First Timothy lesson 28 question 9

Question number nine. We might have to back up a little bit. But question number nine. So again, just to give a little context, we're talking about widows, those that have lost their husband. And Paul is telling Timothy, specifically, here is my pastoral commentary, here is the direction that you should take the church with this situation, right? So we've been talking about this for quite a while. Mike's got some thoughts that he's gonna share here pretty soon, but question number nine, is this an important principle for the welfare of the church and society in general? So what principle are we talking about?

Let's go back to 1 Timothy 5.16. If any woman who is a believer has dependent widows, she must assist them and the church must not be burdened so that it may assist those who are widows indeed. So the question is, is this an important principle for the welfare of the church and society in general? We'll start with the answer now.

Men and women? Does it apply both? Are you on, Mike? Mike? Just make sure you are. If any woman who is a believer has dependent widows... So if any woman or man? Yeah, I think it's both. I think it's both too. And a woman who has a dependent widow, somebody like her mother or grandmother, she must assist them and the church must not be burdened so that they may assist those who are widows indeed. So, yeah.

So what do you think God's basic plan for structure is here? How would you describe it in a sentence? What should be the principle that young widows should focus on? What? I think it's husband, children, and home. That's the young. Family. That's where it is. And I think that's God's design. He's got an order of relationships and responsibilities.

It isn't limiting to women, but about providing structured purpose that eliminates what? 11 through 13. There's these behaviors that these women could get into that this structure prevents. So when people have clear roles and responsibilities, it naturally prevents idleness. We talked about that a lot last week. And what does idleness lead to? When you don't have anything to do, you end up doing other things. And those things are not, they don't build the church up. They're probably pretty selfish, right?

Did we answer the question, Is our believers slash the church obligated to give money to non-believing groups, associations, governments, persons? Yeah, we haven't answered that yet. You haven't? No. I call it, and it's from verse 4, it's called the Payback Principle.

Children owe their parents payback. What do you think about that? The word, I can't speak it in Greek. Antipodosis. There's a biblical principle here. It's reciprocal responsibility. We care for you, and then you care for us. And then if that doesn't happen, who steps in? The government? No. Who steps in? the church. If the family can't take care and have that reciprocal responsibility across generations, parents invest in their children, and then children later support their aging parents. Do you see that biblical principle? It may not always be possible, but if it is, that's priority. Does that track 5-4 says that. Says it. Yeah.

And it creates a sustainable family, a family system that doesn't require some kind of institutional support because families take care of each other. Well, we have to figure out what qualifies and what doesn't. So qualification versus need. The principle behind benevolence is qualification, not merely need. It's important. The biblical charity isn't simply about meeting every need, but about meeting needs according to biblical criteria.

And what does that prevent? What does that principle prevent for those that are saying, hey, I need help, you know, my parents are capable, or my brother, or my sister, or my grandparents are capable, but they don't want to help. Well, this principle, if they can, it would remove enabling irresponsible behavior, idleness, and the like. Also, the church would have to have overwhelming charitable resources in order to help folks if they didn't operate according to this reciprocal responsibility concept that Paul's talking about here. And I think another thing that it would do is it would create dependency rather than responsibility and development, right? I'll stop there and let you guys think about that.

Yeah, I think we live in such a socialized society that we look to the government first. Yeah, where's my money? Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and yeah, there's systems that you paid into in your working life so that there's But I don't think, I really don't think until we studied this that, I never, my parents are long gone, but thinking about taking care of them at the end of their life or when they needed it, you know, my sisters did most of that. But I didn't realize it's an obligation.

I think that's really important. For children to recognize that in the future, you know, you're taking care of your parents and your kids should understand that there comes a time that maybe you're going to need it too. And it's a responsibility that they willingly accept. Yeah. What do you guys think about that? Sounds good to me. Well, it's interesting because I know a lot of cases where people that are my age, where their family are not helping them, and they should be. Yeah. What do you think about this thought? As a young, career-minded person, First of all, you're just trying to pay your bills. And then second of all, you're just trying to support your children. And then third, you start, maybe you started this way earlier if you're not like me.

