Cheryl Schatz

More proof that the “roll” was about ministry:

The author demands that no widow under 60 should be put on the official list of (widow) or allowed to serve as a deaconess in the narrower sense, since he fears that younger widows will marry again and will thus be untrue to their office and therewith to Christ.
-Theological dictionary of the New Testament. (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley & G. Friedrich, Ed.)

This list suggests that a widow should be qualified to offer service if and when called on by the church.
-Vol. 3: Evangelical commentary on the Bible. Baker reference library.

It is when these younger widows experience this kind of sensuality that they want to marry again, and this desire to remarry results in or is interpreted as a turning away from Christ, since, as verse 12 makes clear, widows who are included in the list are obligated to make a vow to serve Christ on a full-time basis and therefore should not remarry.
-Arichea, D. C., & Hatton, H. (1995). A handbook on Paul’s letters to Timothy and to Titus. UBS handbook series; Helps for translators (120).

Apparently there was a list of widows in the early church. This list registered widows who had dedicated themselves to ministry in such a way that they qualified for financial support by the church. As with any person dedicated to service (like pastors and deacons), certain characteristics must be evident in the candidate.
-Larson, K. (2000). Vol. 9: I & II Thessalonians, I & II Timothy, Titus, Philemon. Holman New Testament Commentary; Holman Reference (223).

cast off their first faith—namely, pledged to Christ and the service of the Church. There could be no hardship at the age of sixty or upwards in not marrying again (end of 1Ti 5:9), for the sake of serving better the cause of Christ as presbyteresses; though, to ordinary widows, no barrier existed against remarriage (1Co 7:39).
-Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., Fausset, A. R., Brown, D., & Brown, D. (1997). A commentary, critical and explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments.

The enrolment must have been for some kind of specific Christian work.
-Carson, D. A. (1994). New Bible commentary

But refuse to put younger widows on the list for when they feel sensual desires in disregard of Christ, they want to get married” We must remember the positive theology of marriage which is presented in the Bible (cf. Gen. 1 & 2). This phrase seems to relate to a vow that these widows took when they became house church helpers (cf. v. 12).
-Vol. Volume 9: Paul’s Fourth Missionary Journey: I Timothy, Titus, II Timothy. Study Guide Commentary Series (69). Marshall, Texas: Bible Lessons International.

No moral condemnation of remarriage is involved, nor is asceticism commended. The point is simply that a conflict may arise between ministry for Christ and the desire to remarry.
Kittel, G., Friedrich, G., & Bromiley, G. W. (1995). Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (420–421).

Mark,
You asked:

Also please show me exegetically why the emphasis of this passage is on widow elders ministry?

The requirements for being on the “list” from 1 Timothy 5 are:
1. wife of one husband
2. good works
3. practiced hospitality (compare all with Titus 1:6)
4. brought up children (raised them physically and spiritually)
5. devoted to prayer
6. beyond reproach
7. devoted to Christ (pledge)

The Exegetical dictionary of the New Testament calls this the “office of widow”.

Now I would like to challenge you to show that these are now widows in service to Jesus and the Church but merely on the “roll” for feeding.

Also please respond to the issue that Paul raises of wanting to marry after making a pledge to Christ brings condemnation. How is it that a woman must pledge celibacy merely in order to be fed? Can you answer this?

Mark,
You are saying things that are confusing because you are confusing two different passages talking about two different things. In the one passage Paul encourages people to marry rather than to have passions without a godly fulfillment. But in the passage in 1 Timothy 5 Paul is speaking about a condemnation that comes from marriage if one marries after pledged themselves to the service of Christ and the church which was a pledge of celibacy.

You said:

So the point is not that marriage is wrong which you seem to think i said, but that marriage protects us from ‘passion’ and ‘sexual immorality’, which was precisely Pauls instruction to the younger widows who were abondoning Christ to follow after their ‘desires’.

