“"The Daily Distribution"”

Sunday, December 10, 2023

Honor widows who are truly widows.

(1 Timothy 5.3)

These words begin a set of instructions for the church to financially support its worthy widows.  This principle showed up in the early days of the church, when there was a “daily distribution” for them (Ac 6.1ff), but it wasn’t new then, either.  In the Law of Moses God proclaimed that “He executes justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the sojourner, giving him food and clothing” (De 10.18). This principle undergirds several commandments, including the following:

“When you reap your harvest in your field and forget a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to get it. It shall be for the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow, that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hands.”

(Deuteronomy 24.19)

But the specific application in Christ’s kingdom is more reminiscent of God’s instructions to Israel regarding their tithes:

“At the end of every three years you shall bring out all the tithe of your produce in the same year and lay it up within your towns. And the Levite, because he has no portion or inheritance with you, and the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow, who are within your towns, shall come and eat and be filled, that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hands that you do.”

(Deuteronomy 14.28-29)

Those who dedicate their lives to serving in the church have a right to “get their living by the gospel” (1Co 9.14)—corresponding to Israel’s Levites; and the church ought to care for its members who face pressing physical need—corresponding to “the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow.”  But lest we all begin seeking a handout, Paul continues:

But if a widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn to show godliness to their own household and to make some return to their parents, for this is pleasing in the sight of God.

(1 Timothy 5.4)

He gives further stipulations regarding who should be “enrolled” (v9), dealing with each widow’s particular circumstances and prior habits.  It’s not intended as the default option, but rather to provide for a select few.

When the church was established, of course, there were no social services sponsored by local, state, or federal governments, to provide a baseline income for the less fortunate.  In our country, the Social Security program goes without saying—although for how much longer it is unclear.  This program began in 1935, and payments began at age 65.  At the time, life expectancy in the USA was about 61 years.  Plenty of people lived well past this age, of course, but the idea was that workers would continue working until they either died, or were no longer physically capable of earning their living.  Today, life expectancy is nearly 79 years, and recipients can start receiving benefits as young as age 62!  This means that, instead of taking care of the relatively rare cases in which a person outlives his useful working life, we generally assume the public will pay for 15 years or more of each person’s declining years.

Leaving aside questions about whether such a scheme is sustainable, now let’s consider the ancient world of pre-1935, and specifically the situation in the Mediterranean in the first century AD.  Men and women both worked, but in very different spheres.  Both would earn money, but men could make far more, due to greater physical strength and consequent job sorting, as well as mothers’ primary job, managing the household, which was indispensable, but brought the family no direct income.  If a woman’s husband died, she could be left in quite a pickle, and most would look to remarry.  What if she were too old to remarry?  Surely her relatives would help out!  But what if she had none?  That could be a difficult situation, indeed!

Our word, widow, and the Greek χῆρα-chēra both have a precise meaning, but both originally come from the more general idea of bereavement—hence Paul’s “truly widows” comment in 1 Timothy 3.3.  He didn’t mean to diminish the widowhood of the woman whose husband died, but whose children remained; rather, he meant that such a woman was not entirely bereft of family and providers.  In cases where a devout woman was totally alone and destitute, the church was to provide, in the same way another widow’s earthly family might all chip in to make sure their great-aunt Betty has food, shelter, and clothing.

In a way, it’s good that society has learned enough from Christianity to implement this kind of charity in widespread fashion; but on the other hand, when it’s done by forcibly taking money from the unwilling, it’s far less meaningful than when it’s a gesture of love.  When it’s treated as an entitlement rather than a gift, it encourages the taxed and the recipient of their taxes to resent each other—and it gives the children of aging parents a convenient excuse to dishonor father and mother!  It makes it hard for contributors to give cheerfully to support people from whom they are totally disconnected, and on top of it all, it undercuts the church’s need to show love, because the state can handle it, instead!

This issue is complex in our modern world, and it gets too little attention.  But although these instructions from God often find no clear opportunity for direct implementation, they still teach us about our responsibilities, and encourage us to deliberately find ways to love brothers and sisters in need.

Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.

(James 1.17)

Jeremy Nettles

Share