1 Timothy 5
LenskiCHAPTER V
How Timothy Is to Direct the Treatment of Certain Individual Cases and of Certain Classes of Members
1 Timothy 5:1
1 Some think that chapter 4 brings the letter to a close, and that chapters 5 and 6 contain only afterthoughts. This view includes the supposition that the last two chapters are very loosely put together and are a jumble of minor subjects.
The first four chapters by no means conclude the directions given Timothy. As Paul’s representative in all the Asian congregations Timothy will have to supervise the handling of certain individual cases as well as the general treatment of various groups in the membership of the churches under his care. Note the singular alternating with the plurals in chapters 5 and 6. Here we have Paul’s suggestions for this important part of Timothy’s work. These chapters are misunderstood when it is supposed that Timothy shall do all this in his own person, and when it is thought that all these cases and all these classes of people appear only in the one congregation at Ephesus. Timothy is supervising many churches, and it is his duty to show the elders in all these churches and the congregations themselves how to act and what attitude to take in regard to this or that person or this or that class of persons.
Now the items included in this final section of the letter are indeed quite diverse, we may say even heterogeneous. Paul speaks of elders and slaves, widows and rich men. Yet these items are not merely jumbled together. Matters that are so diverse are yet arranged in a natural order by Paul. Our mind might prefer a different order, which might also be good; but it is our business to follow Paul’s mind, to appreciate his arrangement of the materials, which we shall do with much profit to ourselves.
Admonishing Individual Members, 1, 2
An older man do not assault but proceed to admonish as a father; younger ones as brothers, older women as mothers, younger ones as sisters, in all purity.
Among the various subjects which Paul wishes to take up for Timothy’s detailed consideration this one is properly treated first because of its wide application. Admonition will ever be needed, and it will have to be given to men as well as to women, to old as well as to young. This first subject calls for no long elaboration, a few pointers are enough. We are, however, not to think that Timothy is personally to do all of this admonishing in all the congregations under his supervision. Elders have this obligation because of their office; yea, also Christians generally have it. What Paul addresses to Timothy in the second person is, indeed, to be observed by Timothy, but in such a way that he may direct all others in the churches to observe it likewise.
Timothy could not possibly do all of the admonishing necessary in all these congregations, nor does Paul expect him to do this. We note 4:11, especially also 4:12: “continue thou to be an example to the believers,” etc. We note similar statements in the following paragraphs. Timothy is to show his people how to proceed when they are admonishing those who may need it.
When the persons to be admonished are older, their age must be kept in mind by the person admonishing them; when both are of the same age, or when one is younger, they are to be treated as brethren or as sisters in Christ. When one old man admonishes another, one old lady another, they will, of course, treat each other as equals in age. There is no need to enter into all the details.
“Do not go at an older man roughshod!” The verb means to assault or strike with blows, but it is here used in the metaphorical sense of pounding with words. We shall see that even younger persons are not to be treated in that way. Our versions have translated: “Rebuke not an elder,” but this leads us to think of the technical term “elder” (v. 17), of a man in that office, which the following shows to be incorrect. It also leads us to think that “rebuke” is improper, yet in 2 Tim. 4:2 both of our versions let Paul tell Timothy to “rebuke.” Age does not make admonition unnecessary: Alter schuetzt vor Torheit nicht; but when a younger person is obliged to deal with an older one, riding roughshod over him or over her is peculiarly out of place because of the difference in age. The aorist means: “Do nothing of the kind!”
The present imperative is iterative and refers to all cases that may occur: “proceed to admonish (him) as a father,” admonish, not assault, and do that as one would admonish a father who may in some way be at fault. In 4:13 Paul uses the noun that is derived from this verb παρακαλῶ, to call to one’s side or to call aside; according to the context the verb means “to exhort,” “to admonish,” “to encourage,” “to comfort,” sometimes “to entreat.” “Admonish” is the proper word here; it also refers to all the others, old women, young men, and young women. One would be very considerate when admonishing one’s father, likewise one’s mother. That is the cue for all admonition of older persons by younger ones. Lev. 19:32: “Thou shalt rise up before the hoary head, and honor the face of the old man.” see Prov. 16:32; 20:29.
1 Timothy 5:2
2 When Paul says “the younger as brothers, the older women as mothers, the younger ones as sisters,” we have the picture of a whole family in which each one is properly considerate of the others also when one is obliged to admonish. The naming of these ages and these sexes indicates that the faults here contemplated as needing admonition for their correction are the common ones to which old and young, men and women are liable, and that errors of doctrine are not considered even as Paul has a separate section for such people (6:3, etc.) and in Tit. 3:10 uses quite a different verb and orders a different kind of procedure.
The last phrase, ἐνἁγνείᾳ, which has the same noun that was used in 4:12: “in all purity,” is commonly understood to mean that Timothy is to watch his sexual nature when he is admonishing younger women because he is still a younger man (4:12). This phrase is to be construed with the verb. It does not modify “younger women” or “as sisters,” for then this “purity” would characterize them, and not the act of admonishing. The noun does not mean Keuschheit, compare 4:12, because it modifies the verb and applies to all four objects of that verb. This is “purity” in the sense of Tadellosigkeit (G. K.): all admonishing is itself to be without flaw or fault, for nothing spoils admonition more than when it is done in a way that lays the one who is admonishing open to counter-admonition.
Widows, Their Support, Their Marrying again, 3–16
1 Timothy 5:3
3 Paul devotes so much consideration to this subject because it has several angles and because the keeping of lists of old widows was a new matter. It may be possible that this plan had been recently introduced and had not as yet been established in all the churches; perhaps also the details had not as yet been permanently fixed. Paul says nothing about orphans. This is not to be a section on charity in general nor even on charity to any and to all needy widows. It deals with all widows and thus also with the support of widows.
There are widows and widows. As widows honor those genuinely widows. Χήρας, without the article, is predicative to τὰςὄντωςχήρας. We do not think that τίμα means “honor with support.” When this meaning is given to this word by an appeal to what follows, we answer that no reader can anticipate that this will follow. Two kinds of widows are not genuine widows, namely such as have relatives and such as plunge into a gay life. In one respect they are widows, for they have lost their husbands. In another respect they are not widows, they have not been entirely deprived.
We get Paul’s meaning when we note the significant predicate accusative “as widows.” Χήρα is derived from χῆρος: “robbed,” and thus means a woman robbed of her husband. Paul means: “As robbed ones honor only those who have really been robbed,” i.e., those who have actually been left alone. Those who are in the midst of relatives still have these relatives; those who plunge into pleasures—well, they are dead while living (v. 6).
One might expect Paul to say: “Sympathize with real widows!” He says “honor.” This is the word that is used concerning the regard children are to have for parents, cf., Eph. 6:2; Exod. 20:12. He is not thinking of age, for there are also young widows, and he himself speaks of such. Paul has the Old Testament views. Like orphans, widows are in a special way under the protection of God. To hurt them is listed among the great crimes. Exod. 22:22, 23; Deut. 14:29; 24:17, 19; 26:12; 27:19; Job 24:3; Ps. 68:5; Prov. 15:25. This applies not only to Timothy but also to all the congregations as v. 7 shows.
1 Timothy 5:4
4 We now get the answer to the question as to who are “genuine widows.” But if any widow has children or grandchildren, let them be learning as the first thing to be dutiful to their own family and duly render requital to their parents, for this is acceptable in the sight of God. The genuine widow, however, namely (the one) having been left alone, has set her hope (only) on God and remains on in her petitions and her prayers by night and by day. But the one luxuriating, though living, has died.
Not a few widows have grown children, even grown grandchildren; these should be learning to take care of their mother or their grandmother, namely by constantly doing so (present imperative). Ἔκγονα and πρόγονα match, and the latter is aptly used here as a designation for either a mother or a grandmother of these children or these grandchildren. When the A. V. translates “nephews” it is perfectly correct, for in the English of 1611 this word was used in the meaning grandchildren (the Standard Dictionary lists this use as obsolete).