Mark, you are wrong here. You have missed Paul’s point in that he isn’t saying that marriage is a condemnation for everyone but marriage is a condemnation for those who have pledged themselves to Christ in celibacy and after the pledge want to marry. It is then that Paul says that marriage brings condemnation.

1 Timothy 5:11–12 (NASB95)
11 But refuse to put younger widows on the list, for when they feel sensual desires in disregard of Christ, they want to get married,
12 thus incurring condemnation, because they have set aside their previous pledge.

The condemnation from verse 12 comes directly after “want to get married” and the reason is given. It is because marriage sets aside a previous pledge. The desire for marriage is not wrong and in fact marriage is the only appropriate solution to sexual desire. But the issue in this passage is focused on one thing – it is the pledge. It is the only time in the Scriptures that a single woman is condemned for marrying a single man.

In the screen print below the Greek is broken down by clause analysis so that it should be clear to see that the condemnation is directly connected to the marriage.

In this case a marriage would bring condemnation, not protect from it. The Net bible says it this way:

1 Timothy 5:11–12 (NET)
5:11 But do not accept younger widows on the list, because their passions may lead them away from Christ and they will desire to marry, 5:12 and so incur judgment for breaking their former pledge.

This is not talking about illicit sex or sex out of marriage. It is talking about marriage that would break a former pledge and bring condemnation.

We have been watching too much of the dog whisperer. Now we are starting to talk to people like they are dogs 😉

Dave,
That indeed is the bottom line! Adam says why he names Eve, but if we are to add a reason (authority over her) it is indeed a postfall issue and never a created design issue.

pinklight,

So did Adam have authority over the animals and the earth before the woman was created? Did God give Adam authority over the animals and the earth before the woman was created or only after?
God never once spoke to Adam giving him authority over either when Adam was alone.

Excellent observation! You are right. When Adam named the animals he had not yet been given the authority over them. Therefore naming the animals could not have been an action of his authority.

Alison, thanks so much for your kind words!

Gazza,
One thing I forgot. You said:

Is there something that I am not seeing in the text that deals with these two parts independently?

This is the point I am trying to make. There is no two parts the are independent by “role” differences. They are dealt with together because they have a design that makes them recipients of the same design for ruler of this world. Does this make sense?

Gazza,
Thanks for coming back!

The issue is whether God designed men and women for a different function that would give them different “roles” or different marching orders. The same function would be the same rule, both are commanded to be fruitful and multiply so that both are equally in the position of parenthood, both rule over the animals on the land, sea and air. All are the same and show no difference that would make man having the “role” of ruler of one area and the woman the ruler of another area. They were designed in this way to have the same function as ruler.

As far as “role” of mother and father other than the physical differences, God doesn’t define a “role”. What I am getting at is that everything that is given to the man and the woman is given to them both without division. In contrast the very nature of “roles” brings division. The only division that one can get from the passage is that in marriage the man is to be doing the leaving and coming to his wife to cleave to her. But in the area of work and effect of rulership that God gave by design to both, there is no difference at all.

If I have not answered your question the way you need, can you rephrase it so that I can get a handle on what you are asking from me? Thanks again for participating!

Frank,
Very sound thoughts! I just would like to know when presuppositions becomes “evidence”. It is a lack of using language in a proper manner. I would recommend to Neopatriarch if he is still reading my blog (which I am sure he is) that he rewrite his article again and remove the unfortunate wording. And then I hope he tries again. The more he looks at the inspired grammar and the inspired words, God is able to take the inspired text and correct a brother in Christ. At least he is trying. Many may remember that I gave him a good try award the last time he rewrote his article.

genwall,
Excellent summary! I recommend that Mark answers your questions to clarify his position.

Lin,

Good thoughts! And it was that wascally wabbit trail that is always appealed to when there doesn’t appear to be any answers to the current discussion. Been there done that with JW’s many times and honestly I can do down those rabbit trails if I want, I just choose not to be distracted off of the key issues. When Mark has answered all the key issues, we can decide at that time if there are valuable wabbit holes to spy out and if we all want to go down those holes we shall proceed. Until he has given answers to all of the questions that he has not engaged in, it is my decision that there are no rabbit holes worth following. The key issues are the key issues and they must be dealt with in a clear and straightforward and honest fashion.

