I was driving by the local First Baptist Church recently and I couldn't help but notice their new tour bus. They've had an old greyhound bus for years. I suppose it has seen better days, and now is being replaced by this newer tour bus. And, I couldn't help but cast a disparaging look at it and at their manicured lawns and landscaping. Well, being one who enjoys a nice landscape, I couldn't help but notice theirs, BUT not at the Church. And I enjoy taking trips to Branson too, BUT not as a church.

How can I criticize them for the things I do myself. Doesn't it make me a hypocrite? Sure, it's easy to say, "They should have spent that money on this good work or that good work". Maybe, they'd like to tell me the same thing. I spend considerable time and money on my landscape. I get in my car and drive to Branson. And they get on their bus and all go together. Who is the better steward?

Don comments:

A cursory look at such verses as Genesis 1: 26 reveals that man has supremacy, authority, and, yes, attendant stewardship over many things appertaining to this earth. However, I would like to inject a basic thought relative to the church and individual.

Here is my basic point: There are things the individual can do that the church may not do; hence, there is a difference in church and individual action. How do I know this? Consider Paul's teaching to Timothy:

"16: If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed" (I Tim. 5).

Part of my responsibility as a father, husband, etc. is to provide various things, including "recreation." Yes, I took my family to Branson. However, it is not the work of the local church to provide such recreation, this is the "social gospel." The church is primarily a spiritual institution, providing edification and sound teaching (I Tim. 3: 15). Even in the isolated area of church benevolence, there are restrictions. Children and grandchildren come first in the matter of relieving their parents and grandparents (I Tim. 5).

Allow me to just briefly mention in this post that based on I Timothy 5: 16 and the relevant context, I observe the following:

1). There is a difference in individual and church action.

2). There are things the individual may do that the church may not do.

3). In the case of benevolence, children and grandchildren occupy a first place position and the church is not to assist in this circumstance.

4). The teaching of I Timothy 5: 16 presupposes that there is a "treasury," hence, enabling the church (collective noun representing collective or group action as opposed to individual action) to execute or not execute the considered action (entirety of I Timothy 5).

Cordially,
Don Martin

Don Martin to the list:

As predicted, the discussion has begun relative to I Timothy 5: 16.  I will not burden you, but I thought I would share the opening posts:

Don Martin to James and the list:

James wrote in response to my post pertaining to the church and the individual the following:

I do ask, however; Don:

1). Are you contending that (I Tim. 5) limits the aid to grandparents by only their own children?
2). Are you contending that (I Tim. 5) limits the aid to children by only their biological parents?.
3). Are you saying that other individuals may not provide aid to grandparents or children?
4). Are we to understand that individuals may not join together as a congregation and assist grandparents/children ?

Don replies:

First, thank you, James, for your good questions.  I shall try to briefly address each question below:

1) Are you contending that (I Tim. 5) limits the aid to grandparents by only their own children?

Answer:  In the context of what the church (collectivity, treasury) is to do, children and grandchildren are to financially assist their parents and grandparents and not the local church.  The text nor I have discussed any other circumstance.  Again, the focus is on:  church versus individual. (I Tim. 5: 16.)

2) Are you contending that (I Tim. 5) limits the aid to children by only their biological parents?.

Answer:  I have no reason to believe that the scriptures seriously distinguish between biological parents and parents who have adopted (cp. I Tim. 5: 10).

3) Are you saying that other individuals may not provide aid to grandparents or children?

Answer:  Again, I Timothy 5 pertains to what individuals and the church have a responsibility to do.  The individual (children/grandchildren) may do certain things that the local church may not do in the circumstances. I do recall a case where it was introduced into a business meeting that the church should assist a certain member.  It turned out that in that very business meeting, there were two of the children present and one grandchild.  I asked if they had assisted.  Their answer was, "no." Hence, I Timothy 5 applied (see my full post below).  As to whether or not others as individuals could have assisted, the matter is not addressed in I Timothy 5. In my case, I did not, but encouraged the children and grandchild to do their part.  Had they done so and a need remained, the local church then could have been scripturally introduced.  Also, had a need continued after the involvement of the children and grandchild, I would have been happy to have also done what I could.  The whole point of Timothy 5 is that there is an ascending scale of responsibility. Children and grandchildren have priority in their matter of relieving the needs of their parents and grandparents, before any involvement by the local church (collectivity, treasury), the church is to address "widows indeed" (see vss. 3-16).

4). Are we to understand that individuals may not join together as a congregation and assist grandparents/children?

Answer:  Paul makes it plain that the church is not to be charged in the case of children/grandchildren, they have the primary responsibility of assisting their parents/grandparents, not the local church (I Tim. 5: 16).

I shall ask James one question and then insert my full, original post:

James, how do you explain I Timothy 5: 16, which reads (thank you in advance for your answer):

     "16: If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed."

My post:

A cursory look at such verses as Genesis 1: 26 reveals that man has supremacy, authority, and, yes, attendant stewardship over many things appertaining to this earth. However, I would like to inject a basic thought relative to the church and individual.

Here is my basic point: There are things the individual can do that the church may not do; hence, there is a difference in church and individual action. How do I know this? Consider Paul's teaching to Timothy:

     "16: If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed" (I Tim. 5).

Part of my responsibility as a father, husband, etc. is to provide various things, including "recreation." Yes, I took my family to Branson. However, it is not the work of the local church to provide such recreation, this is the "social gospel." The church is primarily a spiritual institution, providing edification and sound teaching (I Tim. 3: 15). Even in the isolated area of church benevolence, there are restrictions. Children and grandchildren come first in the matter of relieving their parents and grandparents (I Tim. 5).

Allow me to just briefly mention in this post that based on I Timothy 5: 16 and the relevant context, I observe the following:

1). There is a difference in individual and church action.

2). There are things the individual may do that the church may not do.

3). In the case of benevolence, children and grandchildren occupy a first place position and the church is not to assist in this circumstance.

4). The teaching of I Timothy 5: 16 presupposes that there is a "treasury," hence, enabling the church (collective noun representing collective or group action as opposed to individual action) to execute or not execute the considered action (entirety of I Timothy 5).

James wrote:

First Don, I agree the responsibility for providing support for "grand parents" are their own offspring (where they are able to do so); second, Parents are to be responsible for own children while those children are not able to do so for themselves.