Paul states the proposition in its full breadth: the very first thing to learn is that such children or such grandchildren must be dutiful to their own οἶκος, “house” or “family,” which includes all the members of the family. Εὐσεβεῖν, like the noun in 4:7, etc., is used with reference to dutifulness toward God and toward one’s country or one’s family, including parents, grandparents, and other relatives. When the object is God and what pertains to God, we translate “to be godly”; here we translate so as to fit “their own house.” Epexegetic καί adds what the broad infinitive covers in particular: “and duly to render (ἀπό = duly, it is often used in this sense with διδόναι, to give) requital to their parents” (here = living ancestors and includes a father and a grandfather as well as a mother or a grandmother). Ἀμοιβή, a common word, means “requital”; our versions translate the verb and the noun together: “to requite.” Requital may be used in the evil sense; here it is used in the good sense of returning the good which children and grandchildren have received in childhood from their parents.
“This is acceptable in the sight of God.” This is true beyond question. No child can ever make full requital. Godly children should delight in making all the requital they can. Yet it has been well said that one father is able to keep and provide for ten children while ten children often cannot see their way clear to take care of one old father. Godly children will welcome the opportunity and will delight the more in embracing it because it meets with God’s approval. The proposition is general and thus includes a widowed mother or a grandmother. Paul has these alone in mind in this paragraph.
This is the obligation of the church, namely to teach all children and all grandchildren what God wants them to do so that they may do it in every case and do it in the right spirit. This is, however, only one phase of the subject, namely where a widow has grown children or grandchildren. The consideration of widows with small children, of widows with other relatives who could take care of them is postponed until v. 16; Paul is not forgetting them. This problem of widows was more serious in ancient days than it is today because at that time widows and lone women could find far less opportunity for earning a living.
We now begin to see what Paul means by “genuine widows” and by “honoring” them. He is not disparaging widows who have children and grandchildren to provide for them, they are not left utterly alone. The widowhood Paul has in mind is a far sadder matter. Paul is not excluding from congregational help every widow with grown children and grandchildren lest the congregation be unduly burdened. Paul’s words imply that all needy widows are to be provided for; the church has the obligation to see to that and to teach it to the members, in particular to children and to grandchildren who have needy parents. What the congregation is to do when children disregard this teaching need not be said; the church will take proper measures and will not abandon a widow who has heartless children.
Μανθανέτω, the singular: let the widow who has children or grandchildren learn, is textually worthless but indicates how Paul was misunderstood by a few copyists who thought that Paul was saying that the widow is to do the learning. The Vulgate, Chrysostom, Pelagius, and a few late writers retain the plural μανθανέτωσαν: let them be learning, but think that Paul refers to these widows. It is claimed that Paul has a similar construction in 2:11; Rom. 3:2; 1 Cor. 7:36, and that such a change in number is also made in Matt. 8:4; Luke 23:50, 51. But neither Paul nor any other writer has such a construction.
Just as decisive is the sense that would result, namely that these widows are to learn first of all to attend to their own household—when some of them already have grandchildren! Are we to suppose that widows who have reached this age did not do this εὐσεβεῖν while their husbands were still alive, and that now, at an age when they have grandchildren, they are “first to learn” this dutiful care of their homes? Are we to suppose that these widowed mothers and grandmothers are for the first time to learn to requite their dead ancestors for what these ancestors did for them? The subject implied in the plural “let them learn” is indicated in the previous clause: the children or the grandchildren are to learn, now that their mother or their grandmother has become widowed, that their first great duty is to take care of their own house, which includes requiting such a widow, taking proper care of her.
1 Timothy 5:5
5 Paul is not speaking of a widow who has children or grandchildren that have divine obligations toward her. It is the duty of the congregation to point such children, etc., to this divine obligation so that they may learn it. In case they are remiss in doing their duty, v. 1, 2 indicate that proper admonition should be applied. Δέ states the kind of a widow Paul does have in mind: “The genuine widow, however, namely (the one) that has been left alone (μόνος, solitary, the perfect indicating the continuing condition), has set her hope (only) on God and continues on with her petitions and her prayers by night and by day” (genitives of time within; “by night” is generally placed first). This describes a “real” widow, one who is completely widowed. Καί is epexegetical to ὄντως: one who is left all “alone” and in that sense is “desolate” (the word that is used in our versions). While we pity all women who have lost their husbands, our hearts go out most of all to one who is left totally alone. Lone aged widows are pitiful cases, but the worst cases are widows who are left with little children, half-orphans. The case is not so bad when there are children or grandchildren who are old enough for the εὐσεβεῖν (v. 4) that is so pleasing to God; but when the children are small, they burden the lonely widow’s heart the more.
With tender tact Paul only describes this kind of a Christian widow. He says, “she has set her hope on God,” on him who has made so many promises to just such sadly bereft widows and has raised so many protections around them in his Word. Paul states how this widow sets her constant hope on God (specifying καί): by ever continuing with her petitions, by laying all her needs before God, and by her prayers (the wider word which includes all types of praying), at night on her pillow, by day when worry would assail her about this or that. Paul does not command this widow so to set her hope, etc., nor order the church to ask her to learn to do this. This description, since it is only a description, is more effective than such a command or order would be. It implies that, before anybody can bid her do this, she has already complied.
For the children and the grandchildren of the other widow Paul writes an imperative (v. 4) but not for this widow. Even the two tenses are significant: “has set her hope” from the start of her lone widowhood and “continues on” night by night, day by day. I greatly admire Paul for writing this verse as he did.
Include also the fact that he says not a word about the obligation of the congregation to help support this kind of a widow who surely needs such support if any widow does. Here we have the same tact. Is there a true Christian church that will not support such a widow, that must still be commanded and told to do so? The effectiveness of the description of a truly lone Christian widow is as great for the church in regard to what the church must do as for herself in regard to what her trust in God should be. In one little sentence Paul is able to touch both her heart and that of the church.
1 Timothy 5:6
6 There is, however, another kind of widow who is not genuine—the worst kind of all: “But the one luxuriating, though living, has died.” The impact made by this brevity is strong. Paul does not even use the word “widow” when he is speaking of her, she does not deserve it. The substantivized feminine durative participle is enough: “the one luxuriating.” It is out of the question to supply ὄντωςκαὶμεμονωμένη as though this kind of a widow could be “a genuine and lonely one”; yet this has been done. Σπαταλᾶν (see also James 5:5) = to luxuriate. She blossoms out in beautiful dress in order to enjoy her new freedom, is a rather fast lady (as White puts it), “the merry widow,” and admirers give her “a good time.” The word is exactly proper. It does not say that she is sensual but somewhat suggests that. She is full of gay pleasure and enjoys the money spent on her. It is the German schwelgen, ueppig leben.
The oxymoron is devastating: “while alive, she has died.” Or, since this perfect generally means that when one “has died” he “is dead”: “is dead while she liveth” (our versions). She is both at the same time: physically “alive,” spiritually dead. There have been two deaths, two funerals: her husband died, and the spiritual life in her died. He is a corpse, she a living one, her state is far worse than his.
Again we have only description, no word of command, no apostolic order for anyone. Why an order to her who is beyond reach of the Word? Why to the church and the ministry from whom she has separated? To tell us that Paul means that the church is not to support such a woman is to insult the apostle as well as Timothy and the church.
1 Timothy 5:7
7 And these things order in order that they maybe irreproachable. “And” makes this sentence a part of the foregoing. “These things” have been referred only to v. 5, 6 or only to v. 6 on the plea that widows alone are to be “irreproachable” (this term is used also in 3:2.) But how can v. 5, 6 be thus separated from v. 3. 4? Verse 8 restates v. 4 so that v. 3–8 really form a unit. Some things stated in this letter are simply to guide Timothy in his work of supervision; others he is “to announce” publicly in the churches and thus “to order”; everybody concerned is to be informed and is at the same time to comply. Note this verb in 1:4 and 3:11. The time to do this was not after cases had developed but far ahead of such development. The indefinite clause: “in order that they may be irreproachable,” refers to any and to all whom the matters mentioned in v. 3–6 plus also v. 8 may concern when the time arrived.