Hey gengwall,
Thanks for the clarification. Yes, indeed it is food for future thought and we may hazard a journey down that road again 😉

Mark,
You said:

I dont think comp theology believes that men and women are different spiritually. Well at least i don’t, nor do i believe that is what is taught in ‘Recovering biblical manhood and womanhood’…However whether or not God gives us seperate roles is another matter, which does not detract from the spritual equality.

No one is arguing that there are differences in physical functions of male and female as no one denies that men don’t have babies and only women do. The issue is what is a spiritual function and we should be able to identify spiritual gifts as spiritual functions. Since you deny that women are able to exercise some spiritual functions per God’s rules, as CBMW also denies that women have the freedom to exercise some spiritual functions, then there must be a spiritual difference that causes the loss of spiritual function. It there is “spiritual roles” that deny a spiritual function to one, then there has to be a spiritual difference. I think that your problem is that you don’t really want to admit what belongs in the spiritual area and what belongs in the physical. Or perhaps you are genuinely confused.

For example God does not gift or use everybody in the same way but does that mean some are more spiritual than others?

The issue has never been whether God has the freedom to gift whomever he wants and it is a given that not every one has the same gift. However that is not the issue. The issue is whether God has the freedom to gift a woman and whether the gifted woman has the freedom to function in her gifting with full freedom and full authority to use her gifts for the benefit of the body.

After all a good example from the Old Covenant is the restriction of priesthood for the Levites.

The Old Testament priesthood is not a spiritual gift but a physical function limited to a family and in that family to the males who have met the strict requirements. This in no way compares to the issue at hand which is the function of spiritual gifts.

Distinction of roles does not = spiritual hierarchy.

God has not identified “roles” that restrict people from using their spiritual gifts so there cannot be hierarchy amongst the spiritual gifts. Mark, I think it would be helpful for you to work at thinking outside the complementarian box.

Comp theology therefore does not make men more spiritual than women just because we believe that men and women have different roles.

Comp theology certainly does make men more spiritual than women because it redefines the function of spiritual gifts into a hierarchical ordering defined by gender when God has already set up spiritual gifts as outside of hierarchy and dependent not on roles but upon His gifting.

That notion is a false idea pressed upon it by egalitarians. It is a false description unfortunately.

If the “false idea” is coming from egalitarians, then why is it that the complementarians have such a hard time answering Biblical questions without changing the subject? The fact is that complementarians need to respond to where the Bible lists the spiritual gifts as limited by gender when God has defined the limit as His own will alone?

Cheryl it is a shame you dont have time to look into the ommission of YHWH in gen 3. It would most definately help you in your understanding of that passage.

Fortunately for me I have a good handle on Genesis 3. Unfortunately for all of us that I am only one person and cannot tackle all subjects and still do a bang up job on the key elements of women in ministry. One day I may be done all that I can do and then I will move on to whatever other area God has pressed onto my heart. But until then, I am sure that God will bring many dear brothers in Christ onto my pathway where I can share many precious Biblical things with them that they have missed. Those who have ears to hear and who have nothing to fear will hear. Those who refuse to hear can be left in the hands of our God who is able to change hearts and make them soft in time. It is God’s business to take the blinders off while it is my job just to do the best I can in sharing the truth.

I trust that we will have a lot more days of healthy and passionate interaction. Most comps haven’t stuck around here too long due to their frustration that they can’t tear apart our arguments. You may be one in a thousand and I appreciate your participation here!

Gazza,
Welcome to my blog!

You asked is there is not different roles in the ruling part of the promise. Thanks for asking. I went through the text and God gives both equal rulership in each area and since they are both blessed with parenthood the differences between being a father and being a mother must have no affect on the essence of rulership. So while we cannot deny that there is a difference between the physical part of parenthood for a woman than for a man. If there is a difference in rulership I have not seen it. Perhaps you can explain what you see. Thoughts?

