When Changed Lives Speak Louder than Argumentation

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

When we are seeking to live as Evangelical Patriarchs we will encounter resistance from the world and the underworld. Satan and the natural world itself does not grasp the need for gospel centered living where a man rules by the Gospel over those under his sphere of influence and responsibility. The idea is foreign to the natural mind and it is the enemy to the kingdom of darkness.

How can we effectively combat the error that seeks to oppose our ideology? There are many ways. But I propose to you one of the best ways is for our family testimony to be a central standard. An Evangelical Patriarch can let the moral character of his family be a testimony to the gospel at work in this type of lifestyle. A man who has a woman or several women and even children who are honorable, orderly, and respectable has by that presentation something to reveal God's glory. Dr. Billy Graham once said this: "The world may argue against a creed, but it cannot argue against changed lives."

One of the best ways to alter the negative, erroneous, and ungodly opinions many have about patriarchy is to establish a home based upon Evangelical premises. When the gospel of grace empowers a man and he from that grace establishes and empowers a family where there is order, peace, harmony, love, and other gospel qualities within the family that is a testimony in and of itself that makes it hard for others to fault. When a man is changed by the gospel and then he leads a woman or women who are then changed by the gospel and then even subsequently with children that family and their character and order will speak volumes about the truth of their lifestyle. Even those who still refuse to admit the truth of it cannot but feel the weight of seeing the order of the gospel before their eyes and then wondering why is it that their home is still in chaos and confusion.

 

[MarvelousMarvin]

I agree, Dr. Allen. In fact, one of the overlooked portions of the three "one wife" passages is the fact that a leader must have children who are well-behaved. That is why, IMHO, the enemy attacks the children of ministers with such ferocity. Children are a reflection of the values and ideal taught by the father. (An imperfect reflection, of course!)

And, if you will carefully read 1 Timothy 3:2-5, it does not say, "If he has children, they must..." but rather,

A bishop then must be blameless...one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?)

Sounds like a Bishop or a Deacon (see verse 12) must have children! How can a man's children be "in submission with all reverence" if he has no children?

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Hummm......my understanding of the Greek tenses and grammar there seem to suggest something else in regard to the "must" issue you note. However, I agree totally about the attack by Satan there.

Look at the phrases divided:

"he must manage his own family well"

"

That is an imperative command.

But the verb "must manage" is grammatically connected to the "own family" and then a new clause/phrase begins which introduces a new phrase/clause with its own subject and verb sets (see obey). Thus, there is not the same continuity from the first clause to the second clause. In one clause there is an imperative for something to be but in the second clause it is an assumptive clause not a mandated clause. It seems to me had Paul wanted to say he must have children the phrase simply would have been:

"he must manage his own family well, he must have children who also obey him with . . . ." OR

"he must manage his own family well having children.." That phrase would have been with a participle form "having" to indicate the second phrase was explanatory to the first but still in continuity with it. As is now in the Greek it is a distinct phrase as it looks to me due to the subjection clause with its verb aligning with the "having" verb.

Or it could have even been said this way:

"he must be one who manages his own family well and he must have children and he must make sure they obey him."

In that sentence we would have the emphasis on three distinct clauses but clarity as to what each one meant in its own setting by its link to the "to be" verb.

But as is we are left with this (from Young' Literal Translation):
his own house leading well, having children in subjection with all gravity

That leads me to think the emphasis was on the issue of subjection not on the idea of must have children. The verb placement could even lead us to translate it this way: "having in subjection children with all gravity," which would again emphasize the obedience aspect with the underlying assumptive element being left open ended. In the other phrase there is no assumptive element but rather a direct command to be or to have something.

But as it stands it appears to me the grammar only has only one imperative with another assumptive clause that has a distinct set of verbs not grammatically connected to the first clause of 3:4.

Too, some peripheral points from the broader context of Scripture seems to hint too that this was the intent because in the OC the high priest had to be in a union but we have no command of the high priest having to have children in order to be in that office. Plus historically the Pharisee class had to be men who were in a union but they to from my readings said little if anything about any requirement for their to be children. And the NT office of an elder was in principle carried over from the OC office of elder and priest.

