Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Timothy 5:8
But if any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
8. But if any provide not ] The warning is general in form, but taken up 1Ti 5:4 and is again taken up 1Ti 5:16. The negative must be taken closely with the verb fail to provide, see note on 1Ti 3:5.
for his own ] His own relatives and connexions.
According to the best reading there is only one article for the two adjectives, so that it is one phrase rather than two. The R.V. indicates this by omitting the ‘for’ after ‘specially’. By rendering also his own household it indicates the full meaning ‘relatives and dependents dwelling in the same house.’
he hath denied the faith ] The Christian religion based on ‘faith that worketh by love,’ and so here the Christian’s ‘rule of life,’ briefly described in the earliest days as ‘the way,’ Act 22:4, &c. There is the same close identification of ‘creed’ and ‘life’ in 1Ti 5:12, where see note.
worse than an infidel ] Better, as throughout its use so characteristic of the Epistles to the Corinthians (14 times), an unbeliever. It was the technical word for the heathen who had not yet ‘professed the faith,’ just as its opposite ‘faithful’ or ‘believer’ is the term used of all who had been admitted into the Christian body; e.g. Eph 1:1, and here, 1Ti 5:16. The clause has no sting therefore such as attaches to ‘infidel,’ implying the deliberate rejection of religion. They who refuse to minister to the comfort and sustenance of those belonging to them ‘are not true to the moral instincts of their own nature and fall beneath the standard which has been recognised and acted on by the better class of heathens.’ Fairbairn.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
But if any provide not for his own – The apostle was speaking 1Ti 5:4 particularly of the duty of children toward a widowed mother. In enforcing that duty, he gives the subject, as he often does in similar cases, a general direction, and says that all ought to provide for those who were dependent on them, and that if they did not do this, they had a less impressive sense of the obligations of duty than even the pagan had. On the duty here referred to, compare Rom 12:17 note; 2Co 8:21 note. The meaning is, that the person referred to is to think beforehand ( pronoei) of the probable needs of his own family, and make arrangements to meet them. God thus provides for our needs; that is, he sees beforehand what we shall need, and makes arrangements for those needs by long preparation. The food that we eat, and the raiment that we wear, he foresaw that we should need, and the arrangement for the supply was made years since, and to meet these needs he has been carrying forward the plans of his providence in the seasons; in the growth of animals; in the formation of fruit; in the bountiful harvest. So, according to our measure, we are to anticipate what will be the probable needs of our families, and to make arrangements to meet them. The words his own, refer to those who are naturally dependent on him, whether living in his own immediate family or not. There may be many distant relatives naturally dependent on our aid, besides those who live in our own house.
And specially for those of his own house – Margin, kindred. The word house, or household, better expresses the sense than the word kindred. The meaning is, those who live in his own family. They would naturally have higher claims on him than those who did not. They would commonly be his nearer relatives, and the fact, from whatever cause, that they constituted his own family, would lay the foundation for a strong claim upon him. He who neglected his own immediate family would be more guilty than he who neglected a more remote relative.
He hath denied the faith – By his conduct, perhaps, not openly. He may be still a professor of religion and do this; but he will show that he is imbued with none of the spirit of religion, and is a stranger to its real nature. The meaning is, that he would, by such an act, have practically renounced Christianity, since it enjoins this duty on all. We may hence learn that it is possible to deny the faith by conduct as well as by words; and that a neglect of doing our duty is as real a denial of Christianity as it would be openly to renounce it. Peter denied his Lord in one way, and thousands do the same thing in another. He did it in words; they by neglecting their duty to their families, or their duty in their closets, or their duty in attempting to send salvation to their fellow-men, or by an openly irreligious life. A neglect of any duty is so far a denial of the faith.
And is worse than an infidel – The word here does not mean an infidel, technically so called, or one who openly professes to disbelieve Christianity, but anyone who does not believe; that is, anyone who is not a sincere Christian. The word, therefore, would include the pagan, and it is to them, doubtless, that the apostle particularly refers. They acknowledged the obligation to provide for their relatives. This was one of the great laws of nature written on their hearts, and a law which they felt bound to obey. Few things were inculcated more constantly by pagan moralists than this duty. Gelgacus, in Tacitus, says, Nature dictates that to every one, his own children and relatives should be most dear. Cicero says, Every man should take care of his own family – suos quisque debet tueri; see Rosenmuller, in loc., and also numerous examples of the same kind quoted from Apuleius, Cicero, Plutarch, Homer, Terence, Virgil, and Servius, in Pricaeus, in loc. The doctrine here is:
(1)That a Christian ought not to be inferior to an unbeliever in respect to any virtue;
(2)That in all that constitutes true virtue he ought to surpass him;
(3)That the duties which are taught by nature ought to be regarded as the more sacred and obligatory from the fact that God has given us a better religion; and,
(4)That a Christian ought never to give occasion to an enemy of the gospel to point to a man of the world and say, there is one who surpasses you in any virtue.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
1Ti 5:4; 1Ti 5:8; 1Ti 5:16
But if any widow have children or nephews.
—
Home responsibilities
We are reminded here–
I. That home responsibilities are to be accepted as the appointment of God. The sacredness of family relationship is constantly insisted upon both in the Old Testament and the New. All transgressions against it were severely punished under the Mosaic economy, and were condemned still more solemnly by our Lord. A word of exposition on the first clause in the fourth verse is desirable, If any widows have children or nephews, let them (i.e., not the widows, but the children or nephews)
learn first to show piety (filial love) at home. The word nephews is used by our translators in its old English sense, and is rendered in the Revised Version by its nearest modern equivalent, grand children, for in the writings of Chaucer, Sir Thomas More, and John Locke, nephews is used to denote grandchildren. And similarly, when it is said they are to requite their parents, more is included than fathers or mothers, for the apostles word is equivalent to the Scotch forbears, for which the English language has no exact synonym. The idea is that we owe a debt of gratitude to those from whom we have derived existence, and to whom we owe the support, care, and education we have received. We are bound to see that to the utmost of our ability their wants in old age are met.
II. That among our God-given responsibilities is the duty of labouring for the support of the weak. Among the blessings of our human relationships is this: that honest work is necessitated. We have seen instances in which a young fellow who has spent all his salary on cigars, dress, and amusements, has after his marriage buckled to work, and displayed an energy and ability for which none had given him credit before. Many a brave young wife and self-sacrificing mother has been ennobled through her home duties, having completely abandoned the foolish and trivial pursuits to which she was once addicted. And what numberless instances there are of men, whose diligence and self-abnegation are beyond praise, who have become what they are by first feeling the responsibility of caring and working for a widowed mother!
III. Paul emphatically declares that those who fail in these responsibilities have denied the faith and are worse than infidels. Stern as the words are, they are true! Even the heathen, certainly the better class of them, were wont to acknowledge filial duties, and would have condemned cynical disregard of parents and refusal to fulfil natural duties towards them. This is an offence against humanity, and therefore, in the deepest sense, an offence against Christ. But a Christian professes to have higher motives in duty than others. Let us never for get that the test of character is to be found in family relationships rather than in those which are ecclesiastical; and that it is in the home first and chiefest of all that Christs disciples are to adorn the doctrine of God their Saviour. (A. Rowland, LL. B.)
Piety at home.—
Life at home
A church within a church, a republic within a republic, a world within a world, is spelled by four letters–Hornet If things go right there, they go right everywhere; if things go wrong there, they go wrong everywhere. The door-sill of the dwelling-house is the foundation of Church and State. A man never gets higher than his own garret or lower than his own cellar. In other words, domestic life overarches and underguides all other life. George Washington commanded the forces of the United States, but Mary Washington commanded George. Chrysostoms mother made his pen for him. As individuals, we are fragments. God makes the races in parts, and then He gradually puts us together. What I lack, you make up; what you lack, I make up; our deficits and surpluses of character being the wheels in the great social mechanism. One person has the patience, another has the courage, another has the placidity, another has the enthusiasm; that which is lacking in one is made up by another, or made up by all. Buffaloes in herds; grouse in broods; quails in flocks; the human race in circles. Our usefulness, and the welfare of society, depend upon our staying in just the place that God has put us, or intended we should occupy. For more compactness, and that we may be more useful, we are gathered in still smaller circles in the home group. And there you have the same varieties again; brothers, sisters, husband, and wife; all different in temperaments and tastes. It is fortunate that it should be so. If the husband be all impulse, the wife must be all prudence. If one sister be sanguine in her temperament, the other must be lymphatic. Mary and Martha are necessities. Then there are those who will, after awhile, set up for themselves a home, and it is right that I should speak out upon these themes.