Alison,
I think that comps are so used to seeing physical differences that they can easily confuse the physical with the spiritual. I wonder if males were pressured to accept that they were spiritually limited and females were not spiritually limited, that men would never stand for such prejudice. Inwardly women know that we are people made in God’s image in the same way as others who do not share our gender, race or social standing. When we can finally convince men of this the church will be able to move on in a way that it has never moved forward before. This is what I believe.

gengwall,
Good thoughts about needing a helper with a heart and soul and not just a domestic “helper”.

As far as design, “helper” isn’t a term just for females as we can understand God is the main “helper” in the Scriptures and guardian isn’t just a term for males as women apologists guard the faith too.

The issues that we all need to struggle through is whether there are spiritual differences between male and female. Along with physical differences and some differences in other areas, I haven’t seen any spiritual differences identified in the Scriptures that would make it a sin for either gender to “do” the spiritual activity. If there is no sin in doing the spiritual things, then there cannot be spiritual differences that require a solid line between us – Solid line as in you “cross the line and you die!”

Mark,
I look forward to you getting back to the questions that have been asked of you.

As far as God’s name, that isn’t an issue on this blog as it would take us away from the main issues discussed here. I am stretched fairly thin due to my own book writing and also a new DVD project on the sovereignty of God and so I just don’t have extra time to digress onto side issues. Thanks for asking though.

Kay #2, you said:

Shouldn’t they be more worried about what dishonors God? I think you are spot on to suggest that issues of shame and dishonor go hand in hand with the issue of pride. Didn’t Paul say “But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world”?

Absolutely! We need to look beyond ourselves and our own shame and look to what honors the Lord Jesus and stay away from what shames him. When men become focused on their own shame instead of looking to what is the best for the church and for the Lord Jesus, it is easy for them to miss out on what is important.

Oh my goodness, I am so behind in the comments. I feel like the story of Alice in Wonderland…I’m late…I’m late….for a very important date. I am going to finish the new post and then I’ll come back here to comment.

Mark #146,

You said:

Now to answer your supposed dilemma you say my view has. First your presupposition is that the enrollment is a ‘ministry’ thing. We both know this is not in the text so therefore i will try and understand the enrollment from the context of the text.

You have not answered anything that I brought up about the ministry that is shown from the passage. Why is it that you ignore my comments in #142?

Therefore i see the ‘pledge’ as abandoning their committment to being on the ‘roll’ of widows needing help. To understand this in a ministerial sense abandons the context of the passage.

A committment to being on the “roll”??? Surely you jest! The passage clearly says that the committment is to Christ.

1 Timothy 5:11
11 But refuse to put younger widows on the list, for when they feel sensual desires in disregard of Christ, they want to get married,

It is not a disregard of Christ to get married unless one has made a pledge not to be married. Verse 11 cannot be ignored because this verse makes it clear that those who take the pledge disregard Christ if they want to get married.

Since Paul clearly makes the pledge as one to Christ and the service that goes along with that pledge is listed as the service for the church, to say that there is no ministry here for the church would seem to show that you have formed an opinion despite what the text says.

Now CHeryl answer some of my questions.
1. Do you agree with Kay about this obscure over 60’s club eldership?

The ministry that is shown for the ones who have taken a pledge for providing service to the church is so strong, I cannot reject that there was a special class of women ministers who were financially provided for by the church.

I would like to ask you to explain why there was a group of widows who could not be fed by the church unless they pledge to remain without a husband and who would be dishonoring Christ if they went against that pledge? Why was the pledge necessary? How did Paul and the church justify the requirement of this pledge? Mark, you have been asked quite a few times to answer this question but you have side stepped it without answering. Why the requirement of celibacy?

3. If you believe this is about women elders, therefore can women elders only do this sort of ministry since verse 17 it supposed to switch to ‘male’ elders who therefore are the ones who preach and teach.