Don reflects:

I appreciate and enjoy agreement.  Our agreement should be the result of both James and me believing I Timothy 5: 16.  A common belief of the scriptures is one matter that constitutes biblical unity (I Cor. 1: 10).

James continued:

I disagree that the personal letter to Timothy was to be directed at a local congregation in the 21st Century, ( I.E. not a direct Command, nor a binding in every circumstances an "Apostolic" example) or that it is necessarily inferred ). It is simply NOT in the text.

Don comments:

I anticipated it would come down to whether or not I Timothy 5: 16 is viewed as authoritative.  James's objection to I Timothy 5: 16 being used to restrict those whom a local church (treasury) may financially assist seems to be based on a couple of things.

1).  James stated, "I disagree that the personal letter to Timothy...." How about Paul's "personal letter" to Titus, Philemon, and 2 Timothy? Based on James' reasoning and criteria, I suppose that none of the teaching in these "personal letters" is authoritative and binding.  How about John's "personal letters" (Second and Third John)?  Then, there is the Book of Acts, which was also a "personal letter" (Acts 1: 1-4). Sounds like we should just tossed all these books aside because they are "personal letters."

2).  James continued, "...personal letter to Timothy was to be directed at a local congregation in the 21st Century....  What is there about the teaching of I Timothy 5: 16 that would limit it to only First Century churches?

James wrote:

As to 1 Tim.5:16, being according to you, prevents a local congregation (or individuals cooperating together ) from providing the "needs". ISTM you negate the "Example" in Acts 2: 45, Acts 4: 35 and the Apostles "Command" of Acts 6:3; thus you Necessarily Invent the prohibition of individuals acting together to spend money in support of those in need.

Don answers:

I like the, "according to you...."   Notice the verse again:

     "16: If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed" (I Tim. 5: 16).

In the case of Acts 2: 45, the church (treasury) is not involved, at least, I see no indication of such.  It was individual action.

In the matter of Acts 4: 35, I Timothy 5: 16 further modifies and qualifies. There is no contradiction.

Relative to Acts 6: 3 (context, church support of widows), again, I Timothy 5: 16 further explains what was done.  Many times, a verse will qualify, modify and/or augment another verse.  I Timothy 5: 16 provides the specificity and such verses as Acts 4: 35 and chapter six are generic in this regard.  One does not take a generic teaching and make it exclude a specified teaching.  The specific teaching (I Tim. 5: 16) is allowed to influence the generic teaching (Acts 4: 35).

James further reasons:

Reminds me of the Priest (preacher?) and the Levite (pew packer?) who ignored one in "need" and good old Sam ignored their "Church" rules and regulations to provide.

Don considers:

The parable of the good Samaritan is truly individual action, there is no church (treasury) involved (Luke 10: 30-37).  Besides, the last time I checked, the person who was robbed and beaten was not a widow, having children and/or grandchildren.

James' reasoning is very interesting, indeed.  The result of his thinking is those who tossed aside I Timothy 5: 16 are the really faithful Christians and those who respect it along with all else God has taught are the bad boys!  Such is a total reversal of what is observed in the scriptures.

James asked:

Which today do you suppose YHWH will consider is Christ's body in action a preacher and pew packer who find NO authority in the scriptures they select or some one who does what Christ would do TODAY ?

Don answers:

I am taught in the word that those whom Jesus recognizes as his people today are those who hear and do what is taught in the word (Matt. 7: 21f., Luke 6: 46, John 12: 48).

Allow me to close by repeating a portion of my initial post regarding I Timothy 5: 16:

Allow me to just briefly mention in this post that based on I Timothy 5: 16 and the relevant context, I observe the following:

1). There is a difference in individual and church action.

2). There are things the individual may do that the church may not do.

3). In the case of benevolence, children and grandchildren occupy a first place position and the church is not to assist in this circumstance.

4). The teaching of I Timothy 5: 16 presupposes that there is a "treasury," hence, enabling the church (collective noun representing collective or group action as opposed to individual action) to execute or not execute the considered action (entirety of I Timothy 5).

The teaching, "16: If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed," is just as binding today on churches as it was in the First Century.  It is not the work of the local church (treasury) to provide for all widows or supply fun trips to Branson for the members, young or old.

I thank all of you following this discussion for your interest and desire to honor the scriptures.  While I do not agree with many of James' points, I do appreciate his effort.

Don Martin to the list:

While I wait to see if there are posts in my next digest that I need to address, I thought I would comment a little more on I Timothy 5: 16. The verse reads thus:

     "16: If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed."

I do not know of any level of appreciable difficulty involved in studying, applying, and understanding the teaching of Paul in this case.  Those who contend that there is no difference between "individual action" and "church action" would do well to consider I Timothy 5: 16.  Also, those who say, "whatever the individual Christian can do, the church can do" need to look again at I Timothy 5: 16.

There are always those who view the local church as fluid, without structure, and without demarcation properties.  However, I Timothy 5: 16 indicates the very opposite.  Some also mock the idea that the local church has a treasury and were it to have a treasury, there would be no difference between the church treasury and the money belonging to the individual Christian.  I Timothy 5: 16 dispels all of these myths (see also Acts 5: 4).

Some see the local church (treasury) as an endless supplier of all sorts of things. "Whatever the members want, let the church provide it," sort of thinking.  Fun, frolic, and you name it, all of these matters are now being added to church budgets.  However, I Timothy  5: 16 illustrates how there are restrictions placed on the spending of the church.  The local church is essentially spiritual in its mission and functionality.  It is, "...the pillar and ground of the truth" (I Tim. 3: 15).  Hence, the treasury is to be used accordingly.

I Timothy 5: 16 is just as applicable today as Acts 2: 38.  One mentioned that I Timothy is a "personal letter" and based on this, he seemed to think the verse has no serious application to local churches today.  Not so.  Besides, using this same logic and rationale, why would Acts 2: 38 have any more application to today, seeing Acts was also addressed to an individual; hence, it was also a "personal letter" (Acts 1: 1f.).

This theme, I Timothy 5: 16, was begun in response to the idea that the church and the parents both have the same responsibility to provide recreation for young people and that there is no difference.  Yes, there is a major and significant difference.  I could take my family to Branson, but the local church has no business providing such entertainment.  Such is not the work of the church, first, and, second, the treasury is observed in I Timothy 5: 16 as restricted.

