Sullivan church of Christ – Sullivan, MO
Date: September 21, 2008
CHILDREN – ONE OR MORE?
Ben Justice
One of the qualifications for a man to serve as an elder is that he must have “faithful children.” The word
“faithful” denotes “believer.” In other words, his children must be Christians. The debate often turns on
the word “children.” Does it entail just one child, or does the word demand a plurality — two or more? Let’s
analyze this.
Today, we use the word “children” in a general and generic sense to include one. If I were to say, “All
fathers who have children please come to the front of the auditorium,” then those fathers who had but one
child would come to the front of the auditorium. If they did not, then there would be something wrong with
them. Thus, we use the plural term “children” to include both the singular and the plural. Even if we did
not use the word “children” in this way today, the fact is, the Bible uses the plural term “children” to mean
one or more. Defining Bible terms in Bible ways is always the scriptural thing to do.
In Matthew 22:23-24, we have a reference to the Levirate marriage of the Old Testament. The text states,
“The same day came to him (Jesus) the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him, Saying,
Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his
brother.” Verse 24 contains the plural term “children,” but it actually has reference to one who does not
have a single child. If a man who died had just one child, then the law did not apply. Deuteronomy 25:5
conclusively proves that this is the case — “If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child,
the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take
her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her.” This passages established beyond a
shadow of a doubt that having no children (Matt. 22:24) means not having a single “child.” If having no
children means not having a single child, then having a single child would be having children.
In Matthew 19:29, we have another example — “And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters,
or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and shall inherit
everlasting life.” Again, we see the plural term “children.” But, what about the one who had to forsake just
one “child?” Obviously, “children” includes one or more.
In Genesis 21:7, the inspired record says, “And she (Sarah) said, Who would have said unto Abraham, that Sarah
should have given children suck? for I have born him a son in his old age.” Sarah had but one child — Isaac —
yet she referred to herself as having “children.”
In Genesis 31:1, Rachel said, “Give me children, or else I die.” Did Rachel mean that just one child would not
do and that unless she had more than one child she would die?
During the year of Jubilee both he (the bondman) and his children were to go free (Lev. 25:41). Does this
mean that if he had only one child he was to be denied his freedom?
In Ephesians 6:4, Paul said, “Provoke not your children to wrath. . .” Is the father with just one child exempt
from this?
Other scriptures could be given, but the above is more than enough to prove the point.
Those who have advocated the erroneous position that “children,” with reference to elders, means two or
more often reason that having a plurality of children will give him greater experience in handling various
situations that come up. But, this is fallacious reasoning, for one could argue that having 10 children would
give him a greater experience than 5 children. Such reasoning would have us going in circles. A man who
has only one Christian child should not be denied the right to be an elder, provided, of course, he meets all
the other qualifications. Why not just stick with the Bible?
SARAH PALIN & AMERICA’S CULTURE WAR
Ben Justice
Ever since John McCain picked Sarah Palin for his Vice Presidential running mate, there has been an
outright assault on her the likes of which we have never seen before. Yes, there have always been attacks
in the political world, but these kinds of attacks go beyond the pale. These vicious and disgusting attacks
have been described as needing to go take a bath after having heard them. It is just another indication of
the culture war that America is currently in. Those who deny this culture war obviously have their heads
buried in the sand. What are some of these attacks you ask? Get ready to be outraged.
Heather Mallick, who is a columnist for “Canadian Broadcast Corporation,” said that Palin appeals to “the
white trash vote,” and that she has the “toned-down version of the porn actress look.”
Barak Obama’s running mate, Joe Biden, made reference to Palin’s views on abortion (Palin is against
abortion even in cases of rape and incest) that they were “a backward step for women.” I could spend all day
refuting this erroneous statement — not only scientifically but most importantly Biblically.
South Carolina chairwoman Carol Fowler stated concerning Palin that her “primary qualification seems to be
that she hasn’t had an abortion.” INCREDIBLE and APPALLING! As many know, Palin gave birth to a Down’
s Syndrome baby. This can easily be determined by doctors now before the baby is even born. A very sad
statistic shows that approximately 90% of Down’s Syndrome babies are aborted — 90%! The feminists (and
others) have attacked Palin for not having an abortion, even suggesting that the baby is not really hers but
her daughter’s.
Concerning Palin’s position on abortion, she said in 2006 that she would not support abortion even if her
daughter was raped. She said, “I would choose life.”
There is not enough space here to document the other most outrageous, vile, and disgusting attacks. They
really reveal a depth of depravity that many have today — even those in high places. It just makes you sick
to your stomach. The secularists, humanists, hedonists, and feminists see Palin as a threat. Why?
Because she actually stands up for moral principles and truths. She has not only talked the talk but has
walked the walk. Thus, it’s not really about issues, but about the culture war that is dividing America as
never before and seeking to utterly destroy and annihilate anyone who goes against their ungodly agenda —
women notwithstanding. It’s really scary to say the least, especially when there seems to be so many who
are bent on destroying the Biblical moral moorings on which this country was founded.