Where does it say that verses 17 & 18 are only about males?

4. Why have you ignored all the obvious grammar about ‘caring’, younger/older correlations, not being burdened and dismissed this passage being about helping widows in need.

Just as the other commentators suggest, I too agree that this passage is about older female widows who are ministering to the church. This is about their permanent support and other widows who need temporary support are not a part of the ones who take a pledge of ministry. Paul also makes note that those widows who are young should not even be temporarily supported by the church if they have relatives who can help them. And if the younger widows do not have relatives that can look after them, they should not be allowed to join the roll of permanent widows who serve the church as they may change their minds about marriage. Instead they should be encouraged to marry again and raise a family for the glory of God.

Mark, I really would encourage you to answer the questions that have been posed to you. I get the feeling that you are reading the comments in a rush and that may be why you fail to answer the questions. At least I am giving you the benefit of the doubt. The problem with that, is that it makes you come across as one who is evading the questions perhaps because you have no answers. If you don’t know the answer, you are free to tell us you won’t be answering because you don’t have the answer. We will accept that. Fair enough?

pinklight,

Are you sure that James 1:27 doesn’t mention that true religion is feeding only widows who agree to never marry??? Well, then I guess Paul must mean something else and those who say it is just about the feeding and support have to explain those pesky rules, eh?

Hi all,

I have ignored this post while I was so busy and when I had time I answered the comments in on this post http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2009/12/20/equal-in-value-and-worth-in-whose-eyes/ I should get time to get back to the issue of honor and dishonor within a few days and just to let you know that I am working on a new post that deals with the issues of men’s original design from the book of Genesis.

Thanks for your good comments and I will engage again later as I have time.

Mark #137,

I understand totally where you are coming from. But unfortunately there are just as many other commentaries to quote in opposition to your view.

First of all if my memory serves me right you didn’t acknowledge that there were recognized scholars who viewed the widows as having a recognized church ministry. Rather it was seen as our own reading into the scriptures that was causing us to see women in ministry rather than supplying for the feeding of these widows. I do not deny at all that the there are some who see the feeding of widows as all that is meant by Paul. However the issue that they all need to deal with, and which you need to deal with, is if feeding of widows is the meaning of Paul’s words, then one must accept that the church had a restriction for those who were cared for to be only those who agreed not to remarry. This is a serious problem to the view and I think that it would be good for you to face this problem head on. Please tell us why widows would have to agree not to remarry in order to receive food? Can you imagine a church feeding program today requiring those who are suffering financial hardships that sends them to foodbanks being made to sign a pledge requiring them to never marry? It just seems ludicrous. Unless one can deal with this illogical requirement for the feeding of widows, you view (and the view of other complementarian scholars) can not be a serious consideration regarding the meaning of the passage. It is not a matter of a stalemate because you have scholars on your side. It is a serious problem that must be dealt with that makes your position untenable. Consider the following:

Bible exposition commentary:
…It was only right that the local church show compassion to these women who were in need.

Notice that they don’t mention why only the local church should only show compassion to those women who agree not to be married again. Why is that? Your quote continued:

The early church had an official list of the names of qualified widows, and we get the impression that these “enlisted” women ministered to the congregation in various ways. (Remember Dorcas and her widow friends, Acts 9:36–43?) Paul probably would have told us if they had been officially ordained as deaconesses.

Here your own source admits that these women ministered to the congregation. The statement that Paul “probably” would have told us if they were officially ordained, this is really out of the context of the letter. Paul is writing a personal letter to Timothy and Paul doesn’t need to instruct Timothy about what “is”. He is instructing Timothy on what to do about qualifications for those who minister. Making qualifications of godliness and celibacy to receive food is never a consistent standard with the church. However having qualifications for Christian service is consistent.

You quote the Bible Knowledge commentary:

It may have been an official order for service in the congregation; more likely it was merely a roll of those widows who were to receive assistance from the congregation

Again your own source admits that it “may” have been an official order for service and they give no reason at all why a destitute widow must agree not to marry again to receive assistance. This is not consistent with Christian charity which makes this view a problem.

