Are the “Widows” in 1 Timothy 5 Leaders, Needers, or Both?

One of my students, Corinne Samuelson, has spent the summer investigating what’s happening with “widows” in 1 Timothy 5. At first glance, one might think Paul was simply instructing Timothy about how to handle the many hungry older women in the Ephesian church (1:3). But on closer exploration we see a description of what might look like an office. That's a challenging question. As Corinne notes, “While Timothy would have surely understood Paul’s instructions about widows in the Ephesian Church, 1 Timothy 5:3–16 leaves today’s readers with many questions.” Each of the questions below (most of which she crafted) are worth considering when making interpretive decisions about this passage:

• Meaning of “to honor” (τίμα, v. 3) – (“Give proper honor to those widows who are really in need.”) Does “to honor” imply interpersonal respect, financial support, or both? Is this a parallel to granting “double honor” to elders who teach (v. 17)? 
• Placement of need/pleasure contrast (v. 5–6) – (“The widow who is really in need and left all alone puts her hope in God and continues night and day to pray and to ask God for help. But the widow who lives for pleasure is dead even while she lives.”) Is the reference to need/praying a Pauline tangent, further description of the “real” widow, or a prerequisite for enrollment? 
• Meaning of “to enroll” (καταλεγέσθω, v. 9) – (“No widow may be enrolled unless she is over sixty, has been faithful to her husband, and is well known for her good deeds, such as bringing up children, showing hospitality, washing the feet of the Lord’s people, helping those in trouble and devoting herself to all kinds of good deeds.”) What are the implications of “to enroll”? Did Paul simply describe a name being added to a charity list or is he implying accompanying duties for the person placed on a list? If the former, do we refuse food to hungry older women who have not done these things? The description parallels in many ways the description of an elder in 3:2–7 (faithful to his wife/faithful to her husband). Speaking of which…
•  Meaning of “faithful to her husband” (ἑνός ἀνδρὸς γυνή , v. 9) – Was Paul referring to a woman who was married once only or is the emphasis on being a one-man kind of woman?
• List of qualifications/duties (v. 10) – “Raised children, practiced hospitality, washed the feet of the saints, helped those in distress”: does this list describe the past character of the widow in view, or was Paul outlining ongoing responsibilities of an enrolled widow?
• Meaning of “a widow who is really a widow” (τάς ὄντως χήρας; vv. 3, 5, 16) – What’s the difference between a “widow” and an “actual” or “real” widow? Her lack of family members, her devotion to God, the characteristics listed in vv. 3–10? All of the above? A few people roughly contemporary with Paul (e.g.,  Philo  QE 2.3,  Ignatius13.1) speak of “widows who are virgins”—suggesting the word was used to mean a “without-a-man woman.” So are there “widows” and then “actual widows”? And if so, did one include older single woman never married vs. those bereft of husbands?
• Different kinds of widows? – Are the widows in verse 9 and verses 3, 5, 16 one and the same, or was Paul referring to two types of widows (a “real widow” and “an enrolled widow”)? 
• Meaning of “their first pledge” (τήν πρώτην πίστιν, v. 12) – What is the meaning of “pledge” (πίστιν)? The first wedding vow? Or a vow of office? Perhaps a vow of commitment to celibacy? 
• Harsh language –(“being led away from Christ,” v. 11; “wandering after Satan,” v. 15) What actions did Paul have in mind here?
• Bad behavior – (“idlers, going house to house, talking nonsense,” v. 13) Was Paul insinuating young widows were spreading heresy, participating in witchcraft, or committing social faux pas? Can we gather from “going around from house to house” that these women were conducting bad house visits which were a part of their duties as enrolled widows? Does “house to house” refer to going from house church to house church?  
• Overall purpose – Why did Paul give this instruction about enrolling widows and the qualifications? Did he provide here some requirements for selective charity, or was he talking about widows being enrolled into an order/office? Is there an overlap between the two? He wrote quite a bit about church organization in this letter to Timothy. Is it possible he had more in mind here than food distribution? 
• Contradictory advice? – Is it problematic that Paul lists qualifications for widow enrollment for those who married once (v. 9), but instructs younger widows to remarry (v. 14)? Why would he give different advice to women in differing age groups? Is he taking into account Roman civil marriage laws that apply to younger but not older women?  
• Background information – What pertinent background information about women and widows is helpful in understanding Paul’s instructions?