While they are growing up, all children and all grandchildren are to learn what v. 4 contains so that they may requite their parents when the time and the opportunity arrive whether it be a father or a mother, a grandfather or a grandmother, who may be in need. Verse 8 states this in a still more comprehensive way since v. 4 names only a widowed mother or a grandmother and “parents.” All maidens and all women are to learn what v. 5, 6 contain and not only after they have been married and become widowed. The roots of their irreproachableness reach far back. In other words, these matters belong to the life of the church. This should be remembered when the word “irreproachable” is considered. Reproach would descend upon a widow who is like that one mentioned in v. 6 as well as upon children and grandchildren who fail in what v. 4 states, reproach from outsiders and still more from true church members.
But the whole church itself would incur grave reproach if what Paul here writes were not preached and ordered in her midst. Paul’s ἵνα clause includes all of it.
1 Timothy 5:8
8 Some would separate v. 8 from the preceding and thus make δέ adversative or indicative of a new subject, one that has nothing to do with v. 7. The thought itself decides against this view. We note that connectives are used to join all the statements from v. 3 to v. 8. Not until we reach v. 9 do we come to a break in the thought; there we have an asyndeton. But does v. 7 with its command to Timothy not close the subject? If not, should not v. 8 precede v. 7?
The matter is cleared up when we note that v. 8 concludes the subject that has been elaborated thus far; v. 8 states the sum of it all in the most general form. This matter regarding widows is not something that concerns widows alone as if they were an exceptional class; they, together with all other dependents, belong to a family, for all of whom the head of the house must provide and not cast off or abandon a single one to shift for himself or herself or to be cared for by the congregation. It is thus that Paul says with a simple δέ that adds something that is somewhat different from the preceding (offering the whole principle): Now if anyone does not provide for his own and especially his family members he denies the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
This is stated in the strongest form. Hence, unlike v. 4, the protasis is negative; it is characteristic of Paul to state a thought positively and negatively (or vice versa). In v. 4 it is: “Let them, learn!” here the sense is: “If one will not learn, this is the verdict to be pronounced on him.” But in v. 4 we have the case of only one widow; here it is a question of any and of all dependents. The reference of “anyone” is perfectly plain: it is the person who has a household, whose business it is to provide for the members of this household. The verb means “to think beforehand” and thus (intensified) to carry out this thinking, i.e., “to provide.” Paul states it in the most comprehensive way: “provide for his own and especially his family members.” The preferred reading has only one article, for Paul does not refer to two distinct groups. Οἱἴδιοι, “his own,” are all who belong to the head of the house, servants and members of the family; οἰκεῖοι refers to the latter only; “especially” is used exactly as it was in 4:10. Here is a strong argument regarding the support of a widowed mother or grandmother: one ought to provide for even his servants, how much more then for one’s own mother or grandmother. But all dependents are included: father and mother, if these are dependent, wife and children, also other relatives such as orphaned nephews and nieces.
This is the Christian teaching. Now he who will not live up to that, “the faith (placed forward for the sake of emphasis, nothing less) he denies,” etc. Here we again have “the faith” (articulated). This does not refer to personal faith in the heart, the subjective fides qua creditur; it is the objective faith and doctrine that is held by the church, fides quae creditur. By his act this man denies, says “no” to what the church believes, namely the Fourth Commandment and all its teaching regarding the Christian obligations of the head of the house. One denies teaching, doctrine, principles, objective things; one loses something that is subjective.
Paul does not say that he has lost his faith. Paul does not judge the heart. Paul judges actions, and these we are to judge. When by his action and course of action a man openly “denies the faith,” repudiates and disowns the Christian teaching, what has he to cling to inwardly with his heart, with his subjective faith? He may cling to something, but since it is not the Christian teaching, it is a lie of some kind. Even if we translate τήν “his”; “he denies his faith,” πίστιν remains objective: the thing that he ought to believe he denies and rejects.
In order to make plain the enormity of such an action Paul adds in an explicative way: “and is worse than an unbeliever,” one who never believed and never professed to believe. The thought is not that an unbeliever would always provide for the members of his family and his servants—many do not; but when an unbeliever does not do so, bad as he is, bad as his action is, it is not as bad as having the true teaching and then flagrantly denying it. What the congregation should do with a member of this kind does not need to be added. His verdict is written here.
As a matter of record let us add von Hofmann’s and his disciple Wohlenberg’s interpretation of this verse: “It pertains to the housefather who during his lifetime did not fulfill the duty to provide in such a way for his own and in particular for his wife and children that after his death they suffer no need.” Again: “Verse 8 is to prevent the eventuality that a widow should survive penniless and needlessly become a burden to the congregation through the fault of him who should have provided for her.”
1 Timothy 5:9
9 There is no connective; hence, as in v. 3, we have a new topic. Paul is still speaking about widows, but what is the reason for entering them in a list—none below sixty—every one only when she is also otherwise duly qualified? Everybody would like to know more about this listing, but we have only this one sentence (v. 9, 10). The qualifications enumerated recall those that were stipulated for women deacons (3:11), but they are not identical with them. Did these aged women have official duties? Paul’s statement regarding them does not appear in the section that deals with the various congregational offices.
The fact that the congregations supported only widows of this age cannot be assumed, and the qualifications required for listing are of such a kind that only those women could meet them who during their married life had commanded means and had used them in good works also during their widowhood until they reached the age of sixty. This should be well noted, for it answers the assumption that these sixty-year-old widows were enrolled for the purpose of receiving support, either complete support or partial regular support.
Zahn regards these “widows” as being wholly supported by the church and regularly matriculated for that reason, as being without homes, home obligations, and home inclinations, as under a vow not to marry again—all these points, in Zahn’s estimation, point to the fact that only the neediest women “enjoyed” the benefit of this institution. One notes that Zahn adds to the qualifications which Paul lists: 1) a vow (Geluebde), which we cannot accept; 2) extreme poverty, which does not agree with Paul’s set of qualifications; 3) total disinclination to house and home duties, which does not agree with the motherhood Paul mentions (are all the children to be regarded as being dead?) and the previous free hospitality toward strangers and saints. If Zahn’s limitations and requirements are added, how many such widows who were fit to be enrolled would be found in a congregation?
To what extent the post-Apostolic institution of Honor Widows was a continuation of what we find in Paul’s time is uncertain. This we regard as being true: 1) these widows were not congregational officers such as elders, deacons, and deaconesses were; 2) they either had no special duties at all or none that were similar to those of the deaconesses; 3) they were not poor and destitute of means, at least not all were in such poverty; 4) they were not all childless and thus without home ties. These are negative points and thus cast little light on the positive position of these enrolled widows and on the purpose of formally enrolling them.
As widow let there be enrolled such a one as has come to be not less than sixty years. This is the Greek; our versions make it more English. In order to be entered on the congregational list a widow must have attained the age of at least sixty years. Those who were below that age were ineligible already on that score. The obvious reason for this age limit is the fact that widows of sixty and over would not be likely to be sought for a second marriage; but that is all that we are safe in saying. The fact that they were required to make a pledge or a vow, or that they did this of their own accord, is not said or implied.
The fact that remarriage was forbidden these enrolled widows is also not in the text; it is only the natural expectation because of their age. The verb means “to be elected” and thus “to be enrolled” or entered on a list. The one would imply the other; a record or list of those elected would be kept. We get the impression that the congregation took a vote and that the elders made a record.
