Cheryl Schatz

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!