1. My first counsel to you is, have Jesus in your new home, if it is a new home; and let Him who was a guest at Bethany be in your new household; let the Divine blessing drop upon your every hope, and plan, and expectation. Those young people who begin with God end with heaven.
2. My second advice to you in your home is, to exercise to the very last possibility of your nature the law of forbearance. Prayers in the household will not make up for everything. Some of the best people in the world are the hardest to get along with. Sometimes it will be the duty of the husband and sometimes of the wife to yield; but both stand punctiliously on your rights, and you will have a Waterloo with no Blucher coming up at nightfall to decide the conflict. The best thing I ever heard of my grandfather, whom I never saw, was this: that once, having unrighteously rebuked one of his children, he himself–having lost his patience, and, perhaps, having been misinformed of the childs doings–found out his mistake, and in the evening of the same day gathered all his family together, and said: Now, I have one explanation to make, and one thing to say. Thomas, this morning I rebuked you very unfairly. I am very sorry for it. I rebuked you in the presence of the whole family, and now I ask your forgiveness in their presence. It must have taken some courage to do that.
3. I advise, also, that you make your chief pleasure circle around about that home. It is unfortunate when it is otherwise. If the husband spend the most of his nights away from home, of choice and not of necessity, he is not the head of the household; he is only the cashier. If the wife throw the cares of the household into the servants lap, and then spend five nights of the week at the opera or theatre, she may clothe her children with satins, and laces, and ribbons that would confound a French milliner, but they are orphans.
4. I advise you also to cultivate sympathy of occupation. Sir James McIntosh, one of the most eminent and elegant men that ever lived, while standing at the very height of his eminence, said to a great company of scholars: My wife made me. The wife ought to be the advising partner in every firm. She ought to be interested in all the losses and gains of shop and store. She ought to have a right–she has a right–to know everything. Your gains are one, your interests are one, your losses are one; lay hold of the work of life with both hands. Four hands to fight the battles. Four eyes to watch for the danger. Four shoulders on which to carry the trials. It is a very sad thing when the painter has a wife who does not like pictures. It is a very sad thing for a pianist when she has a husband who does not like music.
5. I have one more word of advice to give to those who would have a happy home, and that is: let love preside in it. (T. De Witt Talmage.)
Home, sweet home
How many are longing for grand spheres in which to serve God. They admire Luther at the Diet of Worms, and wish they had some such daring opportunity in which to exhibit Christian character. Now, the apostle comes to such persons, in my text, and says: I will show you a place where you can exhibit all that is grand, and beautiful, and glorious in the Christian character, and that place is the domestic circle. Let them learn first to show piety at home. Indeed, if a man does not serve God on a small scale, he never will serve Him on a large scale. I propose to speak to you of home as a test, of home as a refuge, of home as a political safeguard, of home as a school, of home as a type of heaven.
I. The home, in the first place, is the most powerful test of ones character. A mans disposition in public may be in gay costume, while in private it is in deshabille. The play actor does differently on the platform from the way he does behind the scenes; and public life is often a very different thing from private life. A man will receive you in his parlour with so much gracefulness that he seems to be the distillation of smiles, while in his heart there is a swamp of nettles. Private life is often public life turned wrong side out. The lips that drop with myrrh and cassia–the disposition that seems to be warm and bright as a sheaf of sunbeams, may only be a magnificent show-window to a wretched stock of goods. The harp that all day sang like an angel, may at night grate like a saw. There are those who are philanthropists in public life, who in home life are the Nero with respect to their slippers and their gown. The great Newton, after he had spent half of his life on one manuscript, came into his study one day and found that his dog had torn the manuscript to pieces. All he said was: Little Diamond, you know not how much trouble you have given your master. Audubon, the great ornithologist, with gun and pencil, went all through the forests of this country for the purpose of bringing down and sketching the birds of the land; then went home, put the valuable documents in a trunk, and, after an absence, found that the rats had completely devoured the manuscripts, so that again he took gun and pencil, and again went through the forests of the land, reproducing that which was destroyed; while there are many in private life who, at the loss of a pencil or an article of clothing, will act as though they had met with a severe and irreparable loss, and will blow sharp, and loud, and long as a north-east storm. Let us learn to show piety at home.
II. Again: I remark that home is a refuge. The home is the tent we pitch to rest in, our bayonets stacked, our war caps hung up, our heads resting on the knapsack until the morning bugle sounds, warning us to strike tent and prepare for marching and action. Oh, what a pleasant place it is to talk over the days victories, and surprises, and attacks, seated by the still camp-fires of the domestic circle. Life is a stormy sea. With shivered mast, and torn sail, and hulk aleak, we put into the harbour of home. Into this dry-dock we come for repair. Blessed harbour! The candle in the window is to the labouring man the lighthouse guiding him into port. May God pity the poor miserable wretch who has not any home.
III. Again: I remark that the home is a political safeguard. The safety of the State depends upon the character of the home. The Christian hearthstone is the only foundation for a Republic. In the family virtues are cultured which are a necessity for the State; and if there be not enough moral principle to make the family adhere, there cannot be enough political principle to make the State adhere. No home, no free institution. No home makes a nation of Goths and Vandals; makes the Nomads of Central Asia; makes the Numidians of Africa, changing from month to month, and from place to place, as the pasture happens to change.
IV. I go further, and speak of home as a school. Old ground must be upturned by a subsoil plough, and harrowed and re-harrowed, and then it will not yield as good a crop as new ground with less culture. Now, infancy and childhood are new ground, and all that is scattered over that ground will yield luxuriantly. Make your home the brightest place on earth if you would charm your children into the high path of rectitude and religion. Do not always have the blinds turned the wrong way. Let Gods light, that puts gold on the gentian and spots the pansy, stream into your windows. Do not expect your children to keep step to a dead march. A dark home makes bad boys and bad girls to be bad men and bad women. Above all, take into your homes thorough Christian principle. (T. De Witt Talmage.)
Home piety
I. Our first endeavour will be to show what piety is. This is all the more needful, as mistakes, numerous and fatal, exist on this vital subject, not only in the world, but also in the Church. It is the mind that was in Christ, leading us to walk as He also walked.
1. Piety has its principles. It is not like a tree without a root; or a stream without a spring. It is originated, sustained, and cherished by an experimental acquaintance with God in Christ; for this is life eternal, to know Thee, the true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou has sent. Here, then, we have the principles of piety–knowledge, faith, love, submission, and holy fear. A cluster of good things; the soul and spirit of true religion; the gift of the Divine hand; the fruit of the Spirit; the purchase of Messiahs blood; and the earnest of everlasting life.
2. Piety has its enjoyments. Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace. She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her. The forgiveness of sins, access to God as a Father, the communion of Saints, the hope of everlasting life, the possession of a new nature, constitute a well-spring of blessedness to the humble, believing, obedient soul.
3. Piety has its duties. If ye love Me, said the Saviour, keep My commandments; not every one that saith unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth the will of My Father which is in heaven. With what frequency and earnestness has practical piety been enforced in the law and the prophets, as also by our Lord and His apostles!
