Having discussed the question, “Does one child constitute children” in Paul’s list of qualifications, we now turn our attention to the qualification itself, listed in 1 Timothy 3:4-5.
“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?)”
Here the definitions of the terms are rather straightforward. Also, a reason for the qualification enlightens us as well, in verse 5. Consider the definitions first.
The phrase “one who rules” is taken from the Greek word (proistemi). The word is found 8 times in the New Testament. It is defined by Vine: to stand before, to lead, to direct, attend to. Thayer says: to be over, to superintend, preside over. God gives the husband and father the position of authority in the home. A man who abdicates that position certainly has no place exercising oversight in the church of God.
The word “well” describes the manner of the rule. The word is a common adverb, used often in the New Testament. It is the Greek word (kalos). Strong defines the term: well (usually morally): – (in a) good (place), honestly. Thayer says: beautifully, finely, excellently, well. a) rightly, so that there shall be no room for blame. (Denotes a duty or office which one fulfills well in 1 Timothy 3:4).
The word “submission” is translated from the Greek word (hypotage). It is found only four times in scripture. It is translated obedience in 2 Corinthians 9:13, and submission in Galatians 2:5; and 1 Timothy 2:11 and 3:4. Strong and Thayer both give concise definitions of the term. Strong: subordination, subjection. Thayer: obedience, subjection. It indicates that the proper place of the child is both required of him, and accepted by him. The child respects the father, and obeys him.
Finally, the word “reverence” (translated in the KJV as “gravity”) is from the Greek word (semnotes). This word is found only three times in the New Testament. It is used in regard to the life we live before kings as we pray for them, “a quiet peaceable life in all godliness and reverence” (1 Timothy 2:2). Also, in addition to our text, Paul wrote to Titus that young men should show themselves “to be a pattern of good works; in doctrine showing integrity, reverence, incorruptibility” (Titus 2:7). Strong defines the term: venerableness, i.e. probity: – gravity, honesty. Thayer says: that characteristic of a person or a thing which entitles to reverence or respect, dignity, gravity, majesty, sanctity. Honor, probity, purity.
With these definitions firmly in mind, one other principle of import should be suggested here. In God’s plan for the home, His intent is stated from the beginning, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). This indicates that while respect for one’s parents is a lifetime obligation, the position of headship is limited to the time when a man has his children in the home. After the child leaves that home and establishes his or her own, the father no longer rules. His rule is over “his house.”
Therefore, this qualification does not encompass the actions of children after they are no longer a part of their father’s home, or under his rule. Some may think that such should be a part of that qualification, but such is speculation beyond what the passage actually says. What is to be considered is the man’s sphere of rule. It is stated clearly in the text “his own house.” He can hardly be held responsible for any change of action or attitude that may occur due to influences beyond his rule and control.
So what is the proper understanding of this qualification? First, the home is a testing ground for oversight in the church. It might be that a bachelor or a childless man might do a good job serving as an elder. But, we have no way of knowing if that would be true. With a man who has been tested by his rule in a home, with both a wife and children, we have a better idea of how he would rule as an elder. So, God determined that only men who have married and bore children should be considered for the office.
If such a man proves himself through testing, he is to be considered qualified to serve. The proof is, in part, how his children view him and react to him. Do they submit to his authority? Do they view him with respect and reverence because of his gravity and sobriety in his dealing with them? We learn a great deal about a man by looking at his family.
Sometimes people go beyond what is required in the text. They say one child is not enough, because we need to see how he rules in a more complex home. But, the text does not require it. We could as easily say that a man with 3,4 or 5 children is “more qualified” than a man who only has two. As a middle child, I might have such a view, if I were not constrained by the text itself.
Others may take issue with the man whose children were in submission, respecting him, but who changed after they left the home. This might bring his qualities as a leader into question. But, the text does not call for such speculation. The phrase “rules his own house well” is one with simple and circumscribed limits that should be respected by all.
Remember, the safe course is to appoint men who are qualified. But, it is not the safe course to exclude men based on our own subjective views. Let God set the standard.