You quote from A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory on the Old and New Testaments:

…probably not an elder in the ministry;

Yet this source gives no reason at all why it is “probably”. i If it was a documented fact they would not say “probably” yet they never address the issue of requiring celibacy as a prerequisite for receiving food.

You quote:

The IVP bible background commentary
“Here Paul may refer to widows in general, but he probably refers to an order of widows who served the church, as in second-century Christianity.

Here the source again gives the opposite of what you believe by saying that Paul “probably” refers to an order of widows who served the church. Yes it is a fact that scholars differ on this, but the ones who refuse to believe that there was a group of elderly women who served the church in a special way MUST explain why being fed requires on to pledge celibacy. Just ignoring this problem is not good enough. It must be answered.

Mark, you said:

Now my opinion again. We cannot be sure what the ‘enrollment’ was. It could be women elders but then we must conclude that then only women (who are widows) over 60 shall ever become women elders otherwise we disobey the bible.

The fact that you admit that it “could be” women elders is great for if women elders were totally forbidden in serving the church then this special group of widows would not qualify, right? Yet we don’t need to conclude that only 60+ year old widows would qualify as elders. Remember this was a special group that qualified to be fully supported by the church. A younger woman who would qualify as a “normal” elder and who was married would not need to be fed by the church if she had a husband. The fact that there is one group who was to be fully supported financially does not eliminate another group of women who did not need to be supported. Service and support do not necessarily go together. Paul for instance chose to support himself whenever he could so that he would not be a burden to the church even though he had the right to receive that support.

If it involves caring for the widows in need, then we have problems with harshness of not allowing a younger widow who was truly in need. Either view has complications.

That would not be the case for our view as John MacArthur already said that younger widows would be cared for without going on the “roll”. It is only on the permanent support list of those who would need support for the rest of their lives as they were pledging to remain as unmarried for the benefit of church service, that there would be qualifications for this list. The rest would not be disqualfied except if they had family who could and should look after them before they leave them at the feet of the church to look after.

On top of this we have the semantic renge of ‘prebyteros’.

The context will be the key to what the word means. So now it is time for you to tell us why old ladies who were widows were forced to renounce men as prospective mates in order to receive food?

Even those who see this passage as women serving the church would not relate this to the office of eldership. This is too long of a bow from the text.

First of all there is no such “office” of eldership. Secondly it is very clear from the text that these women were on the “roll” for ministry in the church. Where is the restrictions on their church ministry? Can you show even one restriction to me?

The fact the passage is dealing with ‘older’ widows and younger ones, gives all the indication that ‘presbyteros’ should be translated older men/women.

Unfortunately Mark, this would make the church out to be prejudiced and like the Catholic church, they would be forcing celibacy on certain groups of people. Is this really what you believe?

Now relating again to deaconesses. Like i have said before i am unsure whether i believe this is refering to wives or deaconesses. Regardless it does not impact on the office of eldership who are responsible for the overseeing of the church.

Actually it does impact the issues of elders since deacons were given the same qualifications “husband of one wife” so if this doesn’t disqualify women for deacons, it cannot possibly disqualify women as elders. Remember 1 Timothy 3:1 says that anyone can desire the work of an overseer. If anyone can desire this work, then it is inconsistent to disqualify people either for their gender or their race (which cannot be changed by godly behavior).

You challenged Kay:

You are right to say that there is no ‘gunaikos’ in either mention of ‘elders’ so therefore you rebut your own argument.

The term “likewise” along with the “anyone” proceeding the qualifications for elder leave women squarely within the ability to be in either group.

Mark, you also responded to Kay by saying:

So although you hold to verse 11 promoting female deacons, there is nothing now in 1 Tim 3 to indicate that women are included in the eldership, unless you wish to hold onto the ‘anybody’ and ignore who Paul then qualfies as the ‘anybody’ in the following verses.