II. We proceed to show where piety is to be made manifest. If the principles and rootlets of piety be out of sight, their existence and power may easily be made apparent. Vegetable life in this sweet jessamine, or in yonder blushing rose, is far beyond our ken; but the effects of life are plain enough to be seen–the rind, the bud, the leaf, the flower, tell us that life is there. As to animal life–the sparkling eye, the ruddy countenance, the cheerful voice, the active limb, show us that life is there; but it is as much a mystery as ever; as far out of sight as ever. Steam, as it lies in the bosom of the boiler, is invisible; but the stroke of the piston, the sweep of the u heel, and the speed of the train, as well as the condensing power of the atmosphere, tell us that it is there. So of piety: much of it is hidden from the public gaze–its depths are not seen. Christian life is hid with Christ in God. Yet if spiritual life exists, it will give proof of its existence and power. Hence at Antioch, when Barnabas had seen the grace of God, he was glad. And exhorted them all that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord. Fire must burn, a fountain must flow, a good tree cannot bring forth bad fruit–Therefore show piety.
1. In general, wherever the providence of God may place you. The shop, the ship, the market, the farm, the factory, the counting-house, will afford you opportunities for confessing your Lord.
2. In particular, let your piety appear at home. Show to those around you, that the fear and love of God control your desires, purposes, words, and deeds; whatever your relation to the family circle–in whatever department your duty lies, act your part with cheerfulness, fidelity, and to the extent of your ability. See, that your piety is such as never can be reasonably questioned.
(1) Shows its reality; let the root of the matter spring up and bring forth good fruit.
(2) Maintain its spirit, humble, gentle, kind, forgiving: Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus.
(3) Manifest its power, to restrain you from evil, to sustain and comfort and bless you, amid the ills of life; and to enable you by a patient continuance in well-doing, to seek for glory, honour, immortality, and eternal life. Mind that your piety be uniform; let no child be forgotten, no aged parent neglected, no poor widowed relative forsaken, no duty omitted. One word more: let your home religion be steady and growing; and as a general rule, rather seen, and felt, than heard.
3. The considerations by which this important duty may be enforced are numerous and weighty. Would to God we could rightly see and feel them. God, our Saviour, has made Christian believers a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people, to show forth the praises of Him who has called them out of darkness into His marvellous light. And shall they not do His pleasure? Shall not Christian people acknowledge their Owner–and the claims of Him who hath made, redeemed, and saved them–by giving up themselves to His service, by glorifying Him, both at home and abroad, in their body and spirit, which are His? Besides, as members of the family circle, are we not bound to promote its comfort, safety, and welfare to the extent of our ability? If you feel any interest in the prosperity of the Church, the conversion of poor sinners, the general good of society, show piety at home. Be followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises. Tread in the steps of faithful Abraham, the pattern of believers, and the friend of God, who commanded his children and household after him to keep the way of the Lord. Drink into the spirit of Joshua, who served the Lord himself, and put forth all his strength to lead his family to do likewise. (J. J. Topham.)
The Christian at home
Some characteristics of home piety.
1. A careful respect for the rights of each member of the family. It is our first duty to be just towards each other, and a duty which is obligatory all round, as between husband and wife, parents and children, brothers and sisters, families and their relatives, employers and servants. It is not always easy to be just. It requires thoughtful consideration and some power of imaginative sympathy even on the part of those who desire to do as they would be done by. A great deal of the wrong that is suffered in the world arises out of unwitting injustice. Some persons are grossly and habitually unjust to those about them, misrepresenting their opinions, and imposing upon them sacrifices of feeling and trouble, while in other respects they are singularly generous. Another frequent cause of unhappiness in families is the partiality shown to a favourite child. This also justice forbids.
2. Next to careful respect for the rights of others I may mention great forbearance in asserting our own. A small thing in family life, but most significant as an index to character, is the self-pleasing with which some persons secure their own preferences at table. Even if they make a show of giving up what others like, they do it so ostentatiously that their generosity is generally declined. But real self-denial, that can find pleasure in the gratification of others, will conceal its preferences so that they may enjoy what they like without knowing that it is at the expense of any one else.
3. A third characteristic of home piety is the endeavour to please those about us for their good. A cheerful manner, a flow of wise and genial conversation, sparkling here and there with some bright coruscation of wit, flavoured always with the salt of cultured taste, and sometimes suggestive of serious thoughts, is a fine means of pleasing and benefiting others. Show piety at home by learning to talk well and wisely.
4. Lastly, piety should be shown at home in a devout regard for the honour of God. At the principal meals of the day, and morning or evening, if not both morning and evening, reverence should find suitable expression in acts of worship. You must be guided by your own sense of fitness as to what arrangements you shall make for this purpose. Let us systematically choose the good part, seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, endeavour to catch the spirit of our Master, and let its influence be diffused throughout our whole life. (E. W. Shalders, B. A.)
Piety at home
The radiance of a Christian character is to shine around the family hearth. In most minds the word home awakens emotions both sweet and solemn. Our tenderest relations, our strongest affections, our highest joys, our deepest sorrows, all are touched by the thought of home. The great duty which our text enjoins is the cultivation of piety at home.
I. Home is the place where character is most tested; and if piety be not shown there, it cannot be shown anywhere. Our real character is not so much shown in what we do intentionally and with a purpose, as in what we do impulsively and without reflection. Abroad in the world men may wear a cloak–they may deceive others, they may deceive themselves as to their true character; but at home the cloak generally slips aside, the true character comes out, and those who see them in their unguarded hours know them as they really are. Often a word, a look, or even a gesture in the family will give more insight into a mans heart than years of observation of his public life. The close intercourse of home life tries as well as reveals the real character. That which tries character also helps to form it. Home not only shows what we are, it helps to make us what we shall be for ever. The education which is deepest and most enduring is that of the home school.
II. Home is sometimes the scene of our deepest sorrows: and piety is the best help to enable us to bear these. The causes which disturb the happiness of home are manifold. Unwise marriage unions are the cause of much family misery. Bad habits are a frequent occasion of home sorrow, Evil tempers sometimes ruin the happiness of home. A practical carrying out of our text would speedily correct the evils to which we have referred, and change the character of the home-life where they have been endured. Were all the members of a family to learn to show piety at home, what a scene of blessedness that would be! But there are other trials which sometimes convert the home into a house of mourning, and which piety alone can enable us to meet. There are homes in which the pinching of poverty has to be endured. There are homes where disease presses with his heavy hand; and homes over which death spreads his black and chilly wing. But if there be only one pious member of the family, how the others will look to him and lean upon him in their hour of bereavement and sorrow! The influence acquired by consistency of character now operates for the good of his afflicted friends.
III. Home ought to be the scene of our highest joy; and piety is the only means to make it so, The mutual love and confidence so essential to family happiness, can be produced and secured by nothing so certainly as by a common affection for the Saviour. How blessed are the ties of nature when they are sanctified and strengthened by grace! (G. D. Macgregor.)
Selfish children
An old Virginia minister said lately, Men of my profession see much of the tragic side of life. I have seen men die in battle, have seen children die, but no death ever seemed so pathetic to me as the death of an aged mother in my church. I knew her first as a young girl, beautiful, gay, full of joy and hope. She married and had four children. Her husband died and left her penniless. She sewed, she made drawings, she taught, she gave herself scarcely time to eat or sleep. Every thought was for her children, to educate them, to give them the advantages their father would have given them had he lived. She succeeded. She sent her boys to college and her girls to school. When all came home they gave themselves up to their own selfish pursuits. She lingered among them some three years, and then was stricken with mortal illness brought on by overwork. The children gathered around her bedside. The oldest son took her in his arms. He said, You have been a good mother to us. That was not much to say, was it? It was much to her, who had never heard anything like it. A flush came over her pallid face, and with faint voice she whispered, My son, you never said so before! (Dr. Hoge.)