The options for translating and interpreting this passage are numerous. Considering that compared to fifty years ago we have a lot more social-background information (e.g., Roman civil laws) available to us, this passage is certainly due a closer look. 

7 Views on the Role of Women w/in the Inerrancy Camp

My Engage blog post for October 25:

I'm speaking at an event today at which I'm outlining seven different views on the role of women held by those who hold to the verbal plenary inspiration of scripture:1. TRADITIONALISTSBelieve women are more easily deceived than men, but also masters at deceiving. Women are ontologically inferior to men at created level. “Women are the devil’s gateway.” — Tertullian. Augustine, Aquinas, John Knox, etc.COMPLEMENTARIANS (spectrum of about 4 views)Women equal before God, but in some form of hierarchy w/ men/ husbands. Authority = the issue w/ several views on the public ministry of women:2. Male "headship" – all men = "head" over all women. Speak of "male headship." Innate. At creation. Head = synonym for leader.3. Male "headship" in the church and home – husband head of wife + elders head over women in church and home (not necessarily in business, society)4. Husband "headship" only – husband has headship over wife. Would never apply the word "head" to any other human relationship. Note Koine had only one word for “wife” or “woman”—context determines which. Reference to asking “husbands” at home and “saved through childbearing” suggest wives, not woman, in view. Therefore, verses restricting women actually restrict only wives (e.g., “Let the wives keep silent in the churches…ask husbands at home”; “I am not allowing a wife to teach or have autonomous authority over a husband”)5. Husband = "head" (not headship) – Would not alter the word "head" to add "ship." See "head" as part of a metaphor, not a leadership picture. Oneness picture. But still embrace the idea that husband = authority of wife today6. SOME COMPLEMENTARIANS/EGALITARIANSNo hierarchy, but believe in voluntary submission of wife. Favor agape/submit language vs. head/submit or speaking only of "mutual submission" in marriage, though they see that too. Not head over wife, but head of wife. Note that LSJ Greek lexicon does not list "authority" as a possible synonym/definition for “head.”7. EGALITARIANSA. Those who argue synonym for “head” should be source/origin,* not authority. OR…B. Those who don't try to refute “head” understood as authority, but would view such usage as culturally influenced and not for all time.Speak only of “mutual submission” as the ideal in marriage. No limits on women in ministry.

* * *

Complementarians draw line between themselves and egalitarians at different paces:1. At bishop level. Bishop must be male. Don't necessarily have elders in their structure. The bishop might not even reside in their town. So the church may function with what looks like gender equality. But they still have that one position that must be filled by a male.2. At elder level. Women can preach with men present, as long as women are not elders. Elder board = ruling board. Emphasize that pastor/preacher is a spiritual gift, not an office. Woman may be preachers and speak “under authority” of male elders.3. At women preaching. Anyone who lets a woman preach with men in the room (some exceptions made for women who are famous) must be egalitarian.4. Ordination. “Anyone who ordains women must be egalitarian.”EGALITARIANS DEFINE COMPLEMENTARIANSAt hierarchy. Equality before God has human social ramifications. Reject any authority on basis of sex alone. So complementarian or traditionalist = anyone who believes in male hierarchy of any kind based on sexBoth camps believe in gender differences. Egalitarians believe those differences have no bearing on hierarchy in home/church. Complementarians believe those differences mean men/women have different roles relating to authority in home/church.Where do you fall? Have you worked through the passages and issues so you know where you stand and why?