Χήρα is the predicate nominative, the participle and its negative modifier are the subject. The participle cannot thus be construed with the following, for this would leave the imperative without a subject. The proposal to regard “as widow” to mean “as a genuine widow” (supplying ὄντως from v. 3 and 5) we consider untenable 1) because many a widow would be a genuine one in Paul’s sense of the word before she reached the age of sixty and 2) because the definition of this genuineness has been given already in v. 5, and what is now added pertains to the listing and is thus quite distinct. The absence of a connective has brought us to a new subject. Timothy and the churches knew what entering names on the list meant; unfortunately, we do not know. The genitive depends on the adverb: “not less than sixty years”; and the negatived adverb depends on the perfect participle “having come to be.”
One husband’s wife is an apposition to the subject-participle; the A. V. construes the participle with this apposition, which is not correct. The sense is the same as that of 1:2, 12, “one wife’s husband.” None of these three expressions means that the person must have been married only once; all three mean that the person must have been true and faithful to one married spouse. This subject has been much discussed, principally, it seems, because in the present passage γεγονυῖα was construed with γυνή. Even if such a construction were made, the sense would not be that the widow to be placed on the list must have been married only once and not twice. A widow who had lived as “one husband’s wife” should live was eligible.
1 Timothy 5:10
10 The second apposition is a participle like the subject itself: attested In good works, i.e., to whom Christians lend testimony in connection with (ἐν) excellent works. The form of thought is Greek and neatly concise. The qualifications are two and only two. Both refer to past conduct and thus to the woman’s reputation: faithfulness to her husband during his life, diligence in good works. The congregation could easily and very properly judge regarding both points.
The clauses introduced by εἰ are indirect questions and represent such questions as would be asked when inquiry was made about the kind of good works the woman had done. Paul has five such questions; we have explained this five in 4:12; what we said there applies also here. These five questions enter into a part of the domain in which the woman may have testimony of good works. It is for this reason that the last question opens a wide and no longer a specific sphere: “whether she followed after every kind of beneficial work.”
The idea is not that, in order to be eligible, the widow must have distinguished herself in every one of these five fields of womanly work, for look at the fifth field which is limitless, which might also include the four other fields. In one or in the other, in several, perhaps even in all four specific fields here touched upon and in some not here touched upon her fellow members will be ready to accord her the praise of good testimony. Thus, whether she brought up children, whether she washed saints’ feet, whether she relieved afflicted ones, whether she followed after every kind of beneficial work.
Some suppose that these questions mean: whether she is qualified for leadership. They think that her enrollment indicates an office, and that these questions indicate the work of this office: whether in the past she has shown willingness and aptitude for the work she is now to do officially. But this view cannot be sustained when these questions are examined.
“Whether she brought up children” is naturally the first question, for good motherhood is woman’s great province. Here the idea that Paul has in mind a lone widow breaks down, for one cannot think that only sixty-year-old widows, all of whose children had died, were eligible. How many widows of this kind would there be? Women who were sixty years or more old would not be proper persons to be made official caretakers of orphans in the congregation. However, to say of an old widow that in her younger years she was a good mother in the home is noble praise. One may from already this one item draw the most pertinent applications for the women of today.
“Whether she exercised hospitality” is explained in 3:2; here the wife’s part in this hospitality is referred to. The husband receives the guests, but the wife must cook, see to the beds, and do the work generally. An office is not reflected here: these old widows were certainly not to be the congregation’s official dispensers of hospitality. Poverty and destitution are ruled out, for when hospitality was needed, guests would not be directed to poor homes by the elders when there were well-to-do homes to welcome the guests. The suggestion that these women who were now widows became poverty-stricken since their widowhood, is untenable. But generous hospitality that was exercised in the past remains worthy of praise in later days.
Closely allied are the next two questions: “whether she washed saints’ feet, whether she relieved afflicted ones.” We think of John 13:15 and Luke 7:44. Travelers and guests who were received into the house had their sandals untied and their feet laved. This was the task of lowly servants, and when guests were to be honored, the host attended to it. But the matter of hospitality has already been named, and this new question cannot refer to one feature of that hospitality, to its cordiality as some think. Nor would the housewife of the Orient wash a guest’s feet unless it be a woman guest’s. The expression is figurative for rendering menial service, being not too proud to stoop.
So also these “saints” are not house guests but fellow Christians in the congregation who need lowly service and assistance. Thus hospitality in the woman’s own home and then helpful lowly service in the homes of destitute fellow Christians are referred to.
So we come to relieving those who were afflicted, those who were in sad or dire straits, perhaps because of persecution. Here are four great fields in which a Christian woman could have distinguished herself during her married life and also after that. But the whole field is far wider, and Paul adds the question about “every kind of beneficial work,” ἀγαθός, good and helpful toward others, (C.-K. 4), καλός in the first question means beautiful, excellent in the judgment of Christians and of God.
With this we shall have to leave the question unanswered as to what this enrollment of widows who were sixty years old and over really means. To mention a Widows’ Honor Guild, a sort of widows’ society, is supposition.
11, 12) Now younger widows decline to be bothered with, for whenever they act high and mighty against Christ they want to marry, having a judgment (resting on them) because they set aside the first faith. Moreover, at the same time also they learn (how to be) idle, wandering around to the houses, and not only idle but also tattlers and busy-bodies, talking the things they ought not. Accordingly I intend younger ones to marry, to bear children, to rule the house, and (thus) to offer not even a single occasion to the adversary as far as reviling is concerned. For already some did turn off after Satan.
One interpretation is: Debar younger widows from admission to the Widows’ Guild and from the congregational support which the widows of this guild receive, for they are too likely to abuse this support; instead of devoting themselves to the office they thus assume, their strong sexual desire will make them break their vow of celibacy, and they will want to marry again and in the meantime will gad around from house to house, tattle and carry tales. Hence Paul wants them to marry in the first place, to raise a family, and to be homebodies, etc. Another interpretation is: Debar these younger widows because the congregational support will make them want to enjoy Christ in such a luxurious fashion that they will break their vow or word, will want to marry again, etc. Parry offers the suggestion that admission to the Widows’ Guild was by means of an ordination like that of bishops and deacons.
Τὴνπρώτηνπίστιν does not mean “the first vow” or—toned down—“the first given word or pledge” never to marry again. Πίστις never means either. This is not a “first vow or pledge” that is to be followed by a second, either in the case of sexagenarian or in the case of younger widows. This is not an apostolic beginning of monastic orders. Paul is not in one breath keeping widows from remarriage and in the next breath urging this very thing. No sexagenarian widow was by some form of vow kept from a late honorable marriage. There is no trace of such false asceticism here.
The same is also true with regard to poverty and congregational support. We have presented the evidence that the old widows as a class were not penniless and dependent on congregational support. Charity, both private and congregational, was ever practiced where it was needed. It is incredible that Paul is here arranging congregational support only for lone widows who were beyond sixty and is insisting that younger widows be supported by second husbands. His object is not to relieve the charity budget of congregations.
Paul’s concern is the spiritual welfare of all younger widows. That is why he wrote v. 6 about the gay widow who is already dead while living. Hinrichs strikes the point: “As soon as they get the idea of marrying into their heads they forsake the Christian religion and marry a pagan.” The two νεωτέραςγαμεῖν in v. 11 and 14 are the same, the contrast and the difference lie in the additions: 1) growing wanton against Christ—having a judgment because they set aside the first faith—learning how to be what v. 13 adds—turning off after Satan; 2) marrying so as to offer no single starting point for an opponent’s reviling tongue. Could a contrast be stated more concretely, more strongly? Spiritual welfare is the point, remaining with Christ and not letting Satan draw one away. The loss of a husband puts a young widow into danger; suddenly being alone, she may plunge into the gay life of the world (v. 6); or if she wishes to remarry may disregard Christ and disown her first faith.
Support is not the question, for on an average young widows are not left more penniless than old ones. Paul is not speaking of the paupers among them.
