What does the Bible say about how widows are to be treated?

Not every widow was to be given the same honor, but if she were "a widow indeed" she was entitled to particular attention and respect. She is one who, while feeling the sorrow of her widowhood, nevertheless puts her confidence in the Living God, and manifests her dependence upon His love and grace, by prayer and supplication consistently. If she were in any need, this "honor" would certainly involve the alleviation of those needs by temporal support. Yet, if she had children or descendents, these were certainly responsible for her care, and they should learn to show piety at home by relieving her need, in some measure returning the care of the mother or parents in former years. God expects and accepts this. It is, of course, evident that if this were callously ignored by descendents not in the assembly, then the assembly would be responsible. But if the widow lives in self-indulgence, she is dead while she lives, and in such a state she could certainly claim no support from the assembly. Indeed, their supporting her in such a case would be an unseemly encouraging of her irresponsible ways.

Next comes the important case of those who had lost their husbands, and the more so as women were in the old world of that day: "Honour widows that are widows indeed." Such is the introductory exhortation, and therefore the word used, "honour", is expressly of the most general bearing. Some if not many might not need material proof of care; but due regard was to be paid to all that were really widows. By this he means that they lived in a way which marked their habitual sense of this loneliness and that they bowed to it as from God. The later ecclesiastical class may have been founded on such a passage as this; but no such thing really existed as yet so far as scripture informs us. The context makes plain the meaning of the real widow. She had no immediate relations to take care of her, and therefore was the more to be an object of honour; and if destitute, that honour would certainly imply support more or less according to her need. But it is a mistake to limit honour to such a provision, as many a real widow might have no such necessity. "Honour" here as elsewhere must be preserved in its own proper and broad meaning.

"But if any widow has children or descendants, let them learn first to show piety to their own house and render requital to their parents; for this is acceptable in the sight of God" (ver. 4). Such a widow in distinction from those of verse 3 is commended to the immediate relatives, who must learn their duty if they did not know it. Singular to say, most of the ancient Fathers as well as some of the modern Germans, including Winer, understand the widows to be the persons thus to learn: so Chrysostom, Theodoret and others among the Greeks, Jerome, etc., among the Latins, and even Luther and Calvin of Reformation times. But the Syriac stands with others in the true view that it is the children or grandchildren who are called to learn, as best agreeing with the context, besides being of intrinsic soundness morally. Affectionate and pious respect was due from the younger to the widow of their family; and herein lay the strict sense of rendering requital. The church was never intended to swamp the family. Rather should the grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ deepen the sense of every duty as well as enlarge the sphere of active love.

Among our English translators Wiclif of course is misled by the Vulgate: "But if any widow hath children of sones, learne she first to govern her hous …". Tyndale translated ἔκγονα "neves"; and so it is in the Protestant versions that followed down to the Authorized; which word at that day seems to have been used for grandsons or descendants generally, though now restricted to the issue of a brother or sister. It is no mistake in the common translation, therefore, but only an antiquated usage which seems best replaced by "descendants." The Rhemish Version, as usual, cleaves to the error of the Vulgate: "let her learn first to rule her own house …" The true sense we have seen to be the duty, not of the widow, but of her immediate kin in descent, though as usual the apostle puts it in the largest possible form. If the ἔκγονα or descendants were exhorted, it is not merely the χήμα or widow who is to be cared for, but οἱ πρόγονοι, the progenitors.

The case of those who are in circumstances of special need and dependence is next considered. Those that are widows indeed, in the full reality of widowhood, are to be honored, evidently to be cared for in the way of ministry, and according to their need. If such an one had children, then these were to show piety at home. It would not be right to take from them that which was their responsibility, nor would it be what would be desired on the part of those who felt things rightly from the divine or from the human side. But the widow indeed, one left really solitary, cast upon God alone, had a place of corresponding privilege as one who might give herself to prayer and supplication in behalf of others continuously. Whoever she were as to circumstances, if she was only thinking of self-indulgence, she was dead while living. God never recognizes any as having no duties to perform, no part to play, in a world such as this is. We can see how prayer is recognized as everywhere a need and a responsibility. One lying helpless upon a bed of sickness could yet pray, and pray; and perhaps there could be no greater usefulness than to live shut up, as men might think, after this fashion. If the heart was still after the things of which by circumstances one might be deprived, then all was out of place. The very providence of God was unheeded, and there could be no honor for one in such a condition. If any one did not provide for his own, especially for those of his own house, his own immediate circle, he denied the faith, and was worse than the unbeliever by the full extent of his profession.

