Daily Reading

QUESTION: Are the following positions scripturally correct?
1. If a man has but one faithful child he cannot scripturally serve as an elder.
2. If one of a man’s children have becomes unfaithful after leaving home, the father cannot be appointed as an elder.
3. If a man is appointed as an elder, after which one of his believing, faithful children leaves home and apostatizes, the man becomes disqualified at that point.
4. That Proverbs 22:6 says that if we teach our children well, they will always remain faithful.
ANSWER: In I Timothy 3:1 the record says that in order for one to be an elder he must be “One who ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity.” Titus 1:6 says, “having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.” Although in both instances the plural (children) is used, there is no logical or scriptural basis to conclude that the Holy Spirit is teaching that a man with but one faithful child falls short of this qualification. As we look to God’s Word, we often find that the singular and plural of “children” are used interchangeably. For example: In Genesis 21:7, Sarah said, “Who would have said unto Abraham, that Sarah should have given “children” (plural) suck for I have given him a son (singular) in his old age. Though having but one son, Sara indicated that she had given suck to children (plural). In Luke 14:26, Jesus said we cannot be His disciple if we don’t love Him more than our children (plural). Shall we understand this to mean that one cannot be qualified to be His disciple if he has only one child (singular) to love less than Him? Of course not! Consider I Timothy 5: 9-10: Here a widow could be taken into the number “if she brought up children.” Does Paul imply here that an otherwise qualified widow who had brought up only “one” child could not be taken into the number? Certainly not! How about the slave to be set free at the fifty year Jubilee (Leviticus 25:41). He was instructed to take his “children” with him. But what if he only had one child to take? Could he still be freed? Of course! The same principle is true in Timothy and Titus. And the same principle is true today. For example: If I were to stand before an audience and you, having but one child, were a part of that audience and I would announce to all, “all fathers who have children come forward and I will give you each of you a thousand dollars,” would you come to collect the money? I think so! I know if the situation were reversed, I would be the first down the aisle! Consider this: An elder has two children living under his roof who have been faithful, dedicated Christians for five years. The children cannot be accused of riot or being unruly. Both are in subjection to their father with all gravity. One of the children dies in an accident. The elder’s ability to take care of his own house has not changed. He had the qualifications before the child’s death and he retains the qualifications after the child’s death. Nothing has changed! Clearly, scripture and logic support the conclusion that if a man has at least one child who is a faithful Christian, he is not, thereby, unqualified or disqualified. One who has but one faithful child is as qualified as one who has two or more faithful children.