Now the details. Δέ is not wholly adversative as if the whole of v. 11–15 is set over against v. 10. We do not attribute to Paul the statement that all widows up to the age of sixty ought to marry as he says in v. 14. “Younger” refers to the youthful widows. Because of their youthfulness they are often inexperienced also regarding the Christian faith. It is quite correct when it is remarked that the comparative is here not much different from the positive and is used only because old widows are mentioned in v. 10. Paul says nothing about the widows who are of an age between sixty and that of these younger ones except that they must wait until they are sixty before they can be enrolled in the class about which we know only what v. 10 states.
Παραιτοῦ has the same force it had in 4:7 and has in 2 Tim. 2:23; Tit. 3:10. Timothy is to decline to be bothered with younger widows in regard to arranging anything special for them such as had recently been arranged for those who were past sixty; those who were older but not yet sixty had to wait. This enrolling seems to have been a new thing so that in Paul’s judgment it was wise not at once to try out a lower age limit. Younger widows belonged to an entirely different category, one in which, because of a second marriage, they would be fully occupied with little children and with running their households. “For” begins his explanations about younger widows and introduces all that follows about them up to and including v. 15. Our versions, which translate “refuse,” are inadequate, for they lead us to think that all the younger widows wanted to be enrolled with those who were over sixty; but what about the intermediate class?
Ὅταν = “whenever” and says no more than that cases of this kind may occur and may be expected and not that all younger widows will act as is here stated. The compound καταστρηνιάω (found only here and in Ignatius) receives some light from the simplex which is used in Rev. 18:7, 9. Uebermuetig werden (Stellhorn) is exactly to the point: to act high and mighty, to cast off restraint. Some refer this to wanton sexual vigor in these young widows; they point to their wanting to marry and say that in Rev. 18:7, 9 the simplex is synonymous with πορνεύειν. But in Rev. 18 the wanton disposition adds the idea of carrying on in a high, unrestrained manner to the fornication. In our passage wanting to marry is also a distinct desire.
But let us keep the connection. In v. 14 Paul himself wants these widows to marry, wants them to want to marry, which is a good thing. Here in v. 11 wanting to marry is the result of becoming high and unrestrained toward Christ and thus the very opposite and a bad thing.
These young widows find themselves to be their own masters and are restrained only by Christ. They are widows who do not have little children to burden them. They become overbearing against Christ, cast off his restraint, and do as they please. This is the way in which they want to enter into marriage anew. Paul even tells us more: “having judgment (resting on them) because they did set aside the first faith.” Their acting high and mighty against Christ = their setting aside their first faith. Their Christian faith no longer holds them; they have put it away as being something that interferes with their new freedom and desire.
The thought is not that Christ and this faith forbid their marrying, for how could v. 14 then follow? Nor, on the other hand, that they become strumpets or harlots. Paul does not say this, and the usual facts do not say it. These widows are ready to enter into a pagan marriage without Christ, without their first faith; they become pagans again in order to suit a pagan husband. Plenty of cases such as that occur to this day.
R., W. P., like M.-M. 593, quotes Souter with approval: “exercise youthful vigor against Christ” (genitive after κατά in the verb); but we think that he refers to sexual vigor, and Paul speaks of something worse. Von Hofmann spiritualizes and drops the idea of “against”: “take spiritual delight in Christ.” Wohlenberg follows this lead: Christum schwelgerisch geniessen, “luxuriate in Christ,” and then tries to prove that the κατά in this verb cannot mean “against” when the examples he supplies prove this very thing. We translate ὅτι “because” since epexegetical “that” would require τὸκρῖμα: “the judgment that,” etc. Κρῖμα is “judgment,” the context alone implies that it is adverse; “damnation” (A. V.) and “condemnation” (R. V.) are only ad sensum, for the word for this idea is κατάκριμα. “The first faith” is like “thy first love” in Rev. 2:4.
Here, too, πίστις is objective, for ἀθετέω has only objective objects in all the examples cited in Abbott-Smith, Lexicon: set aside, reject “me,” “you,” “the law,” “the covenant,” “the commandment,” etc. Here “what is believed” is set aside; this “first belief” is thrown away for a second (false) one.
1 Timothy 5:13
13 “Moreover, at the same time also” adds further evidence that, after their husbands are dead, the restraint also of Christ is removed for these foolish widows. “They learn how to be idle”; μανθάνω, with εἶναι to be supplied (R., W. P., mentions examples found in Plato and in Chrysostom), and thus: “how to be idle” (R. 1040), which is always the sense of this word when it is used with an infinitive. They do as they please. The other nominatives are best regarded as predicative appositions to the subjects: “running around to the houses” of other people, mostly pagan houses; “and not only idle” but worse, “also tattlers and busybodies, talking the things they ought not” (that are not necessary, the participle of δεῖ). Περίεργος, literally, “around the work,”—busy with all the trifling things and not with real work (R. 617). It has been well said that Paul draws a picture from real life.
1 Timothy 5:14
14 So then (οὖν) Paul wants “younger ones to marry, to bear children, to rule the house, to give not a single occasion to the adversary with regard to reviling.” This is the program stated briefly yet comprehensively. On βούλομαι see 2:17. Timothy and the churches will join in this intention. It makes for exactness to omit the article: “younger ones to marry,” i.e., as a rule. Again, as in v. 10, Paul glorifies motherhood for Christian women and thus for widows of corresponding ages; children complete the home and home life. In 2:15 we have the noun τεκνογονία, here the verb τεκνογονεῖν, in 5:3 and 4 ἔκγονος and πρόγονος; all are compounds with γόνος (γένω, γίγνομαι).
All Scripture condemns the refusal of married women to give birth to children. “To rule the house” means as the wife and mother in the home, to manage the household affairs. This is the domain and province of woman, in which no man can compete with her. Its greatness and its importance should ever be held up as woman’s divinely intended sphere, in which all her womanly qualities and gifts find full play and happiest gratification.
In 1 Cor. 7:39 the remarriage of widows irrespective of age is specifically endorsed. What Paul has to say in that chapter regarding marrying and regarding the distress of the times in no way conflicts with what he says in v. 39 and thus in our passage and in 2:15; see the exposition of 1 Cor. 7.
The last infinitive has modifiers and thus in form indicates that it sums up in brief the purpose involved in the three preceding infinitives: “(thus) to give not a single occasion (place to start from) to the adversary as far as reviling is concerned” (χάριν, adverbial accusative used like a preposition with the genitive and may follow its case, R. 425), literally, “in favor of reviling.” “The adversary,” the one who “lies against” us in battle, because of the presence of the article = the devil, even as “Satan” follows in the next verse and names him. He, of course, uses wicked men as the channel for his reviling and vituperation of the church (the noun is found again in 1 Pet. 3:9). Nothing is gained by making “the adversary” only a human opponent. The devil is always looking for something in Christians from which to start vilification of the church.
1 Timothy 5:15
15 The explanatory remark introduced with “for” means that Paul is not speaking theoretically or abstractly but on the basis of sad experience: “For already some did turn off (we should use the perfect tense) after Satan,” whose very name signifies “the adversary.” The fact that this means casting off Christ and his spiritual restraint, rejecting the first faith (v. 11, 12), is beyond question. One way of doing this deadly thing is mentioned in v. 6; other ways in v. 11–13. Paul varies his form of expression: in the companion verse (6) it is entirely subjective: while living she is dead (also singular), while in the present verse “turned off after Satan” mentions also the objective side (it is also plural). Still more: to be dead is negative: spiritual life has ceased; but to turn off after Satan is positive: godless life has set in. “Satan” is placed in opposition to “Christ” in v. 11, both names have the article; all restraint of Christ is willfully cast off in order to gain new liberty, which means following Satan in a liberty that is slavery.