Don Martin to the list:

While reviewing the digest received this morning, I ran across a second post by Carl.

Carl wrote:

As much as I cannot abide the person or politics of Hillary Clinton, she once made a statement that was more fodder for those who would vilify her. She said, 'It takes a village to raise a kid.' I know where she was coming from and I would not agree with her on a liberal-government-takes-care-of-all perspective. However, even as a preacher who takes great care in spending time with my kids, in this world, I need all the help I can get. Other parents do as well.

Call it entertainment or not, let's give it to them.

Don reflects:

Let it be made clear that we are not opposing individuals getting together and doing various things as a group (not functioning as the local church). I recall one time a number of us rented a facility and encouraged the younger members to put together a "talent show."  I remember to this very day some of the acts and all of the work that the young people put into this production.  Not one cent came out of the church treasury and the church building was not used.  Individuals and parents merged to effect this entertainment.

I also recall a case a few years ago where a young sister approached us and said, "Since Holly Street does not provide drama and general recreation, I am going to start attending...."   That local church had a full drama staff and department, actors, and all the accouterments. They (church, treasury, etc.) produced all manner of plays and secular music productions.

While my children were at home, I felt as did Carl, the sense of responsibility to spend time with them.  I would try to find different things that they liked to do:  Shopping, fishing, hiking, etc.  I believed that I had a responsibility to teach them God's word and also spend time with them in recreational activities.  This was my responsibility.  I would have been insulted had the local church said, "Don, let us take your children to Branson next week."  The church has no business involved in such matters.  Are these matters inherently sinful?  No.  However, they just do not have any business being in church budgets, etc.

The whole point of I Timothy 5: 16 is that God has stipulated relative to the local church, of what nature it is and what function it performs.  The work is chiefly spiritual, not baby sitting (I Tim. 3: 15).  "The young people will leave if we do not...."  How far are some willing to take this "blackmail"?  How about those who want to bar hop and fornicate, is the church to also be expected to provide a bar and conjugal arrangements in order to keep these people?  God forbid!

Don Martin to the list:

Artie answered:

"Yes."

Don comments:

I believe the I Timothy 5: 16 discussion is going well.  So far, each has focused on the verse and its meaning.

Again, the verse says:

     "16: If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed."

Jeff submitted five questions and I shall now attempt to answer them. These are good questions, questions that are probative in nature and obviously seek the truth.

Question one:

Would it be appropriate for the church to send a child to a church camp whose parents could not afford the expense?

Answer:

We have seen that I Timothy 5: 16 shows that there are restrictions on how the church treasury is to be used.  Even believing widows who have children and/or grandchildren are not to be supported by the church, the children/grandchildren have first place in rendering assistance.

I have no authority for a local church (treasury) sending a child to a "church camp."  Besides, what is a "church champ" and where is the authority for a "church camp?"  Please, all, before you assign the term "legalism," stop and think.

Question two:

Would a family be sinning if their income was limited to only enough to help with taking care of the family and grandma, and not be able to contribute to the over all church treasury?

Answer:  While specific, I believe the text and accompanying instructions indicate that there is general application, I am referring to the teaching in I Corinthians 16: 1f.  The text shows "each member" has a responsibility in the matter of giving into the treasury each Lord's Day. I would not usually inject myself as to "how much" each family or member is to contribute.  Principles found in especially 2 Corinthians 8 and 9 provide guidance as to the amount in each respective case.  I would say, then, they have a responsibility to give, I cannot comment on how much.

Question three:

In view of Luke 5: 6-11, could this not be an example of different churches working together in seeking to save the lost? That is if we assume the fish represent lost mankind and the boats the church of salvation.

Answer:  Jeff is referring to the two boats evidently making up the commercial fishing business of Peter, James, John, etc.  I realize there is a lot of typology found especially in the parables.  However, Luke 5: 6-11 is not a parable and does not involve figurative language.  Therefore, I do not see the boats standing for churches.  In the Book of Acts, though, we do see how each church autonomously and under its own oversight worked in spreading the gospel (Acts 14: 23, etc.).  In the case of preacher support, local churches are observed sending to the preacher (Phili. 4: 15f.). In the instance of the needy, each local church is to take care of their own. There can be, however, situations in the matter of benevolence where the need is greater than one church can supply; hence, examples such as Acts 11: 27-30.  Even in these cases generally mentioned, I Timothy 5: 16 would apply.

Question four:

The church is getting up a trip to Branson. Each member has agreed to pay his/her own way, however they intend to drive the bus owned by the church.  Is it a misuse of church funds to take the church bus?

Answer:  Jeff is doing a good job in establishing case gradation.  In this instance, individual action is observed in each member paying their own way to Branson.   However, church action (treasury) is seen in the mode of transportation.  Since the local church is not authorized to provide trips to Branson (entertainment), there would be no authority for the members riding the "church bus" to Branson to see the shows.

Question number five:

In the context of Acts 6:1-6, does James 1:27 apply to the individual member, the whole church or both?

In is clear from the personal, singular pronouns used in the context of James 1: 26, 27 that the action is individual.  Each Christian has the duty of personally seeking out those whom they can assist, those in real need of help such as widows and orphans in affliction (vss. 22-27).  I believe it is evident from Acts 6: 1-6 that the action involved the local collectivity or church (treasury).  Again, I Timothy 5: 16 would modify the widows being assisted.

I think it is interesting and important that as one considers the about three cases of church benevolence (treasury being used, Acts 4, 11, I Cor. 16), spanning a period of about thirty years, the local churches did not serve as Red Cross chapters or eleemosynary organizations helping all who came or asked.  The treasury was restricted and there is no indication that any other than needy saints were assisted out of the treasury.  Never, never, I repeat, do we observe a local church engaged in such activities as would correspond to taking members to Branson for entertainment. Churches today that use the First Century approved model, will thus practice and teach the same thing (Gal. 1: 6-10).  The church sponsored fun, frolic, and entertainment so common today is a product of men, not what God has taught.

We thank Jeff for his contribution in this study.  We just want to do what the Bible teaches, no more, no less.

