Mr. D's Notes on I Timothy
Rev. Stanley L. Derickson Ph.D.
Copyright 2000

CHAPTER 23

Years ago our home church pastor found that he had a spot on his lung and the doctors determined that he should have surgery. One of his sons was a nurse in a Large medial complex in the next state, so the pastor went there for the surgery.

The day came for the operation and all went well. The pastor was in recovery, then moved into a room - all seemed quite normal. Within hours he was in serious difficulty. Something had gone wrong with the lung they had operated on. Ultimately the decision was made to remove the lung to save his life. He had been very healthy so operating on one lung would not be a great difficulty for him.

The lung was removed and again he was removed from recovery and was doing well. As before, he suddenly took a serious turn for the worse. The doctors could not reverse his course and he died.

The doctors were in utter shock but nothing could be done.

In the days ahead the church knew that they needed to move on, but they wanted very seriously to assist their former pastor’s widow. She was not sixty, and she had another son and a daughter both of which could have taken care of her, but the church determined they had a responsibility to the widow.

The church, after much discussion and prayer gave her some options concerning her living accommodations.

They told her that if she wanted to stay in town that she could have title to the parsonage. If she wanted to move out of town, that she could live in the parsonage or they would rent her a place until she was comfortable in making the move.

If she wanted to move immediately they were going to move her.

She opted to stay and take the parsonage.

Again, the church was not obligated to do this, but they wanted to and it was a great show of their love and concern for her.

The church needed a custodian and secretary at the time so she took on those responsibilities to assist in her own livelyhood.

This church had to have been a great testimony to the lost people in the community.

The church was not required to assist, but the wanted to assist. This ought to be any church’s guide to their relationship to their widows.

I might interject here that I am not advocating the welfare program, nor the presence of widows on welfare roles. The government offers these alternatives so if someone takes advantage of them when in need I see nothing intrinsically wrong with it - emphasis on someone that has a NEED!

I might also add that if the church was doing its part there would be no need for a widow to be on welfare. I trust that we might see more churches doing more of what they ought.

Social security on the other hand is something that we as citizens are required to contribute too, so we ought to gain from our contribution.

We will be looking at the SERIOUSNESS OF SUPPORT in verse eight, CRITERIA OF SUPPORT in verses nine and ten, UNWORTHY OF SUPPORT in eleven through fifteen, and NEED OF SUPPORT in verse sixteen.

I. SERIOUSNESS OF WIDOW SUPPORT

8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

Whom is Paul speaking of in verse eight? The church, the individual, the widow or someone else?

When we moved to Denver to attend Bible college, we settled in a little Bible church for a church home. One of the first of many trials that confronted me took place in that church. One night for Sunday evening service we broke up into little groups. I was placed with two older men. We went down into the basement and one of the men turned to this verse and began to expound.

At the time we had no money, had barely gotten ourselves moved into an apartment, had no money for school, and a brand-new job. We were in a world of hurt financially but current on our bills and an income that would cover our needs.

Now back to the inquisition. I don't know that this was planned, but I felt that my being assigned to these two men and their picking this particular verse was a little fishy, especially considering his choice of words to indicate but not state that he was speaking of me.

At any rate the man made me feel that I was an infidel and that I was totally corrupt because I wasn't caring for my family properly. I read the verse over and over and could not see where he could use it in my case - I was convinced that it was speaking of widows and widows only.

For days I felt like a total failure and kept going back to the verse. Finally the Lord gave me a peace that this was indeed, speaking of widows only. This was at a time in my life when I had no formal or church teaching in the Word. It may well be one of the reasons I am so staunch on literal interpretation.

Poverty or being poor is not being unspiritual, but not taking care of widows is!

Some suggest the Church:

a. The context is the church caring for widows.

b. The last time individuals were in view is in verse four.

c. Whom is the book written to? Timothy. Paul is setting some principles to function by. The elders might well be in view in verse eight.

d. This verse seems to relate directly to the thought of verse seven and the blameless state of the church.

Others suggest the individual:

a. The term "anyone" is the key. If Paul were speaking of the elders there would be better terminology to draw the reader’s attention to the church leadership.

b. The individual is the one that is to care for the widow according to verse four.

c. Verse 16 is very specific that the individual is in view in this whole concept. The individual should do it if possible, if not then the church should take over.

CONCLUSION:

The primary emphasis is on the individual caring for his own family and widows so that the church is not burdened with that financial supply.

There is a secondary emphasis to the church itself by application. We are family and if we have family in need that is not being cared for, then we are in error.

I would like to make a few observations about this text and the misuse of it by many through the years.

1. This text speaks of taking care of widows after the fact of the death of their husband. It also speaks of her remaining family caring for her.

2. It is not speaking to the husband that does not supply his wife, before the fact of his death with a house, two cars and $200,000 in life insurance.

The husband is to provide for his wife while they are together, but there is no indication that there is a Scriptural requirement for him to provide for her after he is gone.