And then you start to think about, okay, we know retirement is coming, meaning I don't have a job. It doesn't mean that you stop serving and working. It means that you have to figure out where that money is going to support you down the road. You know, if I end up in a home or if I end up, you know, needing some kind of services and so forth, I have to start thinking about those things. But there is the, I think there's a warning here about the severity of neglecting thinking about supporting your family down the road. Meaning your parents.

Meaning those who would ultimately, if you couldn't do that, and there are cases where you can't, and there are cases where folks can't, and when they can't, the church can step in. But if that were to be the standard where everybody was supported by the church at a certain point, and the children didn't ever even think of these things, that severity of neglect would put extreme load on the church itself. You can only go so far.

And so Paul's really hitting on this, and I think, you know, When you get into socialization, like socialism, it really, it's an affront to what Paul is saying here, in my opinion. And it doesn't mean that you have that choice sometimes. If you're born in a socialist country, and that's the way that that works, your responsibility would be to I'm going to trust the Lord for everything that he's given to me and be wise with those resources so that I can maintain this biblical standard, even if there's a social program for me. You agree with that?

One of the questions I have in thinking about this and reading it, maybe it's just based on New American Standard, if any woman who is a believer has dependent widows, This is I don't think all the criteria we talk about is predicated on these independent widows.

This is any widow, whether she meets the criteria. So this is getting back to kind of the family principle. Because then it gets, she must assist them, and the church must be her. So it may assist those who are widows indeed. So I think this is an obligation that, I mean, we've read all these criteria for what is a widow indeed. I think this is just an obligation regardless. A family obligation. A family obligation regardless of the criteria that is a widow in need.

So I think it's the structure and whether it's predicated on men and women or whatever, I think it's just a criteria for families to take care of regardless of the criteria for the church to take care of them. This is, you as a family, you take care of them regardless. Yeah, this is more universal as a family. Universal, no criteria. If she's dependent, she's a widow, you take care of them.

Now I think that's right. A bit of a distinction between the church's obligation and the family's obligation. Right. So the church is the one to take care of the widows who are widows indeed, the ones that meet these criteria. Yeah. Yeah. I thought that, I was listening to Chester McCauley on this again this week. He made an interesting distinction. He said, the help to receive from the church is based solely on, or can you get on the list or not?

It has nothing to do with sentiment or anything like that. It has to do with, because lots of widows in this time, and he also said that What this is about doesn't exist today in our society. But a widow in early church society, they were destitute. There was no support at all.

But the issue was, can you get on the list or not? And if you can't get on the list, it's because the family should be filling that gap. The church is not the source of first, you don't go to the church first, your family is first. So I thought that was kind of interesting.

And it fits with when Paul gives instructions about things, he's so pragmatic that it's like this, this, this, this, and this. And he never puts in there, well, it depends on how you feel about it. It has nothing to do with how you feel about it. Yeah, it's not your feelings, it's not your sentiment. So I wrote this down based on some of the the resources that you sent, Mike.

The church's true mission. And Macaulay does a really interesting word study on ecclesia. So that word church, ecclesia, reinforces the church as God's called out assembly. And it has a specific mission that can be compromised, and that's what Paul is trying to warn Timothy about. Our true purpose as a church, ecclesia, an assembly, can be compromised if it takes on responsibilities that belong elsewhere. Can you think about how that might be done outside of the context that we're talking about? If the church tries to get into other responsibilities that are unassociated with what the scripture says, where should the church focus its resources?

In this case, those who are truly widows. Genuine cases where no other support exists, and that's kind of the period at the end of that sentence, right? There's a framework for understanding responsibility, family structure, and the proper role of institutions in the church society, the church framework.

Okay, question number 10. Would this principle apply to our church and Tom? Considering Tom. Yes, absolutely. Why? He supported the church, he was here. No, that's not the reason. That's not the reason. The reason for Tom is that his family abandoned him. And they wouldn't support him. He went to Texas and they left him there. And so he has nobody else. Nobody else. He's got the one brother that should have taken this responsibility, went to the court in Texas and disavowed any responsibility for him at all.

So I think you can step in in that case. And there is no question that Tom fills a lot of the requirements to be on the list. Let's talk about step one. You just mentioned it, family responsibility. First we gotta ask a question. And we're using first name only. Does Tom have family members who are believers and have the means to assist him? This is verse eight.