Don Martin to the list:

We are attempting to establish what the scriptures teach as to the nature, work, and function of the local church.  We have seen that the treasury is limited to doing the work God has assigned to the local church.

Carrie wrote:

Seems a waste of resources and poor stewardship to me to rent another building when you already have a church building!

I do think God wants us to use common sense!

Don comments:

Thank you, Carrie, for contributing to the study.

Carrie is referring to my below statement:

"Let it be made clear that we are not opposing individuals getting together and doing various things as a group (not functioning as the local church). I recall one time a number of us rented a facility and encouraged the younger members to put together a 'talent show.'  I remember to this very day some of the acts and all of the work that the young people put into this production.  Not one cent came out of the church treasury and the church building was not used.  Individuals and parents merged to effect this entertainment."

Carrie and all, we at Holly Street try to be consistent.  Since we believe the work of the church is limited to what God has specified and in view of the church building having been purchased and is maintained out of the treasury, we did not use it.  Several of us individually put in to pay the rent for the building to be used for entertainment (none church work).

Again, we are not opposed to individuals getting together.  As mentioned, my family and I went to garage sales this morning.  Several families got together this morning and went to climb a fourteen thousand footer.  About five other families and we are scheduled to go see the Colorado Rockies play this afternoon.  All of this comes under "entertainment" and is individual action, having nothing to do with the treasury.

In the morning, we shall come together as a church, meeting in the church building (building paid for out of the treasury).  This gathering will be that of I Corinthians 16: 1, 2 and Acts 20: 7.  This will be public worship and the treasury will be used.  In this assembly, God's word will be taught for the guidance of the lost and edification of the saved (I Tim. 3: 15). We shall eat together, the Lord's Supper (I Cor. 11).

Don Martin to Pat and the list:

Pat asked several questions pertaining to the I Timothy 5: 16 discussion, which I shall be happy to attempt to answer.

Question one:  Do you know of any verse that specifies a congregational "treasury" in so many words? Please remember to read what I have asked carefully, since it is not necessary to revisit old ground on this one.

Answer:  Paul wrote thus to the church at Corinth:

     "1: Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. 2: Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come" (I Cor. 16).

"In store" is from the Greek thesaurizon, the word from which we have derived our English word treasury. One reason for this instruction to give into the treasury of the local church was to avoid Paul having to gather the collection when he came to Corinth (I Cor. 16: 2).

Keep in mind that many verses indirectly or implicitly teach the treasury. As seen, in view of the teaching in I Timothy 5: 16, the church treasury is presupposed or inferred.  Paul took wages from churches; hence, the treasury is implied (2 Cor. 11: 8).  In Acts 4: 35, we read how they brought their offerings and laid them "at the apostles' feet."  When this was done, it constituted the treasury.  Before they gave, it belonged to them, subsequent to their giving, it no longer belonged to them (cp. Acts 5: 4).

Question two:  Would you consider it wrong to use the building for a talent show if a donation was made for any arrangements for set up and take down and utilities used?

Answer:  Once again, we are experimenting with gradation.  First, it is not the work of the church to provide fun, frolic, and entertainment, such as trips to Branson to see the shows.  The treasury is limited, this we are seeing in I Timothy 5: 16.  Why, then, would we want to see "just how close we can get?"  Even if there were a donation from individuals as described, the building itself, a building bought and paid for by the treasury is still used.  Why even provide the "impression" that talent show entertainment is being fully done by the local church (cp. Rom. 12: 17)?

Question three:  Why do you feel the need to be extreme in your supposed scenarios - as in conjugal visits and bars? Is there not a better way to make the point?

Answer:  I toyed with the illustration and omitted it a couple of times and then finally decided to use it.  I was just attempting to forcefully make the point that to saddle the local church with family life centers, gymnasiums, game rooms, trips to Branson, etc. is to rob the church of its lofty work and lower it to a common social provider.  I would not doubt that there is a better way to make the point.

Don Martin to the list:

I have a few minutes between appointments and thought I would provide a review relative to our I Timothy 5: 16 discussion.

The discussion was precipitated by a post that mentioned churches providing trips to Branson to see the shows.  I introduced I Timothy 5: 16 to show that even in the case of widows, the local church treasury is not to be used when there are children and/or grandchildren present to assist their mother or grandmother (see text, vs. 3-16).

Here are some truths that I believe we have considered:

1).  God has assigned a specific work to the local church (I Tim. 3: 15).

2). The assigned work is primarily spiritual (Ibid.).

3). The local church has a treasury with which to execute its work and this treasury is limited as to how it is to be spent (I Tim. 5, hence, implied authority).

4).  A generic such as  Acts 6: 1-7 or Acts 11: 27-30 must not be treated or used in such a way as to exclude a specific such as I Timothy 5: 16.

5). There is no indication that the teaching of I Timothy 5: 16 has any limitation, but rather, the converse, the teaching is designed to govern all churches down to the present.

6).  Those who want to place within church budgets matters such as entertainment and trips to Branson are ignoring the work of the church and the governing teaching of the scriptures.

7). There is a marked difference between individual and collective or church action, as indicated in I Timothy 5: 16.

8). The family may and is to provide certain things concerning which the local church has no business being involved, such as trips to Branson.

I thank all for your interest and contributions to this discussion.

Don Martin to Artie and the list:

Artie asked, I assume seriously, the following:

Don, Since you are very strict regarding expenditure of church funds, how do you feel about a congregation spending most of its money to pay for a "preacher" to "preach" to saved folks every Sunday? Is that a gradation, in your view? You know why I am asking, don't ya?

Don answers:

I am all for it.  I say this because the scriptures authorize such expenditures (I Cor. 9: 14).  There is the view, this could be what Artie has in mind, that it is not scriptural for a church to support a preacher who preaches to the church.  In other words, the preacher is only authorized to preach to non-Christians.  I do not view this view as scripturally tenable.  Paul desired to, "...preach the gospel" to the church in Rome (Rom. 1: 15, 7).  The charge that Paul gave to Timothy was that of preaching to the church in Ephesus (I Tim. 1: 3, 2 Tim. 4: 1f.).

We can read of the treasury being used to support preachers, but not of the treasury being used for such things as "trips to Branson to see the shows."

These matters are important to those who love God (I John 5: 3).