1 Timothy 5:16
16 The final point is added without a connective because it merely supplies an item that is not specifically touched upon in v. 8. Both verses thus begin with εἴτις. In v. 8: “If anyone does not provide for his own,” etc., we naturally think of the Christian man who is at the head of a house. But in some cases the man was not a Christian but only his wife was, and in other cases a widow herself had a family and managed a household—Lydia even conducted her deceased husband’s extensive business and insisted on taking Paul and his assistants into her home. There were many capable women of this type who had abundant means. So Paul writes: If any woman believer has widows, let her relieve them, and let not the church be burdened in order that it may relieve the genuine widows.
We see that the poorly attested reading which inserts πιστὸςᾔ (followed by the A. V.) is only a correction of copyists who failed to understand what Paul is saying. Others, who accept the correct reading, call it the more difficult one and seek to explain it. Thus: 1) Paul has a special case in mind and thus writes πιστή; 2) Paul writes πιστή (feminine) but thinks of a man or a woman believer, anybody who has a widow in the relationship, and, if necessary, the help of other relatives is to be employed; 3) Paul writes πιστή because the woman of the house had the real work to perform when lodging a widow; 4) “have widows” means employs them as help or as servants in the house. Add that Paul writes: “has widows,” plural. Some writers take this plural to mean: any believing woman who has several widows under her care, and a few writers think that all of these were young widows.
But the reading πιστή is not difficult. Any woman believer, whose husband is not a believer, and also any woman believer, who is a widow that has means or who was never married and has means, is to aid any widow, old or young, of her own relationship, who may be left destitute, with no one else able or willing to aid her. Most properly Paul writes: “let her relieve them,” the same verb that was used in v. 10. How the relief is to be extended need not be said, for a number of obvious ways at once suggest themselves: give a lone widow a home; give her work; give her financial support—the cases may differ in detail. Thus one widow with means may help another widow; or a married or a single woman with means may do the same for a widow. The plural “has widows” is used because τις is indefinite and general and includes all cases.
“And let not the church be burdened” means that this would be improper since this Christian woman has the first obligation. The idea is not that the congregation would not step in; it would step in even where children refuse to support their needy parents; but what a reproach this would be to any who profess Christianity and yet so flagrantly refuse to meet their Christian obligations!
“In order that it may relieve the genuine widows” refers to those who have been completely left alone (v. 5), the congregation as such bearing first and perhaps sole obligation regarding them. Here we have the ὄντως used in v. 3 and 5, Paul’s elaboration returns to the starting point, the circle is thus completed. No angle of the matter is overlooked. This is an instance of the apostle’s masterly thought and presentation. The fact that the congregation is ever ready to relieve any of its needy members is assumed throughout. The fact that this includes penniless widows, young or old, is also assumed.
The fact that the congregation will step in where an obligated member wrongfully refuses to do so, is also understood; but this should never become necessary. As far as Timothy is concerned, Paul does not need to repeat v. 7.
Honoring, Correcting, Selecting Elders, 17–25
1 Timothy 5:17
17 The subject of widows begins with honoring (v. 3); so does the subject of elders. It, too, may be divided into minor sections. The absence of connectives is marked. The excellently presiding elders, let them be counted worthy of twofold honor, especially those toiling in connection with Word and teaching.
We have seen that the πρεσβύτεροι and the ἐπίσκοποι are the same persons. At one time they are named according to their age and their dignity, then according to their task of overseeing. Here the former designation, namely “elders,” is in place because the predicate deals with honor; in 3:1 “overseer” is in place because the discussion revolves about qualifications for the work.
“The excellently presiding elders” are certainly those who grace their office by doing their work well. The fact that some elders were at fault we see from v. 20; we are also told what is to be done with them. But this obvious interpretation meets objections. We are told that “the elders” refers to the older men in the congregations, that because of their age they already deserve honor, and that those among them who had an office in the congregation and were “elders” in the official sense deserved double honor, which explains also the predicate. Καλῶς is inserted because the office itself is to be called excellent or “because the office honors the man only when it is properly administered.” Besides, we are told that the Lord always asks for faithfulness on the part of those in office, and that the word used here is not “faithful elders”; and we are also told that it is hard to differentiate between degrees of faithfulness.
Paul is not speaking of two groups: old men in general and some of these old men who are good elders; he refers to one group only, the good elders. The other kind will be discussed in v. 20. The participle with its adverb is attributive and is placed between the article and the noun. This second perfect is always used in the sense of the present: presiding excellently now. Wreaths are not to be laid on their graves after they are dead; flowers are to be given to them now in order to cheer them in their work. The idea that this adverb “excellently” describes only the office itself as being an excellent one cannot be successfully defended; it modifies the attributive participle, the excellent presiding of these elders. Twofold honor is not due to the other kind of elders.
The participle means “to stand at the head” of the congregation and includes the position and the work of these elders. They were, indeed, the congregation’s head and functioned as such. When this was excellently done, it deserved recognition and should not be taken as a mere matter of course. Many congregations are remiss in this respect; they have a pastor who fills his office excellently, but nobody has regard to what this means for the congregation, the work is accepted, and that is all. This text should wake up such congregations. “Let them be counted worthy,” etc., means: by the congregation. Timothy is to stir up the congregations so that they will appreciate such elders.
There is a diversity of views regarding the “twofold honor”: 1) “twofold” = “in greater measure”; 2) it means double pay; 3) honor plus pay; 4) twice the pay of the sixty-year-old widows or of the deacons; 5) double honor ut fratribus et propositiis, one honor as to brethren and another as to superiors; 6) one honor because of age, another because of office. As for τιμή, this word never means wages, pay, hire, which are μισθός; in certain contexts (1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23) τιμή means “price.” “Honorarium” is the word employed by Dibelius; and it occurs only in this one passage (B.-P. 1307). The papyri have only the two common meanings: “honor” and “price,” the latter is admittedly not applicable here. Even τίμημα means only price as of wheat, as when πάντα, everything, is high, and thus refers also to payment (“price”) for dancing girls (M.-M. 635). In our passage τίμα precedes (v. 3) and τιμή follows (6:1: “all honor”), both of which denote “honor.” Μισθός also follows in the quotation found in v. 18, but this changes nothing as to the meaning of τιμή.
The context itself explains “twofold honor.” How elders as such deserve honor is indicated in v. 19, for no charge against them is even to be entertained except on the basis of two or three witnesses. “Twofold” honor thus belongs to those elders who serve excellently, the extra honor is due to the excellency. The fact that no mathematical computation is referred to ought to be apparent.
“Especially those toiling in connection with Word and teaching” does not mean that some elders did not teach, for all were required to have (and thus to use) this ability (3:2). Naturally, however, some would manifest especial zeal in this part of the work, actually toil in it to the point of fatigue and weariness. These richly deserve the twofold honor. The combination “in Word and teaching” = in what is to be taught (Word) and in applying this (by teaching).
1 Timothy 5:18
18 Paul substantiates this demand: For the Scripture declares: A threshing ox thou shalt not muzzle and: Worthy the worker of his pay! Our exposition of Paul’s beautiful use of Deut. 25:4 in 1 Cor. 9:9–11 is too long to be repeated here; the student is asked to examine it in the Interpretation of First Corinthians where we show that Paul points to a great principle, one that is only illustrated by such an ox and is thus applicable in scores of other instances. “The Scripture declares” settles every matter as far as Christians are concerned.
The second statement appears verbatim in Luke 10:7 as a word of Jesus’ and almost verbatim in Matt. 10:10. Paul evidently intends to place beside the Old Testament word another that is equal to it from the New Testament time and thus, as it were, to cite at least two witnesses (v. 19). He would also indicate that the point involved is valid in the New as well as in the Old Testament. Paul connects the two statements with a simple καί. So it is debated as to whether Luke’s and Matthew’s Gospels had possibly already been written, and whether Paul is quoting from them as canonical “Scripture”; or whether he is quoting from Matthew’s logia, which were written in Hebrew; or whether he is quoting from the hypothetical Q (Quelle), the supposed source of the Synoptic Gospels. We need not enter into the isagogical question regarding the dates of the Synoptic Gospels, on which, if it is desired, see the author’s introduction to each of them.
