...widows that are widows indeed

[NeoPatriarch]

1Ti 5:3 Honour widows that are widows indeed.

This phrase has always been interesting to me. It suggests that the term "widow" means more than just the wife of a deceased man.

The Strong entry:
chēra
khay'-rah
Feminine of a presumed derivation apparently from the base of G5490 through the idea of deficiency; a widow (as lacking a husband), literally or figuratively: - widow.

So then is it appropriate to say that, perhaps this applies to, single mothers, abandoned women, and perhaps other categories of what the world calls "single"? How does that affect the way we look at scriptures such as:

1Ti 5:11 But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry;
1Ti 5:12 Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith.
1Ti 5:13 And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not.
1Ti 5:14 I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.
1Ti 5:15 For some are already turned aside after Satan.


Just casting a net for some thoughts on the subject...

 

[nathan]

James 1:27 (ISV) "A religion that is pure and stainless according to God the Father is this: to take care of orphans and widows who are suffering, and to keep oneself unstained by the world."

Some Greek scholars can take this up - but I think that "take care of" or "look after" is a better translation than "visit" in this context for 'episkeptomai'.

We certainly have crisis proportions of those "lacking a husband" and those "lacking a father", due to various family/social problems. What are we called to do about it? And how pure is our religion?

 

[welltan]

The issues of widows and divorced sometimes can be touched individually or sometimes overlap in application. Interpretation under Christ's love is the deciding factor for the Church.
In John 4:18 Christ points out that the lady has had five husbands and comments that the man the woman has at the present is not her husband. It would seem that Christ's point was accented that she would have been better off if the man she now had would have been her husband. He does describe these previous men as husbands and condemnation must be read in outside of his statement about being unmarried with the latest man. In John 4:27 the disciples returned and were surprised he was talking to her. Their jewish objection to Christ talking to her was overweighed and given second seat to Christ finding an expression of love and acceptance to her. This woman was not Jewish and even Christ pointed out this difference. And we as Gentiles fall short of any Jewish married standard even farther than Samaritans which was what this woman was. Why is this Jewish question relevant? Because even among the Jews there can be found a difference in how the Jews relate to the widows and divorced ladies.
In Leviticus 21:14 it talks about how a priest "must not marry a widow, a divorced woman, or a woman defiled by prostitution, but only a virgin from his own people," This is a narrow application for only a priest as I see it and none for Christians. In the same chapter this is in conjunction with a priest not having messy hair, torn clothes, and be around a dead body. Even Jews that were not priests had messy hair, had to bury the dead sometimes and did not have perfect clothing. This seems to indicate that even Jews who were not priests had acceptance even if marrying divorced or widows or a negative history. Why would Christians want to be under the most sctrict application of the Law for priests only?
The church is responsible for these women under the banner of Christ's love and not under the banner of the Law. A woman petitioning the church for help can and should be loved and helped according to real need as a widow, but if not a widow under anyone's interpretation she can be still helped as a Christian sister in the Lord.
In the fifth chapter of I Timothy it is talking about a widow being taken into the church where she serves the church in partnership as the church provides for her. However being too young, having sexual desires (normal not a sin thing) she leaves this position, moves openly in the church as an available woman with interaction that is too involved and progresses to a busy body among the Christian homes and is a problem. Just being in the church's provision is not enough for her but this is implied as a normal chain of events. This whole thing is avoided by Paul saying that they should marry and even describes it in the more inclusive terms of "younger woman" needing to marry which includes more than just widows.