Don Martin to James and the list:

Don, please give your version of those "windows indeed" in 1Tim 5:16. Are you saying individuals can give funds to widows and those who provide care for orphans but a congregation ( individuals acting in unison ) may not?

Don answers:

We have addressed a similar question already, but I will comment again.

Paul is treating the subject of widows in I Timothy 5: 3-16.  He considers widows, first from the standpoint, "Honor widows that are widows indeed" (vs. 3).  Widows indeed would be those who do not have immediate kin to whom they can look (vs. 4).  Believing widows indeed are subject to church assistance (treasury, vs. 16).  However, widows who have children and/or grandchildren are to be assisted by their children/grandchildren and not by the church (vs. 4, 8, 16).  My previous comment and illustration pertaining to widows who have children/grandchildren was that the children/grandchildren need to first assist their mother/grandmother.  It is not right to expect those, even individually applied, who themselves have mothers/grandmothers to divert their funds to widows who have children/grandchildren.

In this vein, I mentioned "Church of Christ Homes for Widows" and how there is usually no distinction, but churches and individuals are expected to send funds indiscriminately for these widows, ignoring I Timothy 5: 16.

The teaching of I Timothy 5: 16 is plain and explicit.  The treasury is not meant to be used for the wide range of things, including trips to Branson, for which it is often used today.  Those who have no concept of the limited use of the treasury have great difficulty understanding why Paul places limitation on widow assistance.

I have personally gone to children/grandchildren and reminded them of their primary responsibility to take care of their mother/grandmother.  I recall learning that the church where my mother was a member was looking into assisting her and I immediately contacted them about the matter. "Thank you for your interest," said I, "but I realize my responsibility as a son and I am taking care of my mother's financial needs."  I had taken a part-time job just to have the money to pay her medical bills.

James, I trust this answers your question.

Don Martin to the list:

I thought I would briefly comment on James' post to Carrie.

James wrote:

Carrie, you seem to have forgotton the usage code of the franchised Coc (CHURCHofcorrectness) only allows the Building to be used ONLY for a worship services. Their code also prescribes the "items" & "aides" that are authorized/unauthorized.

BTW they are a most contentious bunch, easily condemning & judging, dividing over words and disregarding Jesus prayer for common unity.

Don reflects:

I would not deny that there are those who preclude matters and liberties taught in the scriptures.  I also would concede the existence of sinful division, division that is the product of what James mentioned. However, is it honest and fair to lump all together and thus judge them? Seems a little prejudicial to me.  However, I am used to such.

The matter of I Timothy 5: 16 does not appear of any importance and consequence to some.  I do consider it important because I believe what Paul wrote is the mind and will of God, applicable to churches then and now.  I am very saddened at what many churches of Christ have become and how they have no basic concept of the nature and work of the local church belonging to Christ.   Trips to Branson to see the shows, sponsored and paid for by local churches (treasury) is not the work of the church.  As an elder, I would not even know how to begin to "oversee" such entertainment.

Don Martin to Carrie and the list:

I appreciate the time, energy, and effort all have expended in following and contributing to the theme pertaining to I Timothy 5: 16 and the fact that the church treasury is restricted and limited in its use.  Perhaps I assume too much, but I really do not understand how any can discuss I Timothy 5: 16 and not accept the fact of the treasury is inferred.  Is not the treasury the natural way of viewing the church doing what it is and is not to do, according to I Timothy 5: 3-16?  It seems very strained to me to spend time trying to erase the obvious, the treasury.

Carrie wrote:

Carrie to Don Martin

When my bunch want to do something like take the kids on a camping weekend, their parents are asked to pay for it. It sure doesn't come out of the church coffers.

Don replies:

This is precisely the way it should be.  We do about all others do, we just do not use the church treasury.  I think this is one reason you see the distinction in Acts 2: 46.

"46: And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart."

Cordially,
Don Martin

Don Martin to the list:

Mike wrote some interesting things in his post pertaining to how the church/individual spend their money.  I shall seriously take Mike's post as there is no reason for me not to of which I am aware.

Mike wrote:

What on earth gave us the idea that we in the CoC could follow Catholicism and build sanctuaries with Pulpits and Pews?

Don comments:

The Lord's church existed long anterior to Catholicism.  In fact, it appears that the local church situation (logistics) were largely patterned after the synagogue arrangement of the First Century (cp. Jas. 2: 2).

Mike wrote:

Even the protesters fell for that same Catholic model. We have joined them, dummed down to sitting in pews, glazed eyed, staring at the back of one another's hair do's while the Priest tells us what to believe. Give us your Tithe errrrr freewill contribution so we can minister for you they shout!

Don reflects:

The local preacher and his work is a practice having biblical authority (cp. 2 Tim. 4: 1-5).  I say this admitting there are extant abuses.

Mike continued:

Come forward my child and confess your sins to the Priest at the invitation song.

Satan has beguiled "US" With the Clergy/Laity concept until it is embarrassing even to the uneducated. Even we can read the text and see the obvious glaring error.

We have turned our assemblies, that were for the sole purpose of EDIFICATION, ministering one to the other, into an unauthorized "ritualistic" physical worship with all the bells and whistles of Catholicism led by our Pulpit Priest.

Don comments:

It seems Mike not only is rejecting the concept of a "church treasury" that is restricted in its use, but the common local church arrangement.

Mike made a very interesting statement:

Now let me clarify my position. I do not accept CENI.

Don responds:

It is evident that Mike has rejected command, approved example and necessary inference (CENI) as means to arrive at the truth.  In stead of addresses any abuses within this system, Mike tosses out the baby with the bath water.  Look where such rejection has placed him.  Paul is famous for teaching about liberty in Christ (Gal. 5: 13).  However, Paul was also "...under law to Christ" (I Cor. 9: 21).

Mike emphasized:

I believe we are FREE in Christ.

Don closes:

I suppose Mike is saying, "Do away with I Timothy 5: 16, we can do what we want to do!"

Thank all of you for your time and interest.

Don Martin to Pat and the list:

Pat wrote, first quoting Artie:

Pat, I believe it was a "laying by in store" and not a communal church treasury, beside, it was for a famine and money would have been of little use. The laying by must have been unperishable food stuffs. Food is what was needed, for money could not buy what was not available.

