Timothy to Hebrews - The Preterist Archive

.
118 First Timothy V. 4.
which vers. 8, 16, 17 aro to be compared, that rifido) here must bo
taken in the definite sense of honouring by providing for. We do
not say that nimu) means precisely " to support," but that it signifies
an honour which was to shew itself in giving support to those
on whom it was to be conferred, must have been self-evident to
Timothy, in accordance with the relation in which he stood to them.
Comp. Matth. xv. 4, 6 ; Acts xxviii. 10. Reference has already
been made in connexion with this to Acts vi. 1. This care for the
widows was transferred, from the Jewish economy ; comp. Deut. xvi.
11, xiv. 29, xxiv. 17, 19 ; Ex. xxii. 22, seq., etc.; Winer, R.W.B.,
under widow. Then Ign. ad Polyc. c. 4, xw°-'' M dixeXetoduyaav
Just. M. Apol ; 1 (al. 2), 67 ;
rb ovXXeyonevov •napa rui TrpoeorioTi
aTTOTiderai, kol avrbg tTTLKOvpel 6p(pavoig re Koi x^po-''?' (De Wette on
the passage). Tag ovrcog xw^^ ^^^ apostle adds by way of more definitely
describing the class of individuals of whom he speaks.
Schleiermacher maintains that by this expression can only be understood
widows of the right character ; and he is quite right with
his interpretation of niidv. But with that interpretation this assertion
also falls to the ground. Not only is the manifest sense of ver.
16 against it, but chiefly vers. 4 and 5, from which we learn what
the apostle means by i)
dv-cog XVP^-
Vor. 4.—The apostle proceeds : el ds ng XVP^, ^tc, but if any
widow have children or descendants, they should first learn to shew
piety towards their own house, and to requite their parents, etc.
But if any widoiv, stands evidently opposed to the luidoius indeed.
From this opposition, the idea implied in the luidoiu indeed finds
its explanation. But this opposition is overlooked when, with
Schleiermacher, Matthies, and others, we find in vers. 4 and 5 a description
of the luidoio indeed in these two circumstances, namely,
that she has had children, and that she is destitute. Wherefore,
then, the npajrov^ which has meaning only in the antithetical relation
to ver. 3 ? Why is not uvTOjg ?/ XW"- the subject ? And why
in ver. 5 is it said, hut she that is a luidow indeed, implying opposition
to what precedes, seeing that according to this interpretation
ver. 4 also spealcs of a widoiv indeed ? In //e/iai-w/zt-v?; alone would
there be any opposition to ver. 4. And if the design is to describe
the right widow, it is surely altogether incongruous to say, let them
first learn, for as right widows they must already have learned this.
And why then in ver. 5 iiXttikev and not the imperative as in ver. 4 ?
Nor may we make the widows the subject of fiavOav., as this interpretation
requires. If, on the contrary, we understand the words,
hut if any tvidow, etc., as opposed to the luidoiv indeed, and consequently
as deterniining who is to be regarded as a widow and who is
not, which seems to be required by the words ovTixtg x^P"- placed emphatically
at the conclusion of ver. 3, then all is clear. Ver. 4 then
—