John Gough and his mother
I remember, when my father was away in the Peninsular war, my mother, who used to work lace very nicely (and she grew very nearly blind by it), went one day from Sandgate to Dover, eight and a half miles, to sell it. I went out to play, having the whole day to myself till she came back. I was a famous reader when I was a little bit of a thing, and I never remember the time when I learned to read, and I cant remember when I could not read with the book the wrong side up. As I was playing, a boy came up to me and said, Johnny Gough, Mr. Purday wants you in the library. Well, I ran into the library, and I remember being taken into a little room, and a girl dipped her hands in water and rubbed my face, and brushed my hair back, to make me look decent, and then took me into the reading-room, where there was a venerable looking gentleman, whom I distinctly remember they called my lord. Mr. Purday said, This is the boy I was speaking of; and he then put a newspaper into my hands, and asked me to read a certain column to him, which I did. He gave me a five-shilling piece; another gentleman gave me sixpence; and the proprietor of the library gave me two pennies. Oh I how rich I was! I went out to play with the boys; I put my hands in my pockets now and then, and jingled my money, and then went on playing again. After a while a boy came to me and said, Johnny, your mother has got home. I ran into the house, and there sat my poor mother upon a stool, faint and weary, with her basket of lace at her side. Her face was buried in her hands; I heard her sob, and I never could bear to hear my mother cry. Mother, mother, said I, what is the matter? My poor child, she said, I have not sold a farthings-worth to-day, and what we shall do God only knows! Said I, Mother, just look at this! and she did look at it; and she said, Why John, where did you get that? I have been into the library; one gentleman gave me that, another gave me that, and Mr. Purday gave me these two pennies. My mother went upon her knees, clasped me around the neck, lifted up her eyes, thanked God, and then gave me a halfpenny all to myself! And what do you suppose I did with it? I went out and changed it into two farthings, and I never enjoyed money as much as that all the days of my life. (J. B. Gough.)
A widows trust in God
M. Poinsot, the devoted Protestant Scripture-reader at Charleroi, has been much blessed in his arduous and heroic work for Christ. He says in his journal–I visited a poor woman of seventy-six years of age, alone, poor, and ill. I said to her, The nights must seem very long to you, being always alone? If I were alone, she replied, I should have been dead long ago, but I have a Friend who never leaves me day nor night; I commune always with Him, and His Word comforts me. But, I said, if you became worse in the night? He would take care of me, was the reply; He is the best Doctor in Belgium.
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
1Ti 5:8
But if any provide not for his own.
The necessity and excellence of family religion
I. I shall prove that family religion is a duty, from the light of nature and of scripture.
1. If family religion be a just debt to the supreme Being, upon account of His perfections and the relation He sustains to us as families, then it must be our duty to maintain it according to the law of nature. Now this is the case in fact. God is the most excellent of beings, and therefore worthy of homage in every capacity, from His reasonable creatures. Again, God is the author of our sociable natures, and as such claims social worship from us. Again, God is the proprietor, supporter, and benefactor of our families, as well as of our persons, and therefore our families as such should pay Him homage. He is the owner of your families, and where is the man that dares deny it?
2. If family religion was the principal design of the institution of families, then is family religion our indispensable duty. And that family religion was the principal end of the institution is evident; for can you think that God would unite a member of immortals, heirs of the eternal world, together in the most intimate bonds, in this state of trial, without any reference to their future state? Were your families made for this world only, or for the next?
3. If family religion tends to the greatest advantage of our families, then it is our duty; and to neglect it is wickedly to rob ourselves and ours of the greatest advantage.
4. You are to consider family religion not merely as a duty imposed by authority, but as your greatest privilege granted by Divine grace. I now proceed to some arguments more purely Scriptural, which prove the necessity of family religion in general, or of some particular branch of it.
(1) We may argue from the examples of the saints, recorded and commended in Scripture (Gen 18:16; Gen 18:18; Gen 26:25; Gen 25:1; Gen 25:3; Gen 33:20).
(2) We may argue from several Scripture precepts, which either directly or consequentially refer to the whole, or to some branch of family religion. The apostle Paul, having given various directions about relative duties in families, subjoins, Continue in prayer, and watch in the same with thanksgiving (Col 4:2). Peter exhorts husbands to dwell with their wives according to knowledge, etc., that their prayers might not be hindered (1Pe 3:7), which certainly implies that they should pray together. I proceed–
II. To show in what seasons, or how frequently, family religion should be statedly performed. Now it is more than intimated in Scripture, that it should be performed every day, and particularly morning and evening. Thus the sacrifices under the law, which were attended with prayer, were offered daily, morning and evening. To this the Psalmist alludes: Let my prayer be set before Thee as incense which was offered in the morning, and the lifting up of my hands as the evening sacrifice (Psa 141:2). He elsewhere resolves, Every day will I bless Thee (Psa 145:2). Yea, his devotion was so extraordinary, that he resolves, Evening, and morning, and at noon, will I pray and cry aloud (Psa 55:17). So Daniel performed family worship thrice a day.
III. I shall consider, what particular obligation the heads of families lie under, and what authority they are invested with to maintain religion in their houses. In all societies there must be a subordination, and particularly in families, and it is the place of the head of such societies to rule and direct. Particularly it belongs to the head of a family, when there is no fitter person present, to perform worship in it, to use proper means to cause all his domestics to attend upon it.
IV. And lastly, I come to answer the usual objections against this important duty of family religion.
1. I have no time, and my secular business would suffer by family religion.
2. I have no ability to pray; I am too ignorant.
3. I am ashamed.
4. But, alas! I know not how to begin it.
5. But my family will not join with me.
6. But I shall be ridiculed and laughed at. (S. Davies, M. A.)
Home claims
If any one provide not for his own kindred, and for those of his own house, as parents or children, he lives in a manner so contrary to the Christian faith, that he, in fact, denies it, and is worse than an infidel. Indeed, says Archbishop Seeker, Nature as well as Christianity enjoins this domestic duty so strongly, that the whole world cries out shame where it is neglected. That man, therefore, deserves censure, who, intent on the interests of others, disregards his own. The astrologer who was looking at the stars, and telling the fortunes of his neighbours, did not see the pit which lay at his feet, and into which he fell. It is well to do a good turn to a stranger, or even to an enemy, but not to bulge our own vessel in attempting to raise that of our neighbour, as the following story from AEsop may show. A wolf that lay licking his wounds, and extremely faint and ill from the bite of a dog, called out to a sheep passing by, Hark ye, friend, if you would but help me to a sup of water out of yonder brook, I would manage myself to get something to eat. Yes, said the sheep, I make no doubt of it; but when I bring you drink, my carcase shall serve you for meat.
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 8. But if any provide not for his own] His own people or relatives.
Those of his own house] That is, his own family, or a poor widow or relative that lives under his roof.
Hath denied the faith] The Christian religion, which strongly inculcates love and benevolence to all mankind.
Is worse than an infidel.] For what are called the dictates of nature lead men to feel for and provide for their own families. Heathen writers are full of maxims of this kind; TACITUS says: Liberos cuique ac propinquos NATURA carissimos esse voluit. “Nature dictates that to every one his own children and relatives should be most dear.” And Cicero, in Epist. ad Caption: Suos quisque debet tueri. “Every man should take care of his own family.”
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house: here is a manifest distinction between his own, idiwn, and his own household, oikeiwn, they are distinguished by terms in the Greek, and as to the care which men and women ought to extend to them. By his own he means his relations, all of a mans family or stock; by his own household, he seemeth to mean those who cohabit with him. The apostle saith that he who is careless of providing for the former, (so far as he is able), but especially for the latter,
hath denied the Christian faith, that is, in the practice of it, though in words he professeth it; he liveth not up to the rule of the gospel, which directeth other things.