Pat's response to Artie's above post:

I wholeheartedly agree. The point is, did they rent a storehouse to keep the goods for shipment to Jerusalem with Paul and the others or pack the camels ahead of time and wait for Paul to get there? The text says each one was to "lay by him in store" indicating each individual preparing their gift and having it at the ready. The point I was making was that text says nothing about holding their gifts as a common "bank" or "storehouse" of resources. Don seemed to see something entirely different there. I wonder why?

Don observes:

It is always of interest, albeit secondary, to watch how a discussion into which has been injected diametrically opposing ideas progresses. This whole discussion started regarding the use of the church treasury for all sorts of things, including taking members to Branson to see the shows.  Some basically contended that there are no real restrictions on the church treasury.  Now, the contention seems to have turned to, "There is no church treasury to abuse and misapply."

I have noticed that many cannot accept the inference or implication when it comes to arriving at truth.  Jesus used inference in teaching many things (cp. Matt. 22: 32).  In fact, inferential teaching is significantly present in the New Testament.  Inference is a major component and nuance in logic and intelligibility.

Let me be clear, I am not saying that some of the assistance rendered in I Corinthians 16 could not have included matters other than currency. The point has been well made that there was a treasury prior to I Corinthians 16 and Judas was in charge of it.  This bag was evidently used to support Jesus and the apostles in their preaching (cp. John 12: 6, 13: 39).  Did it only consist of vegetables and such like?

W. E. Vine comments thus on "bag" (glossokomon):  "...a small box for any purpose, but especially a casket or purse, to keep money in.  It is used of the bag which Judas carried...."  (Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, pg. 95).  It is a little hard to visualize that this bag that Judas carried consisted of only food and not currency to purchase food (I am not contending for a totally analogous situation between the "bag" used to support Jesus and the apostles and the church treasury, but I do believe there is some point correspondence).

I wonder how some interpret Acts 4: 34, 35?

     "34: Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, 35: And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need."

Must we understand "price" and what was laid at the apostles' feet as only "unperishable food stuffs" and not currency? (I believe when the "prices" were "laid at the apostles' feet, this constituted the treasury of the Jerusalem church).

In the case of the thesaurzon ("in store") in I Corinthians 16: 2, again, we are not provided details.  However, can you imagine the transportation requirements that would have had to have been in place to transport only food and raiment items to the evident large number of Jerusalem saints in need?

Some have tried to explain that all the verse is teaching is that for only that occasion they were to place in a barn (holding place) their food items. The expression, "Upon the first day of the week" is literally, "on the first day of every week" (kata mian sabbatou, cp. Interlinear Greek-English New Testament by Nestle and Marshall). I say this because I believe that while the teaching in I Corinthians 16, 2 Corinthians 8 and 9 is pertaining to a specific event, the needy saints at Jerusalem, the Holy Spirit meant for these texts to serve as teaching for the "general" weekly collection.  It should be appreciated that the free will giving of the members into the treasury on each Lord's Day is the only authorized means of financing the work of the local church.

I Corinthians 9: 14 teaches that those who preach the gospel are to "...live of the gospel."  The context clearly shows what Paul meant.  Paul accepted "wages" (Greek, opsonion) from churches, does this mean he only accepted "unperishable food stuffs"? (2 Cor. 11: 8.) Therefore, should preachers only accept "unperishable food stuffs" today? (notice I say "only".)

What is the point, anyway?  Are some now trying to say that there is no treasury (money keep by the local church to pay its bills); therefore, the treasury cannot be improperly used.  Hence, a local church paying for out of the treasury (a treasury that does not exist) trips to Branson to see the shows is allowed.

The fact of the matter is there is the biblical concept of a church treasury (this is one way in which the church, the collectivity acts) and this treasury is limited and restricted in its use (I Tim. 5: 16).  Why not just accept I Timothy 5: 16 rather than do all sorts of gyrations?

Don Martin to Pat and the list:

Pat wrote:

It is "interesting" to note some things...like how you claimed that the discussion has now become a "contention" that now "seems to have turned to, "There is no church treasury to abuse and misapply."" Who is being 'contentious' here? Certainly not me.

Don comments:

Pat, "contention" is used in different ways.  Number 4. nuance in the Random House College Dictionary pertains to a point being affirmed or made. This is how I used the word "contention."  Sorry for any misunderstanding.  No, I have not found you or any in this discussion to have the conduct of bitter strife.

Pat wrote:

I also noted that you referenced the "bag" Judas carried. And I further noted that no such "bag" is ever mentioned regarding a congregational gathering of resources (monetary or otherwise) in the whole New Testament, or at the least NOT in reference to any congregation of the saints. But you already knew that, right?

Don reflects:

I mentioned that I believe there is a "point correspondence" regarding the "bag," but I also said that I do not believe the matter is totally analogous to the church treasury.  Perhaps you missed this post along with all the answers I provided to your questions.  Sorry.

Pat continued:

And I also noted that you haven't considered the points I asked about enough to have answered them...nor even attempted to answer them. Of course, that may just be because I do not consider sidestepping ad hominems to be answers.

Don comments:

Pat, I have answered every question that I have seen that you have asked me.  I did note that you had a post claiming that I had not and then you subsequently posted that  I had and that you were wrong.  Which is it now?

As to "sidestepping ad hominems to be answers," I do not know what you mean and I am sorry that the time I put into addressing your posts is considered such.

Pat concluded:

Have a great day, Don. BTW, did you even notice that I, for one, have no problems with having a treasury? I just don't see the need to make up regulatory rules to bind on folks about such a thing as though they come from heaven's throne. It should be whatever folks agreed for it to be wherever you happen to meet. There's just no use pretending that we are required to have such a thing, IMHO. Paul said that families should take care of their own and not lay a guilt trip on the other saints when they are shirking their responsibilities. Sounds like Jesus' teaching on the "Korban" issue. Go figure finding an apostle actually teaching what Jesus taught! Or do you not find THAT "interesting"?

Don closes:

Pat, I have answered every question that I have seen you pose to me. Now, I would like to ask you just one:

Is it unscriptural, wrong, against what is taught (I Tim. 5: 16) for a local church (treasury) to assist a believing widow who has children and/or grandchildren in the place of the children and/or grandchildren first assisting their mother/grandmother?

I say, "yes," what do you say?  (The question is constructed to where a simple "yes" or "no" answer can be given, as I did.)

