently stumbled upon a discussion regarding the use of\u00a0tekna. In\u00a0one of your articles,\u00a0you stated the exception of \"plural of class\" using widows in I Timothy 5. You stated that I Timothy 3 and Titus 1 show no indication\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Answer"","block_context":{"text":"Answer","link":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/category\/answer\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":2861,"url":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/must-elders-have-more-than-one-child\/","url_meta":{"origin":57292,"position":2},"title":"Must elders have more than one child?","author":"Jeffrey Hamilton","date":"June 14, 2005","format":false,"excerpt":"Question: Must elders have more than one child? Answer: \"one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence\" (I Timothy 3:4). \"if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination\" (Titus 1:6). The Greek\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Answer"","block_context":{"text":"Answer","link":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/category\/answer\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":36030,"url":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/is-your-definition-of-tekna-consistent\/","url_meta":{"origin":57292,"position":3},"title":"Is your definition of tekna consistent?","author":"Jeffrey Hamilton","date":"December 3, 2012","format":false,"excerpt":"Question: In light of the position you take with regard to\u00a0Elders and the number of children they should have, I would like to know your thoughts with regard to the following scriptures. We are in the process of studying deacons and elders at the congregation I attend, and I am\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Answer"","block_context":{"text":"Answer","link":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/category\/answer\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":52938,"url":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/when-does-someone-stop-being-a-child\/","url_meta":{"origin":57292,"position":4},"title":"When does someone stop being a child?","author":"Jeffrey Hamilton","date":"September 5, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Question: Ephesians 6:1-2. \"Children\" has no absolute age-associated concept to it, does it? If it was only used in the sense of young children, well then. But it refers all over scripture to offspring generally. When does the principle of a child as a minor actually come into play here?\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Answer"","block_context":{"text":"Answer","link":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/category\/answer\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":47990,"url":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/can-a-man-be-an-elder-if-his-adopted-son-is-unruly\/","url_meta":{"origin":57292,"position":5},"title":"Can a man be an elder if his adopted son is unruly?","author":"Jeffrey Hamilton","date":"June 1, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Question: Hello, I have a question about the children in the qualifications for elders. If a man has a natural-born child and adopts a child, would this be plural children? What if the adopted child is unruly and irreverent and eventually moves away from home?\u00a0To me, this does not fit\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Answer"","block_context":{"text":"Answer","link":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/category\/answer\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/57292","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=57292"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/57292\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=57292"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=57292"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lavistachurchofchrist.org\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=57292"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n
\n
Plurals and Singulars<\/h3>\n
A Rule of Bible Study<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
A Possible Reply<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
Is the rule of interpretation invalid?<\/h3>\n
Is my application of the rule faulty?<\/h3>\n
\n
\n