And is worse than an infidel; and is worse than a heathen, that believeth not; because many good-natured heathens do this by the light of nature, and those who do it not, yet are more excusable, being strangers to the obligation of the revealed law of God in the case.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
8. Butreverting to 1Ti5:4, “If any (a general proposition; therefore including inits application the widow’s children or grandchildren) providenot for his own (relations in general), and especially for those ofhis own house (in particular), he hath (practically) denied thefaith.” Faith without love and its works is dead; “for thesubject matter of faith is not mere opinion, but the grace and truthof God, to which he that believes gives up his spirit, as he thatloves gives up his heart” [MACK].If in any case a duty of love is plain, it is in relation to one’sown relatives; to fail in so plain an obligation is a plain proof ofwant of love, and therefore of want of faith. “Faith does notset aside natural duties, but strengthens them” [BENGEL].
worse than an infidelbecauseeven an infidel (or unbeliever) is taught by nature to provide forhis own relatives, and generally recognizes the duty; the Christianwho does not so, is worse (Mat 5:46;Mat 5:47). He has less excusewith his greater light than the infidel who may break the laws ofnature.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
But if any provide not for his own,…. Not only for his wife and children, but for his parents, when grown old, and cannot help themselves:
and specially for those of his own house; that is, who are of the same household of faith with him; see Ga 6:10, and so the Syriac version renders it, “and especially those who are the children of the house of faith”; for though the tie of nature obliges him to take care of them, yet that of grace makes the obligation still more strong and binding; and he must act both the inhuman and the unchristian part, that does not take care of his pious parents: wherefore it follows,
he hath denied the faith; the doctrine of faith, though not in words, yet in works; and is to be considered in the same light, and to be dealt with as an apostate from the Christian religion.
And is worse than an infidel; for the very Heathens are taught and directed by the light of nature to take care of their poor and aged parents. The daughter of Cimon gave her ancient father the breast, and suckled him when in prison. Aeneas snatched his aged father out of the burning of Troy, and brought him out of the destruction of that city on his back; yea, these are worse than the brute creatures, and may be truly said to be without natural affections; such should go to the storks and learn of them, of whom it is reported, that the younger ones will feed the old ones, when they cannot feed themselves; and when weary, and not able to fly, will carry them on their backs. The Jews w have a rule or canon, which obliged men to take care of their families, which runs thus:
“as a man is bound to provide for his wife, so he is hound to provide for his sons and daughters, the little ones, until they are six years old; and from thenceforward he gives them food till they are grown up, according to the order of the wise men; if he will not, they reprove him, and make him ashamed, and oblige him; yea, if he will not, they publish him in the congregation, and say such an one is cruel, and will not provide for his children; and lo, he is worse than an unclean fowl, which feeds her young.”
w Maimon. Hilchot Ishot, c. 12. sect. 14.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Provideth not for his own ( ). Condition of first class with and present active (or middle ) indicative of , old verb, to think beforehand. Pauline word in N.T. only here, 2Cor 8:21; Rom 12:7. With genitive case.
He hath denied the faith ( ). Perfect middle indicative of old verb . His act of impiety belies (Tit 1:16) his claim to the faith (Re 2:13).
Worse than an unbeliever ( ). Ablative case of after the comparative . Who makes no profession of piety.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Provide [] . See on Rom 12:17.
His own – those of his own house [ – ] . His own relations, see on Joh 1:11. Those who form part of his family, see on Gal 6:10.
He hath denied the faith [ ] . The verb not in Paul, but Quite often in Pastorals. The phrase only here and Rev 2:13. Faith demands works and fruits. By refusing the natural duties which Christian faith implies, one practically denies his possession of faith. Faith does not abolish natural duties, but perfects and strengthens them ” (Bengel). Comp. Jas 2:14 – 17.
Infidel [] . Better, unbeliever. One who is not a Christian, as 1Co 6:6; 1Co 7:12, 13, etc. Even an unbeliever will perform these duties from natural promptings.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “And if any provide not for his own” (ei de tis ton idion ou pronoei) “And if anyone for his own people does not provide;” for such needs as food, clothing, and shelter, Rom 12:17.
2) “And specially for those of his own house” (kai malista oikeion). “And particularly his family members.” The path of divine duty begins in ones own home, family. If he walk it not well or obediently there he is little likely to do God’s work much good elsewhere, 2Co 8:21.
3) “He hath denied the faith” (ten pistin ernetai) “The faith he has voluntarily or willfully denied or abandoned,” of his own accord. The body of Christian truth, system of teachings of Christ require care for the physically needy in ones’ own family. To neglect such is to fall below the natural standards of the heathen, Mat 25:41-45.
4) “And is worse than an infidel” (kai estin apistou cherion) “And is (exists in) a worse state or condition (morally and ethically) than an infidel,” even heathen, unbelievers, and infidels are disposed to care for their own needy family members, Rom 2:14-16.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
8 And if any person do not provide for his own Erasmus has translated it, “If any woman do not provide for her own,” making it apply exclusively to females. But I prefer to view it as a general statement; for it is customary with Paul, even when he is treating of some particular subject, to deduce arguments from general principles, and, on the other hand, to draw from particular statements a universal doctrine. And certainly it will have greater weight, if it apply both to men and to women.
He hath denied the faith (90) He says that they who do not care about any of their relatives, and especially about their own house, have “denied the faith.” And justly; for there is no piety towards God, when a person can thus lay aside the feelings of humanity. Would faith, which makes us the sons of God, render us worse than brute beasts? Such inhumanity, therefore, is open contempt of God, and denying of the faith.
Not content with this, Paul heightens the criminality of their conduct, by saying, that he who forgets his own is worse than an infidel This is true for two reasons. First, the further advanced any one is in the knowledge of God, the less is he excused; and therefore, they who shut their eyes against the clear light of God are worse than infidels. Secondly, this is a kind of duty which nature itself teaches; for they are ( στοργαὶ φυσικαί) natural affections. And if, by the mere guidance of nature, infidels are so prone to love their own, what must we think of those who are not moved by any such feeling? Do they not go even beyond the ungodly in brutality? If it be objected, that, among unbelievers, there are also many parents that are cruel and savage; the explanation is easy, that Paul is not speaking of any parents but those who, by the guidance and instruction of nature, take care of their own offspring; for, if any one have degenerated from that which is so perfectly natural, he ought to be regarded as a monster.
It is asked, Why does the Apostle prefer the members of the household to the children? I answer, when he speaks of his own and especially those of his household, by both expressions he denotes the children and grandchildren. For, although children may have been transferred, or may have passed into a different family by marriage, or in any way may have left the house of the parents; yet the right of nature is not altogether extinguished, so as to destroy the obligation of the older to govern the younger as committed to them by God, or at least to take care of them as far as they can. Towards domestics, the obligation is more strict; for they ought to take care of them for two reasons, both because they are their own blood, and because they are a part of the family which they govern.
(90) “ Ou, il a renonce’ a la foy.” — “Or, he hath renounced the faith.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(8) But if any provide not for his own.This repeated warning was necessary in the now rapidly widening circle of believers. Then, in those early days, as now, men and women were attempting to persuade themselves that the hopes and promises of Christians could be attained and won by a mere profession of faith, by an assent to the historical truths, by a barren reception of the doctrine of the atonement, without any practice of stern self-denial, apart from any loving consideration for others; there were evidently in that great Church of Ephesus, which St. Paul knew so well not a few professed believers in the Crucified who, while possessed themselves of a competence, perhaps even of wealth, could calmly look on while their relations and friends languished in the deepest poverty.
And specially for those of his own house.The circle of those for whose support and sustenance a Christian was responsible is here enlarged: not merely is the fairly prosperous man who professes to love Christ, bound to do his best for his nearest relations, such as his mother and grandmother, but St. Paul says he must assist those of his own house, in which term relatives who are much more distant are included, and even dependents connected with the family who had fallen into poverty and distress.
He hath denied the faith.Faith, considered as a rule of life, is practically denied by one who neglects these kindly duties and responsibilities, for faith worketh by love (Gal. 5:6). Faith here is considered by St. Paul, not as mere belief in the doctrine, or even in a person, but as a rule of life.
And is worse than an infidel.The rules even of the nobler Pagan moralists forbid such heartless selfishness. For a Christian, then, deliberately to neglect such plain duties would bring shame and disgrace on the religion of the loving Christ, and, notwithstanding the name he bore, and the company in which he was enrolled, such a denier of the faith would be really worse than a heathen.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
8. But Turning from the widows toward those relatives who may be in duty bound to support them.
If any Professing Christian person.