Pat, I thank you advance for your time, consideration, and interest in providing a simple "yes" or "no" answer.

Don Martin to Pat and the list:

Pat has been good to answer each question put to him in the past and I expected him to reply regarding the question on I Timothy 5: 16 that I asked him.

Pat wrote, first quoting my question:

Don Martin asked:

Is it unscriptural, wrong, against what is taught (I Tim. 5: 16) for a local church (treasury) to assist a believing widow who has children and/or grandchildren in the place of the children and/or grandchildren first assisting their mother/grandmother?

Pat answers simply (albeit incompletely): Nope.

Don comments:

Based on I Timothy 5: 16, my one word answer to the above question was, "yes."  As I stated, I viewed the wording and built in qualification of the question sufficient for me to answer simply, "yes."  Thank you, Pat, for your simple answer.

The question and the illustration that I provided earlier of the effort to cause a church to ignore the children and grandchildren attempts to go to the heart of the issue:  The fact that the church treasury is limited and restricted in its use.  We have often applied the matter to "trips to Branson to see the shows."

Pat answered, "Nope" and I answered, "yes."  Look again at the teaching:

     "16: If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed."

Don further comments:

Now, Pat and I both know that Christians are not going to allow a needy widow to "stave to death."  However, the fact remains that the children/grandchildren have first place responsibility and the church must not ignore this, this is what the question addresses, pure and simple.

Thank you again, Pat, for your direct answer to the specific posed question.

Cordially,
Don Martin

Don Martin to Gordon and the list:

Gordon, thank you for your interest and post.

Gordon wrote:

While I would not be able to get involved with this discussion due to time constraints, I wanted to point out what I believe is causing at least part of the disagreement regarding your own answer to the above question you posed.

Don comments:

I understand about time restraints and I appreciate your time, Gordon.

Here again is my question to which Paul refers and my answer to it:

     "16: If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed."

Is it unscriptural, wrong, against what is taught (I Tim. 5: 16) for a local church (treasury to assist a believing widow who has children and/or grandchildren in the place of the children and/or grandchildren first assisting their mother/grandmother?

To this question, I answered "yes."  My answer was based on the built in qualification.  A lot of times one responds to a question or stimuli not based on the question itself, but previous conditioning and beliefs.  I realize that I am just as capable of doing this as the next fellow.  Let's continue.

Gordon wrote:

I believe most of us can figure out what you're asking, but the fact is your question is not truly based on the text of 1 Tim. 5:16.

Don responds:

Gordon, any help will be appreciated.

Gordon continued:

In the first place, your question references "a believing widow." This characterization is not found in the text. The only believers referenced are those who "have widows." It can reasonably be assumed that the widow in question is also a believer, but the text does not stipulate this. Not to press the point, but one could, in fact, use this verse to contend that supporting widows regardless of whether or not they are believers should be practiced by the church, except when that widow has believing relatives, in which case they and not the church are to be responsible for such widow's provender.

Don reflects:

Perhaps I did "assume" a matter.  Let's look again at the widow under review in I Timothy 5.  I believe, to offer more detail, there are actually three situations involving widows in I Timothy 5.

I believe the absence of conjunctions (asyndeton) and then there presence, assist in such a determination.  I Timothy 5: 3-8 address widows indeed. The "widow indeed" is defined as one who does not have children or grandchildren to whom to look for financial help.  Such mothers/grandmothers are especially deserving of the help and love of their children/grandchildren.  This is the meaning of, "...let them learn first to show piety at home, and to requite their parents:  for that is good and acceptable before God" (vs. 4).  Children and/or grandchildren who thus neglect their parents and/or grandparents commit a grievous sin and, "...hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel" (vs. 8).

Beginning in verse nine, there is evidently a different circumstance involving widows.  These widows must meet certain qualifications and regarding them, there is the situation of, "...taken into the number" (vs. 9-10).  Is Paul teaching that before the local church can assist a widow indeed, assuming the matter of verses 4 and 16 is not an issue, she must be at least sixty years of age, etc.?  I think not.  I believe these widows having these extra requirements were a special class.

Catholicism sees the widows of I Timothy 5: 9 and 10 as the class they recognize as Nuns.  However, their division and provision of Nuns do not require them to be widows.  Hence, they cannot use I Timothy 5 to support their practices of Nunnery.

Some believe these widows of I Timothy 5: 9, 10 were not just widows in need, but the additional requisites point to them being spiritually used in some capacity.  We must remember that in the First Century there was a clear distinction and demarcation between men and women. Perhaps these widows were "enrolled" to assist with other widows and to even teach the younger women (Tit. 2: 3, 4,).  If not, why the extra requirements?

Then there are the "younger widows" (vs. 11-14).  In contrast to the widows having special qualifications and to be "enrolled," these young widows are to be refused and the reason provided.  I might inject that some do not see these "young widows" as a third class, but part of class one (vs. 1-8). However, these "young widows" could be widows who are not in a position by reason of age to have grown children and/or grandchildren.  If we are correct about the involvements of the "enrolled" of verse 9 and I believe we are, these younger widows would not have the maturity to be of service in the more "permanent" arrangement of enrollment and rather than fruitfully use the circumstance, they would abuse it (vs. 11f.).

It is also of note to mention that when the New Testament presents a situation of benevolence, it involves the very necessities of life and not the communistic concept of equalizes the standard of living of all the Christians within a local church.  "Widows" and "orphans," for instance, were often in dire need of basic survival means in the First Century. Hence, "affliction" is presented as their condition (Jas. 1: 27).  The Christian is to "go and inspect" these two classes to ascertain what he can do to assist (Jas. 1: 27, the Greek "visit," episkeptomai, is graphic and involves personal involvement, inspection, and assistance).  The personal pronouns in the setting of James 1: 27 make it plain that the individual Christian has a duty to perform and that the text is not addressing clinical, uncaring institutionalization.  I Timothy 5, though, provides for church assistance of certain widows, all things equal and understood.

Don Martin to Gordon and the list (second post):

Gordon wrote:

I believe most of us can figure out what you're asking, but the fact is your question is not truly based on the text of 1 Tim. 5:16.

Don responds:

Gordon, any help will be appreciated.