Too I see it along the lines as well concerning biology versus ability and skill. Paul's focus seems to be here on maturity not on biological issues. A man can be a family man and still have no children. A man may join a woman of later years and have no children due to that. Or a man or woman of younger years may not be physically able to have children yet they can still be family oriented and a family without biological children. I think Paul was establishing a guide or a norm that an elder is to be able to have enough character and wisdom to secure the heart and mind of a woman and that has to do with his mental and spiritual maturity more so than his physical ability. I'm not so sure Paul would place the same standard on a matter that follows suit more along physical ability when that is not always under the control of the person. Under the omniscient Spirit I think there was likely a distinction made between the two realms of (1) mental and spiritual maturity, and (2) physical ability. Finding a woman or more than one to have a family falls more along the first than the second and thus I think that is why we see only one imperative clause in that text with the second clause being an assumptive phrase that is primarily about the ability and skill of a man being able to bring into subjection any children one may have or currently does have. If the entire text is only skill and ability (one's maturity) it seems odd to me for a new element to be introduced which turns to an emphasis on physical ability which not all would have due to a variety of reasons. Contextually that seems to me to be slightly off both grammatically and contextually.

But, having said that, I am aware and cautious of being too firm on this as we are dealing with only two verses with very little elsewhere to give us insight into these two verses from Timothy and Titus. The other texts around this verse can be examined by other texts that speak to the issues at hand whereas this one is probably the most obscure phrase of the entire chapter as we have so little elsewhere to go compare it to as we use Scripture to interpret Scripture.

 

[MarvelousMarvin]

Dr. Allen,

I must defer to your greater knowledge and experience with the Greek language, so you are most likely correct.

However, is it not true that the primary purpose of a Holy Love Union is to raise children who will love and serve God? And in the OT, whenever a woman was said to have reproach, it was always (or nearly always, I need to research this more thoroughly when I have some time) because she had no children.

So maybe Paul was assuming that a man who is in a Holy Love Union will have children.

Then, in support of what you said, we have the example of Zacharias and Elizabeth, the parents of John the Baptist. (Luke chapter 1.) Zacharias was serving as a priest even without having children, until John the Baptist was born to them in their old age. (Most people now-days would call John an "oops!" :lol: ) Off the top of my head, I can't think of any priest in the OT who was said to be childless or not, but of course, Abraham and Sarah were 100 and 90 years old before Isaac was born.

I do, however, hold the opinion that a man who is to be in certain positions of leadership (Deacon, Bishop, Elder in the 1st-century Church, and whatever our 21st-century equivalents might be called) should be in a Holy Love Union with at least one woman; more than one is optional, of course! It can be argued that an Apostle does not necessarily need to be in such a Union, based on the example of Paul - but IMHO, Paul was in a Holy Love Union, and after his Damascus Road experience, his woman, with the assistance of the Jewish leaders, left him. That is why he was able to write 1 Corinthians 7:12-15. (Of course, that passage, as is true of all other Scripture, was inspired by the Holy Spirit and so might not be based on Paul's personal experience.) Also, why was Paul "complaining" in 1 Corinthians 9:5 that he and Barnabas could not take their believing women with them on their missionary journeys, "as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?" Was it because he and Barnabas had no women? Was it a rhetorical question? Or did they have women (or 2 or 3...) and for some reason, could not take them on their travels?

Of course, maybe there are no true Apostles since the end of the 1st century, after John died, so requiring or not requiring an Apostle to be in a Holy Love Union is probably a moot point.

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Dr. Marv,

I will ponder your points for some time. I'll defer to you in respect as you are older than I am in the Lord and thus you may be on to something that I am not yet able to see myself. I'll meditate on your suggestions and points and chat with ya at some point on this. It is a tough verse for sure. I do know some scholars who make some good arguments that lean in that direction and they argue that there was a distinction between the offices of elders and teachers and the elders were those who were indeed with both a woman and child/children whereas other offices such as teachers, evangelists, etc, did not have that. I've not been persuaded as of yet on the one element of the Greek construction in that one phrase but I have seen too sometimes there is such a technical focus on the grammar at times that we lose sight of the context. So I'll have to take some time to consider and weigh out what you are saying.