Summary:

A “yoke” (6:1) was a symbol of slavery (Lev.26:13). Since slaves couldn’t change their circumstances, Paul’s advice was was to change how they thought about their circumstances (I Cor. 7:21,22). It’s the secret of life, since oftentimes our circumstances can’t be changed.

Slaves are often told to obey their masters (Eph. 6:5; Col.3: 22; Titus 2:9), but here Paul goes further and tells servants to “count” their masters “worthy” of the honor of their service. You could honor a master with your service with-out counting him worthy of it. But all that did was make a slave miserable, since he had to obey. So Paul told slaves to serve their masters as they served Christ (Eph.6:5,6). If you feel good about serving the Lord, you can feel the same about serving your boss, if you serve him as unto the Lord. We’re about to elect a new boss of our country. We all have to obey him. But if we don’t count him worthy of our obedience, all it will do is make us miserable.

Slaves that didn’t count their masters worthy of their service were more likely to serve poorly, and that would cause God to be blasphemed (6:1). When men don’t serve their bosses well, or women don’t do what God says they should do, God is blasphemed as well (Tit. 2:3-5). When Paul says not serving well would cause God’s doctrine to be blasphemed, he’s talking about the doctrine that said that “there is neither bond nor free” (Gal. 3:27,28). If you were a master who didn’t know anything about the Bible and you read that, you’d think Christianity was all about freeing slaves. And then if your servant was slothful that would confirm his wrong understanding of God’s doctrine.

It would be tempted for believing slaves to despise a believing master who wouldn’t free them, but men were servants for legitimate reasons, such as when a man would run up too much debt and had to work it off, so it wouldn’t be right to free them. Slaves might also resent a believing master if he didn’t give them preferential treatment, but masters were told to give all servants what was “just and equal” (Col. 4:1). This was lest unbelieving slaves resent Christianity when they didn’t get preferential treatment.

A slave might also despise a believing master for the reason Hagar “despised” her mistress when she could do what her mistress couldn’t. When you think you can do your master’s job better than he can, it’s easy to despise him.

The Jews thought they could do the job of leading Israel as well as Moses and Aaron (Num.16:3). But Moses and Aaron didn’t lift themselves up to be leaders as the Jews said, God lifted them. And whoever wins our election, we know that God lifted them up (Rom.13:1). To despise them would be “presumptuous” (II Pe.2:10), i.e., we would be presuming we could govern better. Hagar proved she could do a better job than her master, but when she despised her, her mistress “dealt hardly with her” (Gen.16:6), and the same might happen to us if we despise government.

It is said our leaders aren’t following the constitution, the law of our land, and so aren’t worthy of the honor of our service. But the Law of Moses was the law of the land of Israel, and it said “thou shalt not kill,” and Saul wasn’t honoring it when he was trying to kill David. But David felt bad when he despised him for it (I Sam.24:5,6).

God forbid that we should despise our leaders for not following the law of the land. God is all about order. He has let Satan himself sit on the throne of this planet for 6,000 years, knowing Christ will someday return and fix all our governments. All He asks of us is to do the same, and focus instead on the ministry He’s focusing on.

Masters are “faithful,” full of faith in Christ (Eph.1:1) and “beloved” of the Lord (cf. Rom.1:7; IITh.2:13), and despite their faults masers should be obeyed because they were.

Believing masters were “partakers of the benefit” of having a saved slave. If Onesimus served Paul in Philemon’s stead, he would “benefit” at the Judgment Seat (Phile.1:14). If Onesimus served Philemon, he’d be a partaker of the benefit of a believing slave. But either one would only be so if Onesimus chose to serve his master.

Summary:

“Elders that rule” (v.17) in the United States are members of the church board. In the context, the “honour” owed them is financial honor. But most churches don’t pay their board members since they usually have jobs, and so have an alternate means of support, just as we are told not to support widows with an alternate means of support (5:3,4).

Ruling elders can labor in the Word, but aren’t expected to (5:17 cf. Rom.12:8). Good boards usually have a mixture of teachers and non-teachers.

To prove his point, Paul quotes Deuteronomy 25:4 (v.18). “Corn” just meant grain (John 12:24). They separated the grains of wheat from the chaff by having oxen walk on it. Cruel owners muzzled the ox so he couldn’t partake of the fruit of his labors. God said they shouldn’t, “altogether” for the purpose of teaching us to pay spiritual leaders (ICor. 9:9-11). Paul also quotes Luke 10:7, calling it “Scripture” as well. This shows the canon of Scripture was known and recognized as soon as the books were written.

Another way ruling elders should be honored is by not receiving an accusation against them without two or three witnesses (5:19). This was also drawn from the Old Testament (Deut.19:15). Without these witnesses, an accusation shouldn’t even be received, let alone believed.