Why We Have Too Few Women Leaders

Junian Schmunian

Imagine you have something that needs saying, but it’s too long for an article and too short for a book. For decades writers in exactly this situation have either cut important information to fit typical article-length specs or padded cogent arguments with unnecessary filler.

Enter the Kindle Single. Whether writers are crafting novellas, essays, humor pieces, or journalistic investigations, they are now publishing singles—these “one-off pieces of non-fiction and journalism which are typically much shorter than a novel, but longer than a magazine article.” And these short pieces have more affordable price tags than books—from $1 to $5.

The accepted wisdom until recently was that people want “shorter.” But it turns out these longer, more in-depth stories are quite popular. Kindle singles typically run in the range of 5,000 to 30,000 words, a length perfectly suited to tablets and smartphones. And the one I bought this week cost me $2.99.

My friend Mary DeMuth pointed me to a Kindle Single by theologian Scot McKnight that I purchased. Dr. McKnight is someone I consider a good thinker who talks to a popular-market audience without ever resorting to words such as prolegomena or transubstantiation or pneumatology.

In the essay, "Junia is Not Alone," he tells about the female apostle mentioned in Romans 16, who experienced the world’s first sex change when scholars made her into a man. Why? Because “women can’t be apostles; therefore, Junia the apostle must not be a woman.” Huh?

As I’ve been reading documents from the first century, I’m encountering the name Junia as often as people today might encounter a name like “Julie.” But the un-Junia scholars made up a name I’ve never seen. And they did it so they could make Junia masculine. Like changing Julie to Julo. They created the name Junias.

McKnight tells the story of how many translations, including the Greek that underpins the English, got it wrong. And he goes on to talk about three women in Christian history—strong women, visionary women—who got forgotten and edited out of the story, just as Junia did. But he ends with a call to action that alone was worth more than the $2.99 I paid.

Evangelicals: A Woman as President?

Lately some folks have been talking about how contemporary evangelicals view women in political leadership. While evangelicals find common ground on views of biblical inerrancy, they hold a wide range of views about how to interpret the Bible. Nowhere is this more true than on "the woman question." Traditionalists are in the minority, but they receive the most press. Unaware of the Church’s involvement in proto-feminism and first-wave feminism, they say that discussions about women in leadership originated with the Modern Women’s Movement and the church’s capitulation to culture. They would argue that a woman leading in church, home, or society goes against a created order of male preeminence. For them a woman as president is a big n-o. Next on the spectrum are “complementarians.” They see men and women as having complementary roles that are equal but different. Complementarians hold to a male-leadership model in the church, pointing to male pronouns in the New Testament that generally occur in connection with the word “elder.” But when it comes to general society, a typical complementarian might point to Queen Esther or to Deborah as examples of women who led with God’s blessing in secular settings. Think Maggie Thatcher.At the other end of the spectrum among evangelicals are those who self-label as “egalitarians.” Egalitarians do not believe in gender hierarchy of any kind. Most would see the apostle Paul as establishing a foundational philosophy of race, class, and gender equality that includes role and function (see Gal. 3:23). In terms of evangelicals’ views of marriage, the traditionalist sees the husband as the final authority. Complementarians see the husband as “head,” but views vary about what that “headship” means. Most would say that husband/wife decisions should be made mutually unless the couple reaches an impasse—in which case, the husband considers his wife’s input, but he has the final say. Others believe that the goal is oneness, so if the couple reaches an impasse, they should communicate more, pray, and wait until they can reach a mutual decision Egalitarians see the language of marital “submission” as being mutual to both husband and wife (Eph. 5:21), not just the wife to the husband. They emphasize that the husband is commanded not to lead his wife, but to love her. And the word for “love” is the Greek word connected with sacrifice and service. For an egalitarian, marital submission is synonymous with mutual submission. Depending on where Michelle Bachmann lands, her view of how a wife functions under (or not) her husband's authority could affect how she would operate as president.