As for the widows, those who were to be considered such were not to be less than sixty years old, having been the wife of one man, and with testimony borne to them by the good works their lives had exhibited. The children they had brought up would speak for them, the hospitality they had exercised, the washing the saints' feet (not, evidently, here the idle ceremony into which this kind of thing has degenerated, but the real practical ministry and the refreshment of those who needed it), the relief of the afflicted; in short, every good work that could be called that. On the other hand, the younger widows were to be refused — that is, they were not to be considered as belonging to the class of widows proper. They might have taken for themselves the place as a place in honor, but without faithfulness such as would be equal to the path implied. Thus they would not continue in it, would be self-condemned in what they had done, and the restlessness of their spirit would be manifest in mere wandering about among the families of the saints, gossiping and meddling and speaking things unfit. The rule, therefore, was for the younger to marry, exercise themselves in home duties, give no occasion to a reproach which would put them into the hands of the adversary; and here a small beginning might end in their going far astray; but if there were widows in the family of any Christians, these were themselves to assume the responsibility of their relief, and leave the assembly to charge itself with those who were really in the desolation implied in widowhood.

The general instruction of the passage is quite plain. Widows 60 years old and upwards without relations to support them were to be "taken into the number," or "put on the list," as receiving their support from the church if they had been marked by godliness and good works. The church is to relieve those who are "widows indeed" but not others. How wise is this ordering!

Other instructions come in by the way. Notice how clearly it is taught that children and descendants (the word is "descendants" rather than "nephews") are responsible for the support of their parents. Thus they shew godliness or piety at home. Let us emphasize this in our minds for it is easily forgotten in these days of "doles" and other forms of public support. The denunciation in verse 8 of the man who avoids or neglects this duty is very severe, showing how serious a sin it is in God's sight. There may be men quite renowned for piety in public who are nevertheless branded as worse than an infidel for lack of this piety at home.

But if a widow did require support, then her own relatives were primarily responsible for this, that the assembly might be left the more capable of relieving those who were widows indeed, desolate and of godly character.

(V. 16). Widows in the families of Christians are to be relieved by the family, leaving the assembly free to assist those who are widows indeed.

(2) They indeed knew God in His wonderful work for them, as well as in the commandments which displayed His character. They were called to imitate Him. If He cared for the fatherless and widows, and for the stranger, they too must care. And had they not known what it was to be strangers in that land out of which (marvelously multiplied amid all their suffering) He had delivered them with an outstretched arm?

One may be in a position to take unfair advantage of a stranger or of a fatherless child. But such perversion of justice was sternly forbidden (v.17). Also forbidden was taking a widow's garment as a pledge for debt. For Israel was to remember that they too at one time were in a place of slavery in Egypt, reduced to poverty.

If their fast was honestly for God, then they would show it in their attitude toward others. They would execute true judgment, being fairminded in their dealings, which would require showing mercy and compassion. They are told not to oppress the widow. Unscrupulous people will take cruel advantage of a widow's lack of knowledge as to business matters. The fatherless, the strangers and the poor also are in a position that leaves them vulnerable to such people. Yet this is negative: the New Testament goes much further than this, as for example Galatians 6:10, “Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all.” We surely ought not merely to refrain from doing evil, but should positively do good.

"Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt. Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child. If thou afflict them in any wise, and they cry at all unto Me, I will surely hear their cry; and My wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless. If thou lend money to any of My people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury. If thou at all take thy neighbour's raiment to pledge, thou shalt deliver it unto him by that the sun goeth down: for that is his covering only, it is his raiment for his skin: wherein shall he sleep? and it shall come to pass, when he crieth unto Me, that I will hear; for I am gracious." (vv. 21-27.)

The stranger comes first, and the remembrance of what they had been in the land of Egypt was to govern their conduct toward such. They had been in bitterness of soul through hard bondage when under the iron yoke of Pharaoh, and they could therefore enter into the feelings of those who were strangers in a strange land. The helpless are next commended to their hearts; and of all the helpless ones that appeal to our compassion, surely the widow and the fatherless have the first claim. God thus surrounds them here with the powerful defence of His own arm. If any should afflict them, they should be killed and their wives and children should become widows and orphans. Throughout the whole of Scripture these two classes are ever indicated as the special object of God's care, and hence should be objects of our compassionate concern. James accordingly says, "Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father, is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." (James 1:27.) The two following directions concern the poor — the first, to save him from extortion as well as to prevent the rich from making gain of his poverty; and the second, to secure him from destitution and nakedness. These laws, spite of the fact that the children of Israel were now governed from Sinai, permit us to see into the depths of the heart of God. What inexpressible tenderness in the provision that a pledged garment should be given up "by that the sun goeth down: for that is his covering only, it is his raiment for his skin: wherein shall he sleep? and it shall come to pass, when he crieth unto Me, that I will hear; for I am gracious." The heart of God must be expressed by His people, and He is touched by the sight of one who has nothing to cover his body when he lies down to sleep!