If an accuser does have witnesses who determine a ruling elder has sinned, he must be rebuked before all (5:20). Paul’s giving a pastor a lot of leeway here by not saying how big a sin must be rebuked. Also, if an elder is, say, angry without a cause in private, should he be rebuked publicly? You would think an affair should be rebuked publicly, but Ephesians 5:12 might suggest otherwise. A commonly known sin must be rebuked publicly, however (ICor.5:1,13). Compare how Paul rebuked Peter before all when he sinned openly (Gal. 2:11-15). In addition, perhaps a ruling elder who sins once and repents should not be rebuked as one who continues in sin and refuses to repent. Paul’s ambiguity here gives a pastor latitude in this area.

But it is important to remember that “rebuke” in the Bible is never like a drill sergeant chewing out a recruit. In the Bible, that kind of “furious” rebuke was only given to God’s enemies (Ezek.25:17). Jacob rebuked his adult son by gently asking him what he was doing (Ezek.37:10), and God sees us as adult sons, having received the adoption (Gal.4:1-5).That’s also how Nehemiah rebuked some rulers (Neh.5:7,8), and that’s how God himself rebuked a leader named Balaam (IIPe.2:15,16 cf. Num.22:28-30). And nothing changed in the New Testament (Lu.9:55), or under grace (Gal.2:14). Any time we’re told what words were used to rebuke someone, they were always gentle words.

Paul knew Timothy might not want to rebuke elders who were his coworkers, so gave him a charge not to neglect to (5:21). This is the only time Paul charged anyone before God, His Son, and the elect angels. Those Catholic leaders who didn’t rebuke the priests who molested those boys show why God gave Timothy such a serious charge. People were outraged that spiritual leaders were shown partiality and given preferential treatment (cf. Lev. 19:15).

Paul went on to tell Timothy to be careful in the selection of ruling elders (ITim.5:22). Hands were laid on a man to ordain him (cf. Nu.8:10). This should not be done “suddenly,” i.e., before you get to know a man. If you ordain a man and serious sins come out later you are a partaker of his sins (5:22) because it looks like you knew about them and ordained him anyway. Paul tells Timothy to keep himself pure of the sins of others by not doing this.

Paul knew that rebuking elders and inquiring about their sins would give Timothy a nervous stomach, so he interrupts himself to address that (5:23). If he could have healed him as he did folks in Acts 19:11,12 he would have, but the gift of healing had been withdrawn.

The reason Timothy shouldn’t ordain a man too quickly is because sometimes their sins don’t come out till later (5:24). But Timothy shouldn’t worry about missing some hidden sins in men, since hidden good works are just as likely to come out after ordination (5:25).

Summary:

In the context, Verse 8 is saying that a widow’s sons and nephews should care for her instead of the church (v.1-7). But Paul left it purposely open-ended, saying “if any provide not for his own…he hath denied the faith”, so it would be applied to husbands and fathers as well.

“The faith” is the body of truth given to Paul (Col. 1:23; 2:7), which includes these instructions to care for widowed moms. So if a son refused to care for a widowed mom, he denied the faith and was “worse than an infidel,” an unbeliever (cf. IICor. 6:15). Even unbelievers know they should care for their own (Lu.11:12,13).

The “number” (v.9) was the number of widows on the official roll of widows receiving church aid. If “wife of one man” meant a divorced woman couldn’t receive support, it would also mean a twice widowed woman couldn’t. It actually means one man at a time. Hagar was called Abraham’s “wife”, so if a widow similarly had a husband and a man on the side, she was the wife of two men at a time.

Bringing up children (v.10) means teaching them the Word as well as feeding and clothing them (IITim.3:15 cf. 1:5). “Lodging strangers” means to be a gracious hostess. It involved washing your guests’ feet in those days, but today it just means to make your guests feel at home. And since God designed women to be nurturers, no one is better at relieving the afflicted. Since a woman is “well reported of” for these things, these are the things “of good report” that a Christian woman should “think on” (Phil.4:8) and emulate.

If younger women are included in the support roll, they’ll start to wax wanton against Christ (v.11). “Wanton” means to fail to restrain one’s sexual urges, something that’s hard for young widows. The word “against” can mean in competition with, as “the cars were racing against each other for first place.” Placing a young widow on the roll sets her urges against Christ for first place in her heart. Older widows can win that battle generally, but not younger widows. They will “marry.”

But marrying is what a woman should do (ICor.7:8,9), so why does Paul say she has “damnation” (v.12)? At first I thought he meant they’d marry unbelievers, but the Bible isn’t shy about saying so when that’s the problem (cf. Neh. 13:27).Then I thought maybe they got married in the Abraham/Hagar sense, but then it would say “having damnation because they fell into fornication.” No, “her first faith” is the faith a young widow pledged to the church when they added her to the support roll. She agreed to pray for the saints to requite them for supporting her (ITim.5:5 cf. Lu.2:36-38). If she then married, she’d cast off that faith.

If all “damnation” were eternal, Mark 3:29 wouldn’t make sense. Breaking the law earns you damnation from the government (Rom.13:1,2), and casting off her first faith earned a widow the kind of self condemnation we read about in Romans 14:23. She condemns herself for taking money from the church then marrying.

Marrying usually leads to fullness of bread, which can lead a woman to idleness (Eze.16:49cf.ITim.5:13), just as a lack of bread can lead man or woman to work hard. Marrying shouldn’t lead to idleness (Pr.31:27). The right response is to requite your husband for supporting you instead of busy-bodying from house to house. By the way, the Thessalonian men became busybodies when they quit working (IITh.3:11). Paul says rather than let younger widows be taken into the number of widows the church supports only to marry and cast off their first faith, younger widows should marry instead (5:14). Since this was Paul’s will, it was also God’s will, since he wrote by inspiration. But if you’re not married or a mother, it was only a “reproach” if young widows pledged faith to the church then cast it off.

Some young widows had already done so, and “turned aside unto Satan” (5:15). If that sounds harsh to say about a woman whose only crime was casting off her pledge of faithfulness to the church, remember Eve turned aside to Satan by eating fruit. The smallest of sins is a turn to Satan.

Lastly, if sons supported their widows, the church would have more money to support widows with no kids (16).

Summary:

Since Verses 1 and 2 mention older women, younger women, and younger men, we know Paul’s not talking about the office of “elder,” but about older men. “Rebuke” is what you give someone doing something wrong (Lev.19:17) or standing in the way of God’s will (Ps.106:9), which today means opposing Pauline truth. But if others are rebuked when they do this (Tit.1:13), why should older men get a free pass if they teach error or live in sin?

Well, to begin with, a young pastor like Timothy (cf. 4:12) shouldn’t rebuke an older man for doing something wrong because he might not be doing anything wrong (cf. Mt. 19:13,14), and he might not be teaching anything wrong. So a pastor should “intreat” an older man first, i.e., ask him earnestly (cf. Luke 15:28) about what he’s doing or teaching. But in the Bible, the word “intreat” is almost always used for God or some superior (cf. Pr.19:6). Older men should be treated as superiors by intreating them be-fore rebuking them. If a pastor still thinks he said or taught something wrong, then he must rebuke him (IITim.4:2).

And the same is true for elder women, younger women, and younger men. The verb “intreat” applies to all. All God’s people deserve to be treated as superiors. Younger men don’t like to be rebuked by men their own age (like Timothy) so they too should be intreated before they are rebuked. Young pastors generally don’t understand women yet so should intreat elder women first as well. The kind of sin younger women are likely to be involved in is the kind Timothy needs to ask about “with all purity.” A pastor doesn’t need to know details to point out what is wrong.

“Honour” (5:3) in this context means to honor financially (cf. Pr.3:9; Dan.11:38), as in our word “honorarium.” In those days if a woman’s husband died, with him died all means of her financial support. So Paul tells Timothy to help widows, as they did under the Law with a special tithe (Deut.14:28,29). At our church, when anyone has a financial need, I announce it and you respond. Some churches have a benevolent fund, but however you help the needy is okay. God doesn’t specify how to help, He just says help.

“Widows indeed” (v.3) are those with no alternate means of support, such as from family (v.4). “Piety” is the worship of God by doing your duty to Him, or to your parents, or to your country, etc. A son shouldn’t join the military to do his duty to God by doing his duty to his country if he leaves a widowed mom behind to fend for herself. And a Christian son shouldn’t do the same by becoming a missionary. Ephesus, where Timothy was pastoring, was a missionary-minded church (Acts 19:1,10). Paul is saying if any of those who took the word to Asia had widowed mothers, they should first learn to show piety at home.

How much of a problem was this? Well, there must have been a strong thinking in the world at that time that you don’t owe your parents anything if it was able to influence the fundamentalist Pharisees to forsake what Moses said about honoring parents (Mt.15:1-6).That influence was still around in Paul’s day, so Paul told Timothy to ignore it and to tell the saints to “requite” (pay back, ISam.25:21) their parents (5:4) by honoring them if they have financial needs.

Paul says it is “good and acceptable” to do this (5:4), which makes it part of your duty to God (Rom.12:1,2). Part of your reasonable service to God is to requite your parents. “Desolate” (5:5) in this context means to have no children who can support her (cf.Isa.49:21). If she’s desolate she must trust in God (5:5), who requites her trust through the saints, not through His prophets as in time past (IIKi.4:1-7).

