Timothy to Hebrews - The Preterist Archive

—
120 First Timothy V. 5.
family honour.
Tov IStov evidently stands in opposition to the relation
in which the widow stands to the church from which she is to
receive support, which is to her in a relative point of view—strange.
On npoyovoi, finally, which has likewise been found unsuitable, De
Wette observes "
: rrpdy. parents and grandfather and grandmother,
is used of those who are still alive, Plat. legg. XI,, p. 931, seq. It
is plural because used of mother or grandmother." The expression,
let them learn, shews, moreover, that abuses in this respect had
crept into the church, and that widows sought support from the
church who had relations that were able to provide for them. For
this is acceptable before God, comp. ii. 3, from which the kuaov Kai of
the received version has been transferred into the text of our pas
sage ; comp. Tischendorf.
Ver. 5.—De Wette says well "
: The loidow indeed is now spoken
of, and that in special opposition to ver. 4, as one who is desolate ;
not, however, for the purpose of saying that she is to be " honoured"
by the church (for this has already been said, ver. 3), but in
order to bring into view the conditions under which this honour is
to be given. The words, hut she luho is a luidoiu indeed, can, in
opposition to ver. 4, be understood only of her who is wholly bereft
and destitute, not of the true widow who is what she should be ;
and KoX iiefiovoinevT] is an epexegetical explanation of // ovtgji; :\;7ypa.
If with Schleiermacher and others, we take y uvrcog x>'lpa = the
right widow (in respect to disposition and character) and koi jue/iovw-
H^T] not as an explanation but as an additional cliaracteristic, we
should then have the false antithesis according to which the widow
described in the preceding verse would be not a right widow in point
of character, or rather the words ?/ (Jt uvrcog xiP^^ would Ibrm no antithesis
at all, and this would only be formed by tlic sui)plementary
expression [lEfiov., which is logically impossible. It is objected to our
interpretation, that if jue/xov. were explanatory it would have the
article. (Matthies.) And why should it not also have the article if
jue/Ltov. forms an additional characteristic ? The reason why Koi
fjienov. is placed after ij cJe 6vT0)g x'lP^ appears to me to be, that the
writer wants to connect i] uvroyg as before, immediately with xvp^j
and not to place [lenov. directly beside ?/ uvriog ; but if fiefiov. had
been placed before instead of after, it would in no case have received
the article, as it would have formed one and the same idea
with 7] uvrojg. But it is further objected to this interpretation
(Leo), that the uvTcjg x'lP^ could not have been o])posid to the
oTTaTaXdaa, ver. 6, if i) vvrcjg x'lpf^ wcrc not vidua pia et proba. In
reply to this we have simply to say, that oTrarakiooa, ver. 6, is not
opposed to 7) uvTOjg X'lP^i ver. 5, but to the ovriog xw"' described in
ver. 5, who hopes in God and continues in prayer. As 7/ Si 5vT0)g
Xnpo; ver. 5, is opposed to the widow, ver. 4, so 7} 6e a-nar. is opposed