It is nice if he can provide for her widowhood needs before he leaves, but in many cases this is an impossibility. We know of people that have never made enough too much more than feed themselves and the man has died. That man isn't worse than an infidel. His family is worse than an infidel if they don't care for her.

3. The Lord Himself had the responsibility of his widowed mother. Tradition and logic tell us that Joseph probably died much before the crucifixion. Christ did not have an insurance policy on himself with a double indemnity clause in case of crucifixion.

He did not provide for Mary other than asking John to watch out for her.

Was He worse than an infidel? No, never, but this would be the practical application if I Tim 5:8 were speaking of providing before you leave this life for the women in your life.

I am not speaking against insurance, cars and houses based on this text, but want you to understand that God does not require us to work our lives to provide for times that MIGHT happen.

My father was told when he was twenty-one that he would not live ten years more. He went ahead and married and had children. He made all his plans on what he had been told. He put all the insurance on my mother - none on himself. She died quite a few years before he did - planning doesn't always work out the way you want.

There are many ministers and missionaries of past generations and present generations that are in serious trouble if this verse speaks of providing insurance.

I have heard several over the years really downgrade anyone that hasn't set their spouse up financially.

WRONG!!!!

The real proof of the pudding of my thought is the fact that the time of Paul was before the time of life insurance and IRA's. The best they could do was bury it in the backyard.

You might note that the text is in a present tense and not looking back at the man that pulled the dumb stunt of passing over.

The man that does not care for a widow is denying the faith in that he is not doing what Paul has stated that he should and he is not doing that which the unsaved do by nature. The natural thing to do is to care for your own.

Indeed, it is an indication of the coldness of the believers Timothy was working with for Paul to have to mention the subject.

The thought of “deny” the faith is a perfect tense which is something that was completed in the past. There may be more to this denial than most commentators suggest. Most feel that he is simply not living up to what the faith would have him do.

I would suggest that inaction is openly showing what the persons’ internal relationship to God is. NONBELIEVER may well be the case.

II. CRITERIA OF WIDOW SUPPORT

9 Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man,

"Taken into the number" would indicate that this was an actual listing of the widows that had need and that they were literally ministered to via the church funds and/or the peoples material possessions.

Wesley held that this was a taking into the number of deaconesses. He did not indicate what this thought was based on. I would view it simply as a listing of folks in need of help.

"Having been the wife of one man" would be similar to the elders’ qualification of a one woman man - this is a one man woman! She may have had more than one marriage, though any new marriage was only after she had been widowed from the previous.

The proof that Paul is not limiting this to one husband is seen in 5.4 where he tells the younger widows to remarry. If he were telling them to remarry and they then couldn't be added to the list in later years, Paul would have been very unfair to the younger.

Barnes would disagree with me, but his only proof to the contrary is the fact that widows that did not remarry after their first husband died where held with respect as seen in Luke 2.36-37 "She was a widow of great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity; and she was a widow of about fourscore and four years." I am not sure that this is proof enough to limit the passage in this manner.

10 Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work.

We have covered these in the previous study, but I would make a comment or two concerning the washing of feet.

Washing of feet was a custom and courtesy of the culture of the day. The roads were not blacktopped and people did not have LTD's to drive to different locations, so when a person arrived to visit or maybe come to your home for a gathering of the church the dust would be heavy on the foot.

A foot washing would have been something offered to any guest coming into a home. This is not a proof text for foot washing, though the attitude of servant hood is certainly an application we can derive from this text.

I have read literature from the Brethren church - those that believe in foot washing as an ordinance and they do not use this passage in their presentation. Indeed, the only passage they suggest is that of the Lord when He washed the apostles feet. (They do mention this text as an example of it being done in their conclusion.)

III. UNWORTHY OF WIDOW SUPPORT

Now, we need to insert a disclaimer before we move onto the next section. This is Paul speaking, this is his doctrine, these are thoughts from HIS mind - I am not responsible for what he says.

11 But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry;

This is not a prohibition of helping a widowed woman under sixty, but it is a prohibition of putting her on the list for permanent help.

Any woman that has not worked and looses her husband might need help to get onto her feet, but the help should be viewed by her and the church as only temporary.

The thought of the text in other translations has the idea of when they have healed from their loss they will begin to have desires toward the opposite sex and that they will probably marry and not need the help of the church.

In my mind the younger woman might make a commitment to the Lord and to serve Him, but as the healing process goes along, she might find that she desires to remarry.

12 Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith.

The reading of these verses in the King James Version is very negative and degrading to the younger widow.

The NASB may help us to understand what Paul is saying. "But refuse to put younger widows on the list, for when they feel sensual desires in disregard of Christ, they want to get married, thus incurring condemnation, because they have set aside their previous pledge." 5:11-12

The thought seems to be that the younger widows of the day were in the habit of pledging to remain unmarried for the remainder of life, but that Paul knew that many wouldn't keep that pledge and Paul would desire that they go ahead and remarry.