Gordon continued:

In the first place, your question references "a believing widow." This characterization is not found in the text. The only believers referenced are those who "have widows...."  ...Not to press the point, but one could, in fact, use this verse to contend that supporting widows regardless of whether or not they are believers should be practiced by the church, except when that widow has believing relatives, in which case they and not the church are to be responsible for such widow's provender.

Don answers:

Again, we appreciate Gordon's efforts to offer clarification.  Please allow me to say that, first, no, the term "believing widows" is not found verbatim in the text.  By "believing widows," I simply meant widows who believed and in this case, Christians.  I believe the expression "believing widows" is justified based on the context involving these widows (below).

Regarding the widows indeed of I Timothy 5: 1-8, she is not one who "lives in pleasure" (vs. 6).  From the positive, Paul wrote of these widows:

     "5: Now she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day."

Pertaining to the second class of widows, as I understand the classification, Paul wrote:

     "10: Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work."

As to the third class, the younger widows and enrollment, we read:

     "11: But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry; 12: Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith."

Don concludes:

Unless I have seriously missed something, the "widows indeed" of verses 1-8, the special widows of verses 9-10; and the younger widows of verses 11-15 are all Christians.

Gordon, I do not mean to be disagreeable and I do appreciate your efforts to help, but I just do not know what else I can say.

Don Martin's third post to Gordon:

Gordon continued his efforts to assist, which efforts are sincerely appreciated:

Secondly, though I have already alluded to this, your question asks whether the "church (treasury)" can be used to support a widow who has children and/or grandchildren. Again, the text does not say this. The text specifically makes mention of "any...that believeth." Consequently, even if a widow has family to care for her, if they are not believers and, for what ever reasons, they shirk their responsibility of caring for their widowed mother or grandmother, the church needs to step up.

Don comments:

I think one thing that has caused some to not focus on the asked question is there concern that a widow be neglected.  If we had agreed on level one, the next level would have addressed such a matter.  I really think all would agree, including this old "legalistic Pharisee," as some describe me, it is unthinkable that a widow be allowed to starve to death on the church building steps.  This matter, though, seems to have prematurely injected an emotional state of mind that has keep us from focusing on the restricted and limited nature of the use of the church treasury.  Look again at the apostle Paul's simple teaching:

     "16: If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed."

Gordon wraps up his post:

I make these points simply to say that your question, while reasonably understandable, does not actually represent the text of 1 Tim 5:16. If I may be so bold, please allow me to offer what I believe you were trying to ask initially. A better phrasing of your question might be:

"Is it unscriptural, wrong, against what is taught (1 Tim. 5:16) for a local church (treasury) to assist a widow who has believing children and/or grandchildren in the place of those believing children and/or grandchildren first assisting their mother/grandmother?"

Hope that helps clarify where some of the disagreement may be coming from in your discussions with Pat, et al.

Don with original question:

Is it unscriptural, wrong, against what is taught (I Tim. 5: 16) for a local church (treasury) to assist a believing widow who has children and/or grandchildren in the place of the children and/or grandchildren first assisting their mother/grandmother?

Don comments:

Gordon, you make a good point.   It is sad that so many in America today have abandoned their basic responsibility to care for their own.  I think the beginning of this decline was when government continued to intervene with the various welfare problems and nursing home efforts.  Government has now seen many of the problems that they sponsored and for the past several decades, it has been trying to pull back.  However, government reliance remains and in too many cases, children and grandchildren - whether they be Christians or non-Christians matters not - neglect their duties to their parents and grandparents.

Again, the paramount point, in my mind and objective, in this discussion was to show the treasury is not as all inclusive and accepting as some teach (trips to Branson to see the shows). If some find it hard to believe only widows who are Christians are being considered in I Timothy 5, we need to realize that such is consistent with the teaching relative to church (treasury) benevolence in general (cp. Rom.15: 25).  If the local church were obligated to address the physical and financial needs of the world, this would be all it could do (there would be no time, money, or provision to preach the gospel to save the soul).

I thank all who have sought to contribute to the theme of "How church/individual spend their money."  I realize that some of the thoughts that I have presented have sounded strange and extreme to many of you and that you do not customarily hear such taught in your pulpits.  I do sincerely thank you for considering what I have said.

I do plan on these three post concluding my part in this discussion.  Again, I thank the owners of the list for this opportunity.

Don Martin to the list:

One more has come forward and answered my probative question relative to an application of I Timothy 5: 16.  I shall insert his post and answer below, make one more post, and conclude this discussion on I Timothy 5: 16.

My question again stated:

Is it unscriptural, wrong, against what is taught (I Tim. 5: 16) for a local church (treasury) to assist a believing widow who has children and/or grandchildren in the place of the children and/or grandchildren first assisting their mother/grandmother?

Allen answered:

That's an easy question ... NO! It is not illegal for churches to do such.

This question is really a question of legality. When this Scripture text is twisted to become a law-code this question makes sense. When this Scripture text is taken the way it was intended (a personal correspondence to Timothy to address a specific issue in Ephesus) the legality question makes absolutely no sense.

I don't understand the need to pervert the biblical text to make laws where none are found!

Blessings,
Allen

Don Martin's final post:

The New Testament is the standard for belief, conduct, and the final judgment (2 John 9-11; Gal. 2: 14; John 12: 48).  We are to speak only as the "oracles of God" and prove all things religious (I Pet. 4: 11; I Thes. 5: 21).  I Timothy 5 sets forth the following:

1). There is a difference in individual and church action.

2). There are things the individual may do that the church may not do.

3). In the case of benevolence, children and grandchildren occupy a first place position and the church is not to assist in this circumstance.

4). The teaching of I Timothy 5: 16 presupposes that there is a "treasury," hence, enabling the church (collective noun representing collective or group action as opposed to individual action) to execute or not execute the considered action (entirety of I Timothy 5).

I am sorry that many, even so called "Churches of Christ" have adopted the social gospel and have now dedicated their efforts toward the selfish placation of fun and frolic, rejecting the fact that the local church is primarily a social institution, having a spiritual and lofty work assignment, the salvation of souls (I Tim. 3: 15).  This exchange is indicative of how the scriptures, in this specific case, I Timothy 5: 16, are being highhandedly rejected.  I close by inserting Paul's teaching once more:

     "16: If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed."