Chapter 5
2023 - Spent a TON of time on Jeremiah 6-8 this morning. Reading straight through Chapter 5.
2021-Still got slowed down by all the information in those first four chapters. I have less than half an hour for the last two chapters.
Don't rebuke but encourage - as you would a family member, according to their age. As in, an older male like your father, a younger like your own brother. Only mature widows were to be considered for church service. Younger than that they were to remarry and be good examples.
2021 - Vss 3-8 are about widows who have no means to support themselves. This is what "true widows" (over 60) is about. If they have family - children, grandchildren and so on - then the family has first responsibility to take care of them rather than the church using its resources to do so. Even widows indeed though, who are not devout, are not to receive church support. You can't go to Vegas and gamble away what the church gives you. Such are "dead already". The church can let them starve? Surely that isn't what it means???? It goes on to say that those who don't provide for family members in need are worse than non-believers.
This goes on, separating widows by age. Young widows are not to receive church support. It seems that some devotion to the church over and above just going is required of widows who receive support from the church. They become like nuns, maybe, chaste, serving, helping, and praying. Perhaps this service to the church is sort of like "earning" the support that they receive. But a young widow who goes into this but then decides to get married brings skepticism on the whole group. So...young widows are not brought into this group. They are to get married, have children with their second husbands, and raise the children well.
2022 - Uh oh....This verse:
9 Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband, 10 and having a reputation for good works: if she has brought up children, has shown hospitality, has washed the feet of the saints, has cared for the afflicted, and has devoted herself to every good work. [1Ti 5:9-10 ESV]. So here is the thing. This "wife of one husband" phrase is equivalent to "husband of one wife" in the case of elders. Would we ever think the phrase here means that any woman who had been married twice was ineligible for the support of the church as a widow over 60? No. No one would understand it that way. Note the additional requirements of an exemplary life spent serving God, family, and others. This is also very similar to the requirements for deacon and overseer. Above reproach is the phrase that comes to mind. And if you DO think only women married once are eligible, you run right smack into this verse just a little later:
14 So I would have younger widows marry, bear children, manage their households, and give the adversary no occasion for slander. [1Ti 5:14 ESV]. Would we ever believe that Paul would tell "young" widows to remarry and have children with their new husband if doing so was going to condemn them to abject poverty later due to their ineligibility for church support? No! These two verses make it very perfectly clear that "wife of one husband" DOES NOT mean only one husband ever. And if that is so, it is ridiculous to try and maintain that husband of one wife means only one wife ever. Wow. That hits me hard. First, the phrasing is just entirely too similar. And second, would Paul insist that if you can't be abstinent you should remarry, knowing that would forever disqualify you from serving as a deacon or elder? At this point, today, I don't think that's what it meant. The case isn't quite as strong for men, but if you add this thing about widows, it is pretty clear how Paul means it. Even so, I would still insist on a VERY extensive background investigation of any divorced man up for elder or deacon. I'd want to know the reasons for the divorce, I'd want to know who filed for the divorce, I'd want to talk to the ex-wife. I think a lot of work would be needed. I suspect that a LOT of men would bow out voluntarily if they knew such an investigation would be required. But I no longer hold the position that only men currently married to the only woman they've ever married should even be considered for deacon or elder and all others disqualified out of hand. I had that wrong.
2022 - This verse:
12 and so incur condemnation for having abandoned their former faith. [1Ti 5:12 ESV]. This implies to me that "enrolled widows" are an office of the church. Almost akin to nuns. They devote themselves to the service of the church and its members. The "stigma" for a young widow would be to commit to a life of service to the church, meet a guy while she's still able to bear children, and subsequently "leave the order" and go back to being a rank and file member of the church. A woman who did this "incurred condemnation."
2021-2, This verse:
16 If any believing woman has relatives who are widows, let her care for them. Let the church not be burdened, so that it may care for those who are truly widows. [1Ti 5:16 ESV]. If a relative is available to take in a widow, then they are to do so in the church. It is the church's business to insist that relatives step up and do as they should, and take in needy family members. The church is there to support those who have NO ONE at all to care for them. So are we doing the right thing when we hand out school supplies to people who drive up in Cadillacs? Are we doing right when we supply breakfast to people indiscriminately? Is the excuse that we just don't know who is truly needy? I think Paul is saying we better know. If we don't know, why don't we? Doesn't that mean that we are not going "far enough afield" in our ministering to find those who are truly needy? And I think there is also a clear implication that the church helps those who are part of the church. Bring them in first and then help them. Strings should be attached. The church is not the source of general public assistance. I don't think it is. The church should help the needy within the church. How much medical assistance could we provide if we were not providing breakfast to people who could get their own breakfast? Are we freeing up money for the parents to buy drugs when we relieve them of the cost of feeding their own children? This all feels very "harsh", but I think that's what it says. I mean, even widows over 60 with no supporting family are supposed to "contribute" to the working of the church! Even they don't just get a handout because of their situation. They have to have a good reputation and be serving the church.
Vss 17, 18 seem to imply that teaching elders should be paid. This would seem reasonable for those who do so full time.
2021-2, This verse:
20 As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear. [1Ti 5:20 ESV]
This seems to be the way errant elders are to be dealt with, but it might be a more general admonition. It says "As for those...", it does not say "As for elders..." I think the context though is about elders, and I would restrict this to them. But note that it says elders can get way out of line, though the selection process is quite specific about choosing only the best men for the job. But those so selected are subject to the attack of the adversary. They make themselves targets.
There is much here on the selection of elders. Patience is highly recommended. In the words of the MSB note, "time and truth go hand in hand". Both the sins of those aspiring to be elders, and the hidden good works of others, will come out in time. This surely seems to mean that we shouldn't do the whole elder selection process in a month. It ought to be years that they are under examination. Of course, this would only apply if elders and deacons are separate. If there is only one office, then what?
2025 - This verse:
23 No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments. [1Ti 5:23 ESV].
Note the word "only". In NASB95 it says don't drink water "exclusively". KJV does not put the word in, but NKJV does. The word translated "only water" or something similar is only used once in the NT. The word is Strong's G5202, "hydropoteo". Pretty easy to see that hydro is water. What about poteo? I found this word in Zodhiates. It is Strong's 3961, and means to trample, to tread underfoot. So...disdain water if we go this way. That would mitigate against "only" water and be more like NEVER drink water. BLB, in the etymology of 5202, says it is from 5204 and 4095. 4095 is not poteo, but "pino", and means drink or drink of. So now we can certainly get on board with hydropoteo meaning drink water, and it is negated by makete which means "no longer". So literally, it must read no longer drink water. Only and exclusively and anything else like that is supplied by the translators for their own reasons. There is no place else in the NT for comparison so don't build a big doctrine on it, but instead translate as literally as possible. But the translators couldn't trust us to know that you can't just never drink any water again ever, and that Paul couldn't have meant that...or we'd see it elsewhere because that is a dramatic order to give. KJV has it right. Don't drink water, drink wine for your oft infirmities. Completely clear that this is about the medicinal use of wine for a stomach problem. It is not a universal decree - because it is addressed to Timothy directly. It is not an every day dietary rule, because it is 'for your infirmities". This is not hard. But I fiercely resist the interpretation embedded in all these versions that is so severe they insert a word that is neither in the text nor implied by it...well...It might be implied...but it is absolutely NOT necessary for a reasonably good reader to reach the right conclusion.
And now I know.