Paul doesn’t disqualify the “anybody” from 1 Tim. 3:1 except for moral issues and issues where the person needs to work on to be the godly example that they should be. For example if one is not a good manager of their home, they can learn how to be a good manager and therefore at some place in the future they can realize their goal of being a godly example as an overseer.

Do you actually believe this is about the office of eldership or just widows ministry.

I think we have gone over this a few times, but there is no such “office” of “eldership”. There is “work” of an overseer.

Mark, I do hope that you will be encouraged to think through your position on the group of women that was specifically set up for elderly widows to service the church with their God-given gifts. I would like to encourage you to deal with the issue of celibacy as a requirement for being fed and supported by the church and explain how your position can possibly be considered a church practice in Paul’s day.

Thanks!

Mark,
You also answered Kay that a widow who was older (1 Timothy 5:9-12) could be nothing more than one who needed financial support. I would like to differ with this and tell you why I believe that this passage is talking about a group of women who were in the group for the purpose of ministry in the body.

First of all Paul has made it known that marriage is honorable and that the younger widows should marry. But until they do, if they have no family to look after them, is the church to look after the younger widows financially? Of course!

So why is it a dishonor for older widows who have been supported by the church to marry? It can only be a dishonor if there is a vow that they have taken for ministry and this is the way that the passage has been taken historically.

1 Tim 5:9 A widow is to be put on the list only if she is not less than sixty years old, having been bthe wife of one man,

The term “put on the list” means “to make a selection for membership in a group” (BDAG)

It was not a practice of the church to make women celibate just to receive financial help. But this group was special. They were not just ones who received financial help, but they were required to take a vow to serve the church. Paul talks about their condemnation if they do not fulfill their solemn vow.

1 Timothy 5:12 thus incurring condemnation, because they have set aside their previous pledge.

The Greek word for “pledge” means “a solemn promise to be faithful and loyal, assurance, oath, troth” (BDAG lexicon)

I like the way that John MacArthur shows that these women were recognized for ministry. It is quite amazing for me to read his words because he is a staunch complementarian.

This was not a list of those widows eligible for specially recognized church support (all widows in the church who had no other means of support were; v. 3), but rather those eligible for specially recognized church ministry (cf. Titus 2:3–5). the wife of one man. Lit. “one-man woman” (cf. 3:2,12). –The MacArthur Study Bible

These ones who made a pledge and were brought into a special recognized church ministry were given strict requirements just like overseers. Chrysostom one of the early church fathers says this about the passage:

Strange! what strictness does he require of widows; almost as much as of the Bishop himself. For he says, “If she have diligently followed every good work.”–The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Vol. XIII (454)

Walvoord of the Dalls Theological Seminary also notes the connection between the requirements for these “widows” and for “overseers”:

The Greek here is literally “a one-man woman,” the mirror image of the stipulation for both the overseer-elder (cf. 3:2; Titus 1:6) and the deacon (1 Tim. 3:12),–Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., The Bible knowledge commentary : An exposition of the scriptures.

W. D. Mounce in the Word Biblical Commentary lists off a string of names of theologians who:

“feel that these verses spell out the duties of widows who have been enrolled in an order of widows, duties that include prayer, hospitality, pastoral house calls, and care for orphans. Most in this group argue for a formal order of widows …Lock paraphrases, “You must have an official list for widows in the service of the Church” (57). Ellicott speaks of the widows undertaking “the duties of the presbyteral office” (73; Bernard calls them “women elders,” –Vol. 46: Word Biblical Commentary : Pastoral Epistles (273).

The Evangelical commentary on the Bible also lists these as older women who are in service of the church.

In verses 11–15, Paul indicates that younger widows should not be put on such a list and indicates why (this does not rule out temporary care). Younger widows generally want to remarry and this requires them to break their promise to Christ to serve him and the church as widows.–Vol. 3: Evangelical commentary on the Bible. Baker reference library

It is also noteworthy that another strong complementarian, D.A. Carson also understands that the place of these widows is that of Christian service, not just that of being cared for financially.