If you look back in 1 Timothy 5.8, Family members, especially believing ones, have a primary obligation to provide for their own. And this includes immediate family, extended family, even distant relatives.

Wow. It's pretty, yeah. Step two, qualification. Benevolence is based on qualification, not merely need. Does he qualify? That brought up a question in my mind. We don't know the answer to Tom had assets. He had a retirement fund and he has Social Security income. So he's got the capacity to maintain himself. The problem is that Tom is, has dementia. And so he can't make good decisions about himself. So if somebody is picking, what we're going to do is pick up the guardianship for him. Hopefully, we're not going to physically support him, but we're going to watch over him so that he's not taken advantage of.

In a shepherd situation. Yeah. It seems like that has already taken place. How do you mean? being a guardian of the state, and in the apartment he was living in, who possessed his cat? Say, like he had a retirement fund. Where did that come from? He had two of them. Yeah. Well, whoever, the way the government works, it's whoever the The Guardian is, he's in charge of that, those funds. But he's, you know, he's got a pledge that he's going to operate in the best interest of Tom. You know, so...

How about we do, how about we do this? How about we kind of step outside of his personal situation and ask, is a person truly in need? Is it genuine or is it unavoidable? Is it a result of poor choices or is it unavoidable? Those are the kinds of things that Paul is telling Timothy, think about this when you consider how to support someone. Has he exhausted all of his resources?

No. Or she. Are they willing to work if they're able? Those are other considerations that a church body, specifically the elders and deacons, should consider. If the answers to these questions don't add up, then the ultimate question that church leadership has to decide, according to Paul, does this meet biblical criteria for church assistance? And if it does, then it does. But if not, and there are those family members that can't help or are willing to help, and there wasn't a squandering of resources, and there wasn't a lack of effort and that kind of thing, then the church can say, okay, it's our responsibility now. Do you see where that principle matters?

Yeah, but for being awarded the state, they might not put him on specific programs and just make him pay the full bill. See, like where he's living. See, they could drain his account dry. Yes, they could. The question here is, first of all, I think the government, our government has a provision for that. It's called Medicaid. And, you know, if all your assets are drained and the only thing you have left is Social Security, then that's your total income. And there are facilities where Medicaid people can live and not, their Social Security goes to the home, but, and they get, you know, spending money every month, but this, well, should the government actually pick up that responsibility?

I think Paul is saying they shouldn't. I think Paul's saying the family should. Yeah, I think so too. I think that, you know, If a person, such as Tom, qualifies for church assistance, and that's what we're trying to look at, you know, we're not the government, we're not a Medicaid program, we're the church.

And the church leadership has to make decisions that, how do we help? How do we move a person towards self-sufficiency? And not create dependency? Sometimes that's impossible. But if it is possible, then that's where the church should go. And if possible, it should, I believe, should be coordinated with family support. Even if they don't have the funds, they potentially could still be very involved in how the church is supporting that person. There's definitely a priority of individuals of the body. But there's also a priority here, I think, in these passages where the church ensures its benevolence fund remains available for cases where people truly have no other support system.

Like in Tom's situation, you don't even know what his income is. Well, the point is that it doesn't matter. Right. Because if it turns out he doesn't have any assets, he still is a candidate for Medicaid, and he still has Social Security income, so his needs can be met by the government.

Our role in that is to facilitate, I think, to facilitate that environment for him, And the reason we want to bring him back to Denver isn't monetary reasons. The reason is for fellowship and he sits in a room all day all by himself. And if the church did that for anyone who said, I need some help, then we wouldn't have those funds for the ones that truly don't. And that's really what Paul's getting at here. So verse 17, somebody read 17 and 18. First Timothy 5, 17, 18.

The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching. For the scripture says, you shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing, and the laborer is worthy of his wages. Thank you. So we're kind of switching gears now. We've talked for two weeks about how the church is to function, and widows and young widows, and the responsibility the church has.

But question 11 says, should only elders who teach be considered for honor support? Looking for a job? I'm asking you, you've been there. I guess the question is, is it teaching elders or just elders? Yeah. The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor. Well, finish the sentence, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching. Yes. So you get a raise if you preach and teach. Otherwise you just get kind of like the minimum wage. are worthy of double honor.