Provide not for his own Comprehending all whom, according to the dictates of natural affection, he ought to aid.
Own house In the direct line of ancestry and descendants.
Denied the faith For the faith confesses that the duties of natural love shall be richly felt and truly performed. His conduct truly proclaims to the heathen world that Christianity does not require faithfulness to the most sacred ties.
Worse than an infidel An unbeliever. For the very heathen often obey the law written on the heart, and are kindly affectioned toward their own; but these break not only this divine-natural law, but the fifth law of the decalogue, and the law in the gospel.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘But if any does not provide for his own, and especially his own household, he has denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever.’
Meanwhile the menfolk mentioned in 1Ti 5:1 are to ensure that they play their full part in caring for their own relatives, and especially those nearest and dearest to them. Not to do so would be to deny the faith, for under the faith this is their responsibility. ‘The faith’ is the whole body of Christian belief, although not necessarily in credal form. It signifies ‘what we believe’. It would be to deny the very traditions of the church based on the teaching of Jesus. Indeed they would be worse than unbelievers, for in the ancient world care for ageing parents was seen as obligatory by all.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
1Ti 5:8. For his own, &c. That is, “for his own relations, and his own domestics;those of his own family.” Denying the faith, is here, according to St. Paul, leading a wicked life, or living and acting contrary to the moral law, which is adopted in the Christian law. Suppose the man of whom the apostle is here speaking, to have been perfectly evangelical in his sentiments; yet, as long as he provided not for his own family, St. Paul declares that such a one had thereby denied the faith; and was so much worse than one guilty of error in speculation, as to be worse even than an infidel himself; for the heathens were sensible of the reasonableness and necessity of taking care of their near relations. Others have interpreted the passage thus: “Every such Christian is in effect an apostate, (as denying the faith seems to import,) and that is worse than being an infidel, because the former sins against greater light and obligations.”
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
1Ti 5:8 . [ ] ] “ But if any one does not take care for his relatives, and especially for those of his household ;” is here quite general in meaning, and this generality must in the first place be maintained.
and [ ] are not neuters, but masculines. In the N. T., as a rule, are those in close fellowship and community with another. For instance, in Joh 13:1 the relation of Christ to His disciples is thus named. is here wider in meaning than , which is “those properly of the household.” Hofmann thinks that, if the reading without the article be adopted, does not belong to the verb, but to = . It is well known that in classic Greek the superlative is sometimes expressed by before the positive. But this usage is never found in the N. T.; and besides, here, where refers to (1Ti 5:4 ), and is therefore equivalent to “member of the household or family,” the superlative is meaningless. To paraphrase it into “nearest kinsman of all” is purely arbitrary. At any rate, the article is by no means necessary before , since the and the belong to one class; the intervening makes no difference, although it lays special emphasis on the latter.
] inasmuch as he does not do that to which faith, if it be a living faith, incites him; fides enim non tollit officia naturalia, sed perficit et firmat, Bengel.
] here is not (as at 2Co 4:4 ; Tit 1:15 ) “an enemy of Christ,” but “one who is not a Christian,” one who as such is incited by natural law to love his own children (comp. Mat 5:46-47 ).
Calvin says on this: quod duabus de causis verum est, nam quo plus quisque in cognitione Dei profecit, eo minus habet excusationis; deinde hoc genus officii est, quod natura ipsa dictat, sunt enim .
The reference of this general thought varies according to the various interpretations of 1Ti 5:4 . If be taken there as the subject of , then it refers to the relation of these to the widowed mother or grandmother; if the proper subject be , it refers naturally to the conduct of the widows. There is nothing to show that the apostle here was thinking of the mutual relation between the widows and their dependants (Matthies). Still less correct is it, with Hofmann, to wrench 1Ti 5:8 away from 1Ti 5:4 , and to understand by “ the father of a family ,” “who at his death leaves wife and child unprovided for, when he might well have provided for them.” Such a sudden transition from what hitherto has been the subject of discussion would be exceedingly strange; nor is there any hint of it given by the verb , which denotes care in general terms, not “care for those left behind at death.” Paul has hitherto been speaking of the conduct of widows, and only to that same subject can this verse be referred.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
Ver. 8. But if any provide not ] That they may have Gaius’s prosperity, Mentem sanam in corpore sano: though the apostle’s meaning here is chiefly as touching bodily nourishment and outward accommodations.
Specially for those of his own house ] Socrates, an infidel, took care of the welfare of his family and allies, as Lipanins testifieth, . Bishop Ridley was very kind and natural to his kinsfolk. And the Lord Cromwell, before the time of his apprehension, took such order for his servants, that many of them, especially the younger brethren, which had little else to trust unto, had honestly left for them in their friend’s hands to relieve them, whatsoever should befall him.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
8 .] , not only of the above, or any persons connected with widows, but the saying is perfectly general, grounding their duties on an axiomatic truth. Agreeably with their former interpretation, Chrys., &c. regard as meaning ‘a widow:’ Calv. and Thdrt. unite both, widows and children.
seem to be generally any connexions, , those more immediately included in one’s own family as dwelling in the same see reff. Mack is certainly wrong in regarding (without ) as meaning those connected by the faith. The omission of the article (see var. readd.) would make the two belong to one and the same class.
, viz. in the way noted above, of support and sustenance. Notice , in its regular usage, the negation being closely connected with the verb: “neglects to provide.” On the construction of , see Ellic.’s note.
] ‘fides enim non tollit officia naturalia, sed perficit et firmat.’ Bengel.
The Roman-Catholic Commentator Mack has some good remarks here, on the faith of which the Apostle speaks: “Faith, in the sense of the Apostle, cannot exist, without including love: for the subject-matter of faith is not mere opinion, but the grace and truth of God, to which he that believes gives up his spirit, as he that loves gives up his heart: the subject-matter of faith is also the object of love. Where therefore Love is not, nor works, there is not, nor works, Faith either: so that he who fulfils not the offices of love towards his relatives, is virtually an unbeliever.”
] For even among heathens the common duties of family piety are recognized: if therefore a Christian repudiates them, he lowers himself beneath the heathen. Cf. Mat 5:46-47 . Also, as Calv. suggests in addition, the Christian who lives in the light of the Gospel, has less excuse for breaking those laws of nature which even without the Gospel are recognized by men.
According to hypothesis (1) or (2) above, this general statement applies to the widows or to their children and grandchildren: not, as Matthies, to their mutual relations, about which the context contains no hmt. But surely it would be very harsh to understand it of the widows: and this forms an additional argument for hypothesis (2).
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
1Ti 5:8 . The Christian faith includes the law of love. The moral teaching of Christianity recognises the divine origin of all natural and innocent human affections. The unbeliever, i.e. , the born heathen, possesses natural family affection; and though these feelings may be stunted by savagery, the heathen are not likely to be sophisticated by human perversions of religion, such as those denounced by Jesus in Mar 7 . Ell. says. “It is worthy of notice that the Essenes were not permitted to give relief to their relatives without leave from their , though they might freely do so to others in need; see Joseph. Bell. Jud . ii. 8, 6.”
The Christian who falls below the best heathen standard of family affection is the more blameworthy, since he has, what the heathen has not, the supreme example of love in Jesus Christ. We may add that Jesus Himself gave an example of providing for one’s own, when He provided a home for His mother with the beloved disciple.
are near relatives: , members of one’s household. One of the most subtle temptations of the Devil is his suggestion that we can best comply with the demands of duty in some place far away from our home. Jesus always says, Do the next thing; “Begin from Jerusalem”. The path of duty begins from within our own house, and we must walk it on our own feet.
: The omission of the article in the true text before precludes the possibility of taking the word here in the allegorical sense in which it is used in Gal. and Eph.: “the household of the faith”; “the household of God”.
: This verb is only found elsewhere in N.T. in the phrase , Rom 12:17 , 2Co 8:21 (from Pro 3:4 , ).