5:11–16 Younger widows. The younger widows presented a different problem because of the possibility of remarriage. This excluded them from the official list mentioned in v 9. There is no suggestion here that any younger widow who was poverty-stricken would not qualify for some help. Paul seems to be thinking of those who offer for Christian work (as dedication to Christ suggests; v 11) but who would be placed in a difficult position if they wanted to marry. This is the understanding of their first pledge in v 12, that is their commitment to some kind of Christian work. If they forsook this to marry they would incur censure (judgment). –Carson, D. A. (1994). New Bible commentary : 21st century edition

In fact the inspired words in this passage (1 Timothy 5:9-12) are so strong concerning a specific group of older women who are dedicated to serve Christ and because of their dedication they make a vow of service to the body of Christ and who have very high standards set for them to even belong to this group, has made it quite clear throughout the years that this is a group not of impoverished needy women, but strong women gifted in service who have given themselves to serve the body to such an extent that they have given up the hope of a second marriage, in order to dedicate their lives for service to the Lord and His body.

Mark, if you do care to dispute those who have gone before me in Biblical studies, you will have to explain why these women were forbidden to marry or face condemnation just for receiving support from the church? Are you really willing to contend that the church was instructed to demand celibacy in exchange for food?

Mark,
You said that Phoebe could be just a “servant”, but I would like to draw your attention to the fact that she is a servant “of the church”. As Christians we have been told that the one who is the greatest serves all. Phoebe was one who served the entire church in her work and when she came to the Roman church she was to be honored by them by providing whatever she needed. She is the position of a true leader who is in a position to serve the entire church with her gifts. This is the truest sense of a Deacon.

Mark #116,
You asked:

The key phrase is ‘do the work (ergon) of an evangelist.’ Here Paul instructs Timothy to do a work (note same word as 1 Tim 3:1 used of elders- ergon). So the question has to be raised. Is an ‘evangelist’ a gift or a work? Perhaps both? Or are we all evangelists (in fulfillment of the great commission- Matt 28) which is a ‘work’ but the gifting of an evangelist is different?

Here is my answer: An evangelist is a gift. At the same time one needs to “work out” that gift just as we are to “work out” our salvation. Yet the key point is that it is a gift first because God is the Sovereign one who gives the ability. We can sit on our gift and do nothing or we can “work out” the gift that has been given us. Does this make sense?

Hi All,

Sorry that I have been out of touch of late. It has been extremely busy, but some of my intense work may be coming to an end by the end of this week. I will come back into this discussion soon. I took my free time tonight to post a new article and the next chance I have, I will respond to the issues posed on this one.

Mark, my friend, I think you had better do some more research on the issue of the “enrollment” of widows. It would help you a lot to do some historical research into this issue. Maybe if you did some serious looking into the historical position of the “enrollment”, you may be able to correct some fundamental errors even before I get back into the fray.

Gosh, I hope you all missed me while I was too busy to post 😉

Mercy,
Welcome to my blog!
The foundation was indeed set as male first and the reasons can be many. However what we should not do is add a restriction onto women from God using the male first model. For example God created Adam first, but His plan was that Eve was to come from his body yet Eve did not have restrictions placed on her regarding her rule over God’s creation just because she was made after the man. The original design was for unity, not for division, restriction or prideful claiming of a sole “role”.

I have communicated with Stephen Gola in the past and if I remember correctly he has a copy of my DVD set.

Thanks for your comments and the link to Mr. Gola’s site.

Kay,
I complain when we lose power for a few hours. That happens often here in the mountains as our electricity is unreliable. I think we had four outages in one week with some of the outages for five or six hours. It means that I cannot work on my ministry work on the computer. I am blessed though to have a gas range so I can still cook. But we have not yet lost power for days at a time so I feel compassion for those who have suffered through that experience. I guess it helps us to be thankful for what we have when we lose it for a time.

Kay,
Glad to see you back on line!