The condemnation would not be spiritual in any way unless they had made a vow to the Lord in the thought of the Old Testament, in which case there might be a loss of reward.

There is also the thought that she might receive condemnation from either the church people or the unsaved.

Burkitt feels this to be a matter of salvation: "waxing wanton against Christ, would marry; that is, growing weary of the church's service, and despairing of marriage in the church, would revolt from the faith, and marry some infidel out of the church.

"Having damnation; that is, committing a sin worthy of damnation, and bringing themselves into a damnable condition. Because they renounced their first faith, which they made profession of when they were baptized, turning apostates to please their infidel husbands, which the apostle calls a turning after Satan, verse 15, to the great scandal of Christianity."

I think this is a radical interpretation and not based on a good reading of the passage.

13 And withal they learn [to be] idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not.

If they don't get married and settle down they will just get into trouble. Let's list that trouble that is mentioned:

"Be idle" would be the natural thing to arise - no husband to care for - time on their hands would be the ultimate result.

"Wandering house to house" Being idle, what else is there to do in a day without television, stereos, movie theaters, malls, cars, and all those goodies.

"Tattlers" - I saw a note on a Baptist church bulletin board years ago that there is no better machine for picking up dirt than the telephone. Now Paul did not know of the telephone so I think he just knew women of his own day.

I assume that the tattling would be on one another and anyone else that had the misfortune to come into range.

One of the possible translations of this term is babbling, which kind of says it all.

"Busybodies" One commentary suggested not only is there the thought of being involved in useless activities, but also neglecting useful activities - neglecting is kind of the result of the former.

The thought of false doctrine might come into the picture, though Paul does not list it specifically, and women tend to lead one another astray if they begin to talk about things of this sort.

In our own day we have groups for support of most any problem that you have faced. They get together and begin talking of their experiences and miseries and woes and problems and depressions to the point that everyone comes away feeling good, or so they say. In light of this text I rather question the validity of these get-togethers.

In short, they won't turn out to be the Godly saintly widows that the 60-year-olds will.

The church will be hindered if they have this type of person on the list to be helped.

I DIDN'T SAY A WORD! NOT ONE SINGLE SOLITARY WORD DID I SAY ABOUT THE TRUTH OR THE FALSEHOOD OF THE UPCOMING STATEMENTS OF PAUL!

14 I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.

15 For some are already turned aside after Satan.

Here we have the crux of what Paul was getting at. If you keep them out of trouble then they will not be an occasion for gossip and charges from without the church.

Paul mentions that some have already followed this route and this is enough. The indications are that they have not only just been a problem, but that they have fallen into sin in some manner.

The sin may well relate to the woman of verse six that is in pleasure and that is spiritually dead.

I had to wonder as I studied this text if the old adage - "Keep them barefoot and pregnant" came from Paul's line of thinking.

I don't say any of this to slight women, nor do I believe that slight was in the mind of Paul.

The place for the woman is in the home doing what she is naturally talented at. Raising kids and keeping her husband happy.

She was not meant to work and support the family, she was meant to raise and care for it. Again, I am not saying women can't or shouldn't work if the need arises.

IIII. THE CRITERIA OF WIDOW SUPPORT

16 If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed.

Again, we see the thought that we have expressed throughout.

Paul wants those that can to support their widows and if that is not possible then the church should do so.

APPLICATION:

1. Some might suggest that this comes out of the old Judaism and that since we are in the church that we aren't bound by it.

Wrong! Paul related this truth to Timothy, his personal representative to share with the church leaders. It was in the context of the local church. It is for us today.

2. It is our responsibility to care for the widows. There is no other interpretation available.

a. If she really qualifies as a widow indeed, we should, as a church, get involved in her welfare.

b. We have social security today and it is from the government that God placed us under so we naturally should encourage the widow to use that money first. Then as she NEEDED, we should as a church assist her.

We aren't talking the Ritz and trips to Hawaii here folks; we are talking of helping her get along with her NEEDS.

3. I believe that every church should literally have a list of widows that they care for if there are any that are a part of their church!

We might consider one more item that relates to our discussion. We ought not support the widows because Paul told us to support the widows. He was evidently reminding the folks at Ephesus of their responsibility to the widows.

Our love for one another should ultimately move us to love one another materially if there is a need, especially in the case of the widows, that have no one to give them assistance - Love one another was the Lord's command, and this extends to all believers, but I would say especially to those that have a greater need.

Besides that it is the natural thing to do!

I think a church that is creative could do a lot for the widows today. Just visiting them would be a great asset. Clean Their house - do yard work, do repairs if they are unable - just be useful to them.

Set up a meals on wheels program with volunteers if you have enough widows. Help them get to appointments and doctors.

It is not only our natural and Biblical responsibility but it ought to be a privilege to help one of God's children in need.