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
provide. Greek. pronoeo. See Rom 12:17.
not. App-106.
those, &c. Greek. oikeios. See Gal 1:6, Gal 1:10.
own. Omit.
faith. App-150.
infidel = unbeliever. Greek. apistos. See 1Co 6:6;
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
8.] , not only of the above, or any persons connected with widows,-but the saying is perfectly general, grounding their duties on an axiomatic truth. Agreeably with their former interpretation, Chrys., &c. regard as meaning a widow: Calv. and Thdrt. unite both, widows and children.
seem to be generally any connexions,- , those more immediately included in ones own family as dwelling in the same -see reff. Mack is certainly wrong in regarding (without ) as meaning those connected by the faith. The omission of the article (see var. readd.) would make the two belong to one and the same class.
, viz. in the way noted above,-of support and sustenance. Notice , in its regular usage, the negation being closely connected with the verb: neglects to provide. On the construction of , see Ellic.s note.
] fides enim non tollit officia naturalia, sed perficit et firmat. Bengel.
The Roman-Catholic Commentator Mack has some good remarks here, on the faith of which the Apostle speaks: Faith, in the sense of the Apostle, cannot exist, without including love: for the subject-matter of faith is not mere opinion, but the grace and truth of God, to which he that believes gives up his spirit, as he that loves gives up his heart: the subject-matter of faith is also the object of love. Where therefore Love is not, nor works, there is not, nor works, Faith either: so that he who fulfils not the offices of love towards his relatives, is virtually an unbeliever.
] For even among heathens the common duties of family piety are recognized: if therefore a Christian repudiates them, he lowers himself beneath the heathen. Cf. Mat 5:46-47. Also, as Calv. suggests in addition, the Christian who lives in the light of the Gospel, has less excuse for breaking those laws of nature which even without the Gospel are recognized by men.
According to hypothesis (1) or (2) above, this general statement applies to the widows or to their children and grandchildren: not, as Matthies, to their mutual relations, about which the context contains no hmt. But surely it would be very harsh to understand it of the widows: and this forms an additional argument for hypothesis (2).
Fuente: The Greek Testament
1Ti 5:8. , his own) even out of his house.- , those of his own house) Such even especially as the mother or lonely (helpless) widow, at home, 1Ti 5:4. Many parents make this an excuse for their avarice; but this passage chiefly treats of the duty of grandchildren, which ought to flow from love, not to be opposed to faith.- , does not provide) with food and necessary clothing.- , has denied the faith) Paul hopes that there will be no one among Christians who does not provide for his mother. Faith does not set aside natural duties, but perfects and strengthens them.-, an infidel) whom even nature teaches this, although he has never embraced the faith.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
1Ti 5:8
But if any provideth not for his own, and specially his own household,-If any child or grandchild provides not for his own widowed mother or grandmother, especially, those who live with him, he is guilty of a crime in the sight of God.
he hath denied the faith,-So heinous is the crime that he denies the faith in so doing. To grossly violate the will of God is to deny the faith, and a failure to provide is such a violation.
and is worse than an unbeliever.-Many of the godless heathens, recognized the duty of caring for their parents, and for Christians not to do it is worse than an unbeliever. By some it is interpreted to mean if a man does not provide for his own family. But this is to introduce a wholly foreign subject in the connection and to do violence to the context.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
and specially: Gen 30:30, Isa 58:7, Mat 7:11, Luk 11:11-13, 2Co 12:14, Gal 6:10
house: or, kindred, 1Ti 5:4
he hath: 2Ti 3:5, Tit 1:16, Rev 2:13, Rev 3:8
and is: Mat 18:17, Luk 12:47, Luk 12:48, Joh 15:22, 2Co 2:15, 2Co 2:16, 2Co 6:15
Reciprocal: Gen 32:22 – his two wives Gen 43:2 – General Gen 47:12 – his father Jos 2:12 – my father’s Rth 3:1 – shall I not 2Ki 8:2 – with Pro 30:11 – doth Mat 15:6 – honour Luk 8:39 – Return 1Co 7:33 – careth Eph 6:23 – and love 1Ti 5:16 – let them
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1Ti 5:8. His own, and especially, etc. A man might have a widowed mother or sister or aunt, living alone and desolate; or they might be residing within the group that he calls his own household. In either case it is his duty to see that their needs are taken care of so that the church will not be charged. Denied the faith. The faith is the system of righteousness under Christ, a part of the obligations of which is to care for the worthy poor. To refuse doing this duty is equivalent to backsliding from the religion he professes to practice. Worse than an infidel because this man makes no profession of believing in the teaching of Jesus, and hence Is not committing any inconsistency when he refuses to observe these obligations in his conduct of life.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
1Ti 5:8. The precept is general, and in its terms includes the duty of parents to provide for their children as well as that of the children to provide for the parents. Practically, as the latter duty had been already enforced in 1Ti 5:4, it is probable that the words point to the duty of the widow to provide not in the material sense; but, in contrast to the wasteful wantonness of the spurious widow, to exercise forethought for those connected with her. It would perhaps be too bold a change to translate she hath denied the faith, but that would, it is believed, give St. Pauls meaning.
His ownthose of his own household. Better, in each case, her own. The latter as the closer wordthe former, like our phrase his people, including servants, labourers, dependants of any kind.
Worse than an infidel. Better unbeliever, as not involving the stigma which now attaches to the secondary sense of the word; worse, because the heathens as a rule laid stress on filial piety; worse, as sinning more against light and knowledge.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
That is, “If any professing Christianity, and having ability, provides not for his own kindred, but especially for those of his own house, as parents or children, he liveth so contrary to the Christian faith, that in effect he denies it, and is worse than an infidel, who ordinarily take care of their parents, and make provision for their poor relations.” The old heathens had this amongst them as an universal principle of nature, to honour the gods, and provide for their parents; affirming, that no man can do any thing more acceptable to the gods than by heaping favours upon their parents; and that nothing can be a greater evidence of atheism and impiety, than to neglect and despise them.
Learn hence, That it is most unnatural to be hardened against those to whom we stand engaged by near relation or natural bonds; the light of nature teaches infidels much better.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Providing for Christian Widows
The meaning of 1Ti 5:11 is somewhat difficult to ascertain. However, it surely does not mean it is wrong for a widow younger than 60 to remarry, as coming verses will clearly indicate. It may be that widows enrolled to be permanently cared for by the church made a pledge to work for the Lord. Paul was concerned the desires of younger widows might eventually rage out of control, which is the meaning of the word “wanton.” Their embarrassment over being on the permanent role and a desire to get married might lead them to marry a pagan and be disloyal to their confession of Christ and submitting to him in baptism (compare 1Co 7:39 ).
Younger widows would almost certainly still have the energy to care for a home and family. If the church put them on constant support, they would have a tendency to become lazy, wander from house to house, carry idle stories that were destructive either because they were false or because they only served to tear down the character of others and look into things of others that were none of their business. So, the apostle said it was better for the younger widows to marry a Christian man, bear children and care for a household in general. While a man goes about the daily business of earning a living, a woman is directing the affairs at home. Thus, she is said to rule because she is in control of the things that go on there. Of course, she would still love her husband and be subject to him, but someone has to make decisions at home. Thus, she would stay busy doing a good work and give no opportunity to Satan by involving herself in the things described as being brought on by idleness ( 1Ti 5:12-14 ).
Apparently they had already seen some fall prey to the ways of the devil and bring reproach upon the church. Perhaps the directions of verse 8 would have, by themselves, allowed some women to feel they had no obligation toward their widowed mothers and grandmothers. Just in case, Paul went on to plainly state that the Christian woman has the same obligation as the man in Christ ( 1Ti 5:15-16 ).
Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books
1Ti 5:8. If any provide not Food and raiment; for his own Poor relations; and especially those of his own house , his own domestics, those relations who live in his own family, and consequently are under his eye; he hath denied the faith Namely, by such a practice, which is utterly inconsistent with Christianity, which does not destroy, but perfects natural duties. Here we see, to disobey the precepts of the gospel, is to deny or renounce the faith of the gospel; from whence we infer, that the faith of the gospel includes obedience to its precepts; and is worse than an infidel Dr. Whitby shows here, by very apposite citations, that the heathen were sensible of the reasonableness and necessity of taking care of their near relations, and especially of their parents, when reduced to poverty and want. But what has this to do with heaping up money for our children, for which it is often so impertinently alleged? But all men have their reasons for laying up money; one will go to hell for fear of want, another acts like a heathen, lest he should be worse than an infidel! Wesley.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
CHAPTER 23
Years ago our home church pastor found that he had a spot on his lung and the doctors determined that he should have surgery. One of his sons was a nurse in a Large medial complex in the next state, so the pastor went there for the surgery.
The day came for the operation and all went well. The pastor was in recovery, then moved into a room – all seemed quite normal. Within hours he was in serious difficulty. Something had gone wrong with the lung they had operated on. Ultimately the decision was made to remove the lung to save his life. He had been very healthy so operating on one lung would not be a great difficulty for him.
The lung was removed and again he was removed from recovery and was doing well. As before, he suddenly took a serious turn for the worse. The doctors could not reverse his course and he died.
The doctors were in utter shock but nothing could be done.
In the days ahead the church knew that they needed to move on, but they wanted very seriously to assist their former pastors widow. She was not sixty, and she had another son and a daughter both of which could have taken care of her, but the church determined they had a responsibility to the widow.
The church, after much discussion and prayer gave her some options concerning her living accommodations.
They told her that if she wanted to stay in town that she could have title to the parsonage. If she wanted to move out of town, that she could live in the parsonage or they would rent her a place until she was comfortable in making the move.
If she wanted to move immediately they were going to move her.
She opted to stay and take the parsonage.
Again, the church was not obligated to do this, but they wanted to and it was a great show of their love and concern for her.
The church needed a custodian and secretary at the time so she took on those responsibilities to assist in her own livelyhood.
This church had to have been a great testimony to the lost people in the community.
The church was not required to assist, but the wanted to assist. This ought to be any churchs guide to their relationship to their widows.
I might interject here that I am not advocating the welfare program, nor the presence of widows on welfare roles. The government offers these alternatives so if someone takes advantage of them when in need I see nothing intrinsically wrong with it – emphasis on someone that has a NEED!
I might also add that if the church was doing its part there would be no need for a widow to be on welfare. I trust that we might see more churches doing more of what they ought.
Social security on the other hand is something that we as citizens are required to contribute too, so we ought to gain from our contribution.
We will be looking at the SERIOUSNESS OF SUPPORT in verse eight, CRITERIA OF SUPPORT in verses nine and ten, UNWORTHY OF SUPPORT in eleven through fifteen, and NEED OF SUPPORT in verse sixteen.
I. SERIOUSNESS OF WIDOW SUPPORT
1Ti 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
Whom is Paul speaking of in verse eight? The church, the individual, the widow or someone else?
When we moved to Denver to attend Bible college, we settled in a little Bible church for a church home. One of the first of many trials that confronted me took place in that church. One night for Sunday evening service we broke up into little groups. I was placed with two older men. We went down into the basement and one of the men turned to this verse and began to expound.
At the time we had no money, had barely gotten ourselves moved into an apartment, had no money for school, and a brand-new job. We were in a world of hurt financially but current on our bills and an income that would cover our needs.
Now back to the inquisition. I don’t know that this was planned, but I felt that my being assigned to these two men and their picking this particular verse was a little fishy, especially considering his choice of words to indicate but not state that he was speaking of me.
At any rate the man made me feel that I was an infidel and that I was totally corrupt because I wasn’t caring for my family properly. I read the verse over and over and could not see where he could use it in my case – I was convinced that it was speaking of widows and widows only.
For days I felt like a total failure and kept going back to the verse. Finally the Lord gave me a peace that this was indeed, speaking of widows only. This was at a time in my life when I had no formal or church teaching in the Word. It may well be one of the reasons I am so staunch on literal interpretation.
Poverty or being poor is not being unspiritual, but not taking care of widows is!
Some suggest the Church:
a. The context is the church caring for widows.
b. The last time individuals were in view is in verse four.
c. Whom is the book written to? Timothy. Paul is setting some principles to function by. The elders might well be in view in verse eight.
d. This verse seems to relate directly to the thought of verse seven and the blameless state of the church.
Others suggest the individual:
a. The term “anyone” is the key. If Paul were speaking of the elders there would be better terminology to draw the readers attention to the church leadership.
b. The individual is the one that is to care for the widow according to verse four.
c. 1Ti 5:16 is very specific that the individual is in view in this whole concept. The individual should do it if possible, if not then the church should take over.
CONCLUSION:
The primary emphasis is on the individual caring for his own family and widows so that the church is not burdened with that financial supply.
There is a secondary emphasis to the church itself by application. We are family and if we have family in need that is not being cared for, then we are in error.
I would like to make a few observations about this text and the misuse of it by many through the years.
1. This text speaks of taking care of widows after the fact of the death of their husband. It also speaks of her remaining family caring for her.
2. It is not speaking to the husband that does not supply his wife, before the fact of his death with a house, two cars and $200,000 in life insurance.
The husband is to provide for his wife while they are together, but there is no indication that there is a Scriptural requirement for him to provide for her after he is gone.
It is nice if he can provide for her widowhood needs before he leaves, but in many cases this is an impossibility. We know of people that have never made enough too much more than feed themselves and the man has died. That man isn’t worse than an infidel. His family is worse than an infidel if they don’t care for her.
3. The Lord Himself had the responsibility of his widowed mother. Tradition and logic tell us that Joseph probably died much before the crucifixion. Christ did not have an insurance policy on himself with a double indemnity clause in case of crucifixion.
He did not provide for Mary other than asking John to watch out for her.
Was He worse than an infidel? No, never, but this would be the practical application if 1Ti 5:8 were speaking of providing before you leave this life for the women in your life.
I am not speaking against insurance, cars and houses based on this text, but want you to understand that God does not require us to work our lives to provide for times that MIGHT happen.
My father was told when he was twenty-one that he would not live ten years more. He went ahead and married and had children. He made all his plans on what he had been told. He put all the insurance on my mother – none on himself. She died quite a few years before he did – planning doesn’t always work out the way you want.
There are many ministers and missionaries of past generations and present generations that are in serious trouble if this verse speaks of providing insurance.
I have heard several over the years really downgrade anyone that hasn’t set their spouse up financially.
WRONG!!!!
The real proof of the pudding of my thought is the fact that the time of Paul was before the time of life insurance and IRA’s. The best they could do was bury it in the backyard.
You might note that the text is in a present tense and not looking back at the man that pulled the dumb stunt of passing over.
The man that does not care for a widow is denying the faith in that he is not doing what Paul has stated that he should and he is not doing that which the unsaved do by nature. The natural thing to do is to care for your own.
Indeed, it is an indication of the coldness of the believers Timothy was working with for Paul to have to mention the subject.
The thought of deny the faith is a perfect tense which is something that was completed in the past. There may be more to this denial than most commentators suggest. Most feel that he is simply not living up to what the faith would have him do.
I would suggest that inaction is openly showing what the persons internal relationship to God is. NONBELIEVER may well be the case.
II. CRITERIA OF WIDOW SUPPORT
Fuente: Mr. D’s Notes on Selected New Testament Books by Stanley Derickson
Paul cited a commonly recognized responsibility to encourage the relatives of widows to maintain them. Family members have a universally recognized duty to care for one another. Even unbelievers acknowledge this. If a Christian fails here, he behaves contrary to the teaching of his faith and is, in this particular, worse than the typical unbeliever who helps his needy relations. Even the Lord Jesus made provision for His mother’s care as He hung on the cross (Joh 19:26-27).
"The Christian who falls below the best heathen standard of family affection is the more blameworthy, since he has, what the heathen has not, the supreme example of love in Jesus Christ." [Note: Newport J. D. White, "The First and Second Epistles to Timothy and the Epistle to Titus," in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, 4:129.]