“And” adds the word of Jesus’ as being of equal authority with the Old Testament. From the very beginning the whole gospel story constituted the subject matter of the whole gospel preaching of all of the apostles. All Paul’s congregations were founded on this preaching, knew how Jesus instituted the New Testament ministry, and thus were also acquainted with this word from his lips. As for Gal. 6:6, which is often cited in connection with the present passage, its correct interpretation should prevent this.
It is generally assumed that the elders were paid for their services in the apostolic churches. We are convinced that this assumption is not tenable. The probability is that none of them were paid. The elders of the synagogues were not paid or salaried. Each synagogue had a number of elders, too many to have a payroll that would be large enough to support them. The apostolic congregations imitated the synagogue in this respect.
Our passage speaks of “twofold honor,” not of twofold financial pay or salary. Paul’s two quotations support the injunction relating to according due honor to diligent elders; such honor is to be their reward just as the ox treading out grain is accorded the privilege of eating as he tramped along, just as the worker is accorded his pay. The tertium of the analogy lies in the worthiness and not in the identity of what the three are worthy of: the elders worthy of what naturally should go with their office—honor; the ox worthy of what naturally goes with the task for which he is employed—wisps of grain; the workman worthy of what naturally goes with his work—pay for his work.
1 Timothy 5:19
19 An elder sometimes received the opposite of honor. Ill will and personal hate might trump up some charge against him. Against an elder do not receive an accusation except on the basis of two or three witnesses; those that are sinning reprove in the presence of all in order that also the rest may have fear.
Timothy is not to receive an accusation against an elder so as to take further steps about it, make an investigation, hear even the accused elder himself regarding the accusation, except on the basis of two or three witnesses. The honor due to the office demands this protection, for even a charge of which an elder is acquitted nevertheless damages his office and his work to some degree. Paul’s purpose is to have no case taken up in which the verdict will after all have to be acquittal; also, and in the very first place, to prevent anybody from bringing up such a case. This is to be a special safeguard that is to be thrown around the good name of the office and its incumbents in the interest of the church itself. Ordinarily the witnesses are cited at the time of the trial; in the case of an elder they must be cited at the time the accusation is preferred, otherwise this accusation is not to be received.
Ἐπί is not = ἐπὶστόματος as in the LXX of Deut. 19:15 and in 2 Cor. 13:1, but simply “on the basis of,” “upon.” Some think of the legal use of the preposition: “before two or three witnesses,” i.e., men who are simply present to hear what the accusation is so that they can afterward testify that this is, indeed, the accusation that was made. But the preposition is so used only with regard to a judge: Mark 13:9; Acts 25:9, 10; 25:26; 26:2. It would be a strange proceeding to hear an accusation before witnesses who also only hear it as though accusations against other persons could be heard without extra witnesses being present. Would the accuser, perhaps, alter his accusation afterward; or would Timothy himself think of doing this?
Since Timothy had the supervision over the churches, every accusation against an elder would be brought to him. Accusations against ordinary church members were naturally referred to the elders and were thus brought before the congregation. The demand for at least two, preferably three, witnesses is found throughout the Scriptures (Deut. 19:15; Matt. 18:16; 2 Cor. 13:1; Rev. 11:3, etc.). Death could not be decreed without such witnesses (Num. 35:30; Deut. 17:6; Heb. 10:28). Jesus himself offered more than one witness (John 8:17, etc.), his own witness could not be legally accepted as being true and sufficient (John 5:31–38). When the penalty was stoning, the Jews required that the witnesses on whose testimony the penalty was decreed cast the first stones so that, if they had lied and perjured themselves, they would also be guilty of the further crime of murder (Acts 7:58). Ἐκτὸςεἰμή = “except,” it is a pleonasm (it is found three times in the New Testament).
1 Timothy 5:20
20 But what if witnesses do substantiate an accusation as Paul here prescribes? Then “those sinning” (the sinners, the participle is merely descriptive) are not to have the further protection of being reproved only in private by Timothy, unter vier Augen; they are to receive reproof “in the presence of them all,” i.e., of all the elders of the congregation. This is not conceived as a special punishment to the sinning elder but as a wholesome warning also to all his fellow elders, “that also the rest may have fear,” namely godly fear of sinning. Paul is not thinking of those grave cases when elders sin so seriously as to require expulsion from their holy office, for such cases are to be brought before the congregation itself, which gave the office and which alone can again take it away. The present tenses of the participle and the imperative are iterative. They refer to cases that may occur. The participle does not mean, “those who steadily keep on sinning”; nor does ἁμαρτάνω refer to the gravest kind of sinning “like fornication, drunkenness, and the like.” That such elders should be allowed to retain their office is rather incredible.
1 Timothy 5:21
21 In this disciplinary matter it was vital that Timothy should ever act with utmost impartiality. I earnestly testify in the sight of God and Christ Jesus and of the elect angels that thou observe these things without prejudgment, doing nothing according to partiality.
It is said that Paul did not have perfect confidence in the moral courage of Timothy and that he therefore wrote this solemn preamble—some call it an oath or an adjuration that is equal to an oath although it is neither—and similar references to God, etc., in 6:13; 2 Tim. 2:14; 4:1. But then Paul would not have appointed Timothy to this position. The apostle moves in a sphere in which we should move more fully, namely “in the sight of God and Christ and of the angels.” To him the office of the holy ministry was one that was always administered and to be administered only in God’s sight. As being in such an office Timothy is to deal with its incumbents. The verb does not mean “I charge” (our versions) but “I earnestly testify” (διά is strengthening) and does not apply as an affirmation to what is said but to the person to whom something is said. It intends to impress that person: both Paul and Timothy are standing, as it were, in the presence of God, Christ, and the angels.
One article is used with the first of these two expressions, another article with the angels. This is done because the first two are divine, the rest are only creatures. This mention of angels should be combined with all the other passages in which Paul indicates his view of the world. To him the angels were spectators of what happens in the church (1 Cor. 4:9), ranged under Christ (Eph. 1:21; Col. 2:10), present in the services of the church (1 Cor. 11:10). Paul does not mention the souls of the departed saints, for not they but God’s angels are in intercourse with the church on earth.
The word ἐκλεκτοί, which is here applied to angels, is certainly to be understood in the same sense as when it is applied to God’s “elect” among men. It is plain that the angels who kept their own principality (Jude 6) are referred to. Like the elect among men, they are God’s own forever. We find no other meaning for the word when it is applied to angels. To say that “elect” means “holy” does not satisfy, for then Paul would have written “holy.” God’s elect in the church on earth deal with each other in the presence of the God and Lord who elected them and in the presence of the blessed angels whom he also elected.
It has been suggested that the guardian angels appointed for the congregations are referred to. But the Scriptures know of no such special guardian angels (see Matt. 18:10; Acts 12:15). Some have thought of “throne” angels; but while there are ranks among the angels, this interpretation does not fit the word “elect.” Finally, some think that in 3:16 the apostles are called ἄγγελοι, and thus the elders with whom Timothy is to deal are also regarded as ἄγγελοι, the heavenly ἄγγελοι are then differentiated from these earthly ones by being “elect.” But 3:16 does not refer to apostles but to angels, and such a differentiation would be strange indeed.
Ἵνα is non-final and states what Paul urges so solemnly upon Timothy, namely that he is to observe these things (about dealing with elders in v. 19, 20) “without prejudgment, doing nothing according to partiality.” Prejudgment is risky and blinds the eye to just judgment when it should be rendered. Πρόσκλισις is “leaning or inclining toward” somebody or something, hence “partiality.” Timothy is usually thought of as being rather tender, some refer to his youth (4:12), and so “partiality” is taken to mean that he is warned against being tender and partial to accused elders. But the Greek means “leaning toward,” either toward the elder or toward the accuser, for nothing is specified about the direction of the leaning. In a manner Timothy had to act as a judge in these cases, and in all of them, in those to be flatly turned down, and in those to be heard, his one course, for the good of all the elders and of all the churches, was genuine impartiality, consciousness of the fact that he was acting in God’s sight.
