καί and the Support of Widows (1 Tim 5:5)

¶ I think one way to resolve the 1 Tim 5:3 dilemma you have brought up multiple times (most recently on June 8), "Is a widow really a widow?" is in a couple of etymological points. The adverb οντως is just the adverb form of the verb "to be," specifically, a modification of the present participle οντας (present, accusative, plural, although masculine, but an adverb does not have gender, so it would be based on the masculine form). So, if you render it as "being-ly" it makes more sense: "Be valuing widows, the being-ly widows." In other words, what is her current situation? ¶ Next, it helps just a tiny bit more to consider that, etymologically, χηρα comes from the root meaning of "a space," implying that this is a "separated" woman. So, this introduces the fact that one may label a woman as a widow (having been "spaced" off from her husband, the only legitimate way a woman could -- see Rom 7:2), but that he is going to clarify (in context, as you rightly point out) who qualifies as such in terms of how they are treated. ¶ One more point worth adding to the last point, and this would need to be verified by a Greek classics scholar, which I am not, but there is a question in my mind whether χηρα would have always, categorically, been viewed, especially among the gentiles, as a bereaved (through death of husband) woman, given the etymological root concept would not necessarily mean that. Could the gentiles have had "widows" who were not really what we, in Jewish-Christian definition, would legitimately call "widows"? ¶ On the verse 5 point and the subject of the post, after reading και so many times, I have come to mentally start with the mental translation "and-also." It always works. In English we have the correlating conjunction "and," and then the adverb "also." But there is just one Greek word that seems so often to have more of a copulative sense, connecting the two things together, rather than in English where "and" can just paste together two random thoughts, (e.g. "I am a widower and I like chocolate."). ¶ Then, on verse 5, you mention the participle μενονωμενη, and I think it is worth explicitly highlighting that it is in the perfect tense, hyper-literally, "having been only-ed." ¶ Then, on verse 5, note that the roots of μενονωμενη and προσμενει are related! Is this being lost in the English as well? You could, awkwardly, translate the latter as "is-only-ing-toward"! That would semantically tie those two clauses, separated by the next και, together. ¶ Finally, putting my points about verse 3 and 5 together, the same thing happens in verse 5 as 3: "Be valuing widows, the being-ly widows...Yet the being-ly widow and-also having been only-ed has expected upon the God and-also is-only-ing-toward the petitions and-also to-the prayers of-night and-also of-day." That's a very awkward, improper English translation on my part but, to me at least, it is unambiguous.

More question (for another article perhaps) than comment: Comparing Paul in 1Tim 5 to James (1:27) would James be speaking of a broader group of 'qualified' widows and care of a more episodic nature than your explanation of Paul's meaning? What should that look like in today's culture by today's church? And with government 'welfare', how should the church be honoring both the widows and God's original intent/purposes?

Appreciate your insights, Dr. Mounce. Had to chuckle though at the typo: it is important that the church care for godly 'windows'!