Yeah, I think Paul is, he's not creating two separate classes of elders. And I think Vincent talks about this. It supports the one office of eldership with varying functions. So not levels, but functions. And there may be compensation levels. What could be the key distinctions?

I think, first of all, all elders deserve honor and respect. All. Elders who rule well deserve what? Double honor. And I think that includes financial support. And especially those who, go ahead. Oh, I just had to use my sarcastic remarks. Those that are like, you get dispaid your normal rate. You roll well, then you get double. Well, it lines out that way. Especially those who roll well and who work hard. That word, work hard, Copio means exhausting labor. So if Mike takes a nap this afternoon, which I'm gonna, you're gonna get docked some pay. Yeah. I don't think Holly Hills pays that good. I don't know. We're not gonna go there.

Well, so especially those who work hard, and again, that's exhausting labor at preaching and teaching, deserve particular recognition from the church. So, does that make sense? It's pretty common sense stuff, right? Paul's not blowing our mind with some impractical thought process. So. Give honor where honor's due. Fair. So Vincent's teaching about didascalia teaching, the word there, as an antidote of heresy explains the especially, that especially part.

So in a context where false teachers threaten the church, those who labor exhaustively in sound doctrine deserve particular support. What do you think about that? Those who preserve and labor exhaustively over sound doctrine deserve particular support, as elders. I think that not mentioned there, though, but certainly appropriate, is not only is the elder responsible for knowing the Word of God and studying it and presenting it in a truthful manner, but he's also responsible for detecting error and recognizing and understanding what it is.

And both of those pursuits take a lot of time because it takes a lot of reading and that kind of thing. I remember Miles Stanford thought that he had two jobs. One was to feed the flock, and two was to defend them. And in his life, he worked 12, 14-hour days for 30 years, just doing those two things. And he wasn't an elder. And he wasn't an elder? No. But that's what he did, and I think that's the elder's job.

Preparation, study, energy focused on protecting the flock as well as teaching the flock. I think the practical application here, and I'm a minute away from time, Churches should financially support elders proportionate to their ministry responsibilities and what they're doing. What do you think about the administrative corporations that are within the church? The back office? Yeah. The Sioux? Southern Baptists? Oh, well, that's a business, so I guess I'm on record for that one.

So the elders actually get a paycheck when they retire because they think they retire. Well, when you run a church like a business, you're not going to operate according to these principles fully. You're going to change the title on the door. It's not going to be elder. Elder Mike or Elder Roger. It's gonna be pastor, head pastor, so-and-so, and that's fine. I get the word. It's in the Bible once, I believe. Correct me if I'm wrong. I think it's in there once. But the focus on church leadership has to do with eldership and deacon. And so, go ahead.

The other thing I want you to notice is that Paul vision of the church is always local. He's not promoting denominations and big organizations. It's all local. And every church, and from his perspective, is run by the Holy Spirit. And these people that are involved in it are enabled by him. to carry that out. And I think that's the answer to your question right there. Run by the Holy Spirit and localized and led and shepherded individually as a local body. Why is it that people think they can do this and then say the Holy Spirit will bless it?

You know what I'm saying? Boy, if you figure that one out, let me know. Yeah, because I was thinking we should probably create a building fund and, you know, get closer to me up north. Make you guys drive for 16 years. I'm just kidding. Anyway, so I guess I have one more question left, and we'll close out here, but I think the closing thought on this particular question, number 11, is that the goal is supporting those doing the most demanding and crucial work for the church's spiritual health. Gotta take care of those folks, right?

All right, let's pray. Father, how we thank you for the framework and the structure that you've given to us here in 1 Timothy 5, both for widows and now for elders. And we know that we have to be taught these things. Otherwise, we'll resort to social constructs and governmental perspectives. worldly thoughts, and so here you've given us a structure for supporting those and how it should work, and we're thankful for that clarity. We just do lift up Tom in this particular situation, considering the topic of this study, and pray that there would be an opportunity to provide as a body for him. We thank you that you are gracious and that this topic and this truth is all about your grace and the love of your son. In his name we pray, amen.