Then it is the widow’s turn to do some requiting by praying for the saints who support her “night and day” (5:5), just as we requite the government who gives us tax breaks by praying for them (2:1,2 cf.Ezra 6:3-10), something else that is “good and acceptable” to God (ITim.2:3). She should then requite God for helping her through His saints by living a godly life and not living in pleasure (5:6). He’s thinking of the Genesis 18:12 kind of pleasure. If she does, she won’t lose her salvation, just die in the Romans 8:13 sense, the kind of death a Christian doesn’t need to be saved from, just to wake up from (Eph.5:14; ICor.15:34).

Summary:

Some spiritual gifts were given by the laying on of hands (Acts 8:18). If Timothy could neglect his gift (4:14), it must mean a man could choose to use his gift or not. The Corinthians were told to choose not to use the gift of tongues when there was no interpreter (ICor.14:27,28), and not to use the gift of prophecy if someone was already using it (ICor.14:29-32). When Paul tells Timothy not to neglect his gift, it suggests he was choosing not to use his gift.

What was his gift? Well, it was given by the laying on of hands, and so was the gift in II Timothy 1:6-8. The gift there seems to have been the gift of “apostle” (ICor.12:28). That gift gave Paul the boldness (Rom.1:15) he later lacked when the gifts faded (Eph. 6:19), and when Paul told Timothy to stir up his gift of apostle, it was to counter “the spirit of fear.” He was an apostle like Barnabas (Acts 14:4,14).

But we know the gift of apostle included all the gifts, for Paul could speak in tongues, heal the sick raise the dead, etc. In the context here, Timothy was probably neglecting to do what the previous verse said, give attention to reading the Bible and exhorting people to obey its doctrines. That’s the gift of ministry (Rom.12:6,7)! Even today elders lay hands on a man to ordain him to the ministry, although only to identify with him. They cannot impart a gift of ministry.

At Timothy’s ordination his gift was given, and prophecies were made on him (ITim.1:18), probably that he would “war a good warfare” since Timothy was told to do so “by” those prophecies. When men began to teach the law (1:7) and that the resurrection was past (1:20 cf. IITim. 2:16,17), a timid man like Timothy found it easier to neglect his gift than to teach the Word and encourage people to obey it.

Paul also told Timothy to “meditate” (4:15). The world meditates by emptying their mind, but we meditate by filling ours, usually with the Word (Ps.119:15,23).Here Timothy was to meditate on “these things,” a phrase Paul uses 8 times in this epistle to mark off sections. Since it is used in 4:11, he’s being told to meditate on the things in v.12-15.

If he would, his profiting would appear “to all.” That was the purpose of the gifts, to profit “withal” (ICor.12:7). When used properly they profited the one with the gift and others around him in the church. But we know by this time the gifts were fading, since Paul couldn’t send Timothy a blessed handkerchief (Acts 19:11,12 cf. ITim.5:23). But as the gifts faded, men like Timothy could still profit by meditating on those things and giving himself “wholly” to them (4:15) so his profiting could appear to all and profit them. That’s why I try to give myself wholly to studying and teaching and not get distracted by politics, etc.

Most pastors give heed to their people to see if they are giving themselves to spiritual things, but Paul tells Timothy to take heed to himself (4:16). If he would also give heed to “the doctrine” he wouldn’t give “heed to…doctrines of devils” (ITim.4:1). The way to not be seduced by false doctrine isn’t to study false doctrine (Jer.10:2). You might just fall for false doctrine that way! (Deut.12:30). The way to not give heed to false doctrine is to study Pauline doctrine. God wants us “simple” concerning those that teach false doctrine (Rom.16:17-19). Don’t be studying Islam to try to help Muslims! Paul says to “avoid” them, not study them!

If you want to know how important it was for Timothy to “continue” in those things (v.16), where do you think we’d be if Paul hadn’t (Gal.2:5)? Where do you think we’d be if Timothy hadn’t? Where do you think the next generation will be if we don’t? If Timothy would give heed to the doctrine, he would “save” himself from the doctrines of devils, and from all the misery and heartache that comes from not giving heed to Pauline doctrine. And this would save his congregation from those things as well.

If Timothy had an extraordinary miraculous gift, yet was told to avail himself of ordinary means, how important it is for people like us, who don’t have a gift, to avail ourselves of reading the Scriptures and meditating on those things, etc. And while you may not have any miraculous gifts, you have natural gifts God can use, as He used Esther’s beauty, and David’s ability with a sling. Just don’t neglect to use your natural gifts for the Lord!