1 Timothy 5:22
22 Lay hands hastily on no one, nor fellowship other people’s sins; keep thyself clean. Timothy is not to ordain a man as an elder too quickly. This entire section deals with elders, hence the laying on of hands pertains to this act in connection with the induction of an elder into his office by means of a public ceremony before the congregation. This does not mean that Timothy alone is to be careful, and careful not merely when he is personally taking part in the ceremony, but that he must see to it that no unfit man is ever to be chosen for the holy office and offered for ordination. The man must have the qualifications listed in 3:2, etc. Due time must be taken to verify the fact that he has them.
He may have all of them but the teaching ability, namely a full grasp of the Christian doctrines to be taught. “Wait,” Paul says, “until everything is duly and fully ascertained; wait also until thou art sure that he will make a capable, sound, well-informed teacher. Admit to the eldership and ordain only such a man.”
Laying on of the hands is an ancient ceremony (Acts 6:6; 13:3; 1 Tim. 4:14; 2 Tim. 2:16) that was used in various ways (as in Mark 10:16) in conducting a person into office. We have retained it to this day in connection with baptism, in confirmation, in our present form of ordination to the ministry, although not when installing a man in a new congregation. It is not charismatic but only symbolic; it confers no divine power or gift but accompanies the prayer of the church that God would bless the person with all that he needs for his Christian life or, in the case of the minister, for his holy office and work.
Paul does not write, “And do not fellowship other people’s sins” and thus lead us to think that by hasty ordination Timothy would involve himself in the sins of such hastily ordained elders, sins they had committed before and sins they would continue to commit after becoming elders. “And do not,” etc., would then confine this warning to such sins. Paul writes “nor fellowship,” etc., and thereby broadens the warning so as to include also v. 20, the sins of elders who at any time may be properly accused and who ought to be disciplined as well as the sins of false accusers who ought to be refused. Timothy would “fellowship” such sins of other people if he did not reprove a sinning elder but refused to entertain accusation; again if he listened to unjustified accusation.
Note that ἁμαρτίαις repeats the ἁμαρτάνοντας used in v. 20 and thus indicates to what the ταῦτα used in v. 21 refers. Luther’s Halte dich selber keusch is incorrect; ἁγνός is not “chaste,” nor does it refer to sexual conduct; it means “pure,” “clean” of fellowship with other men’s sins as just stated. Compare the noun in 4:12 and 5:2 and our discussion. Yes, one may “fellowship other people’s sins” and do that in various ways. Preachers and general officers of the church need Paul’s warning as other Christians do (Eph. 5:7; 2 Cor. 6:17; 2 John 11). To fellowship a sin is to share its guilt and its punishment.
1 Timothy 5:23
23 No longer be a water-drinker but use a little wine because of thy stomach and frequent attacks of weakness. This is not a disconnected medical prescription, the outcome of a discussion of Timothy’s case with Luke, the physician. Timothy is to keep in good physical condition. The imperatives used in these verses are personally directed to Timothy. If he is subject to attacks that are caused by a weak and deranged stomach he will without due examination say “yes” or “no” to not a few things and will thus not succeed in keeping himself above reproach in his own office, he who is to see to it that others in office are to be kept so and dealt with if they are not. It seems that Timothy was most careful and drank only water so that no one should point to him as a πάροινος (3:2), which was all very well in one way but not in another.
In all these countries it is to this day risky to drink water or milk since they are so often contaminated. When the author traveled in the Orient he received constant warnings about the water and the milk. One must drink coffee, tea, and wine; the alcoholic content of the latter is valuable for the stomach.
R., W. P., tells us that “a little” has the emphasis. But an occasional sip of wine would do “little” good in a case like Timothy’s. “Little” is no more emphatic than is “much” in 3:8. In both passages the object, “much wine—little wine,” is placed forward in good Greek fashion. Timothy is to discard the use of water and is to substitute wine; Paul has no fear that he would overindulge. Complete abstinence is not needed in Timothy’s office nor in order that he may serve as an example to the elders.
Such abstinence may bring on attacks of dysentery and may lead to other dangers to his “pure” administration of office. The point is not medicinal with wine as the medicine but dietetic, substituting what is safe and wholesome for what is not. The idea of πυκνός is coming “thick” and fast. When both gender and number are different as is the case here with regard to “stomach” and “weakness,” each noun has the article, and “thy” belongs to both nouns (R. 789).
1 Timothy 5:24
24 Of some men the sins are entirely evident, going on in advance to judgment; but some (men) they also follow after. In like manner also the excellent works are entirely evident, but the ones that are otherwise cannot be hid.
Both propositions, that regarding sins and that regarding excellent works, are entirely general. They deal with any human judgment regarding men, hence also with such judgments as Timothy is obliged to render when he is accepting or rejecting applicants for the eldership (v. 22; “one who aspires to overseership,” 3:1). As far as avoiding mistakes is concerned and thus possibly making the wrong man an elder, Timothy need not worry, for the difficulty as to judging is not great. This is said for Timothy’s comfort.
The few who object to the obvious connection with v. 22 have little that is worth while to offer in its place. To connect it with v. 23 affords no tenable meaning; for v. 23 is merely incidental. Moreover, ἁμαρτίας all too plainly resumes the ἁμαρτάνοντας used in v. 20 and the ἁμαρτίαις occurring in v. 22, especially the latter. The connection with 6:1, etc., namely with slaves, although it has been latterly suggested, has not been convincingly defended.
When it comes to judging the fitness of some men for the ministry, there is really no question: “their sins are entirely evident (πρόδηλοι, πρό is not temporal but intensive), going on in advance (here πρό is temporal) to judgment,” like heralds who proclaim in advance the unfitness of such sinful men. Timothy and, in fact, everybody else knows even before the day on which their application for office comes up for κρίσις or decision what the verdict must be. The thought that Paul refers to God’s judgment is untenable because “entirely evident” cannot refer to God but only to men.
Timothy and the churches will need to consider only the question in regard to men whose sins are not so evident. Even in their case the difficulty disappears: the more hidden sins of these men follow close on the heels of these men when their cases come up for decision. Their sins march right into the meeting behind them and refuse to be left outside. Thus Timothy will easily be able to refuse these men. “In exceptional cases of deception and hypocrisy, which only one who is able to see the heart could detect, evidently no sin can be charged against the conscientious judge who has nevertheless been deceived.” Stellhorn. In such rare cases Timothy will not be fellowshiping the sins of such men; he will still be pure (v. 22b).
1 Timothy 5:25
25 The same is true regarding the excellent works, τὰκαλά being made emphatic by the second article. These works are “entirely evident” (πρόδηλα is minus the article because it is used as the predicate, the copula being understood). This reads like a reference to all of the excellent works. This form of expression is found often in the Greek because the very next clause speaks of the non-evident good works: “but the ones that are otherwise,” i.e., that are not openly, publicly evident. “They cannot be hid,” aorist infinitive: permanently hid. A little investigation brings them to light. Sins men like to hide; but not generally known excellent works no doer of such works has any reason to hide.
Thus a little inquiry soon brings them to light. Therefore Timothy will not likely be guilty of refusing a man who is really qualified for the holy office.
This completes the paragraph regarding the elders.
C.-K Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.
M.-M The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and other non-Literary Sources, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan.
R A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. 4th edition..
B.-P Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, etc., von D. Walter Bauer, zweite, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage zu Erwin Preuschens Vollstaendigem Griechisch-Deutschen Handwoerterbuch, etc.