1 Timothy 6 commentary


       1: Let as many slaves as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed 2: And they that have believing masters let them not despise them because they are brethren but rather do them service because they are faithful and beloved partakers of the benefit These things teach and exhort [1] 3: If any teach otherwise and consent not to [the] wholesome words [of] our Lord Jesus Christ[2] and [to the] teaching which is according to godliness 4: [They are] proud knowing nothing but obsessing about questions and strifes of words from which come envy strife slanders [of] evil suspicions 5: Perverse disputings with those of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth supposing that gain is godliness[3] from such withdraw yourselves 6: But godliness with contentment is great gain 7: For we brought nothing into [the] kosmos and it is certain we can carry nothing out 8: And having food and clothing let us be content with these 9: For they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare and into many foolish and hurtful lusts which drown them in destruction and perdition 10: For the love of money is the root of all evil which while some coveted after they have erred from the faith and pierced themselves through with many sorrows[4] 11: But thou O man of God flee these things and follow after righteousness godliness faith love patience meekness 12: Fight agōnizomai the good fight agōn of faith Lay hold on eternal life to which you are also called and have professed a good profession before many witnesses 13: [I] charge you [I] declare before Theos[5] the GODHEAD [Colossians 2:9] who makes alive all things and Iesous Christos who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession 14: That you keep this charge without spot blameless until the [glorious] appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ[6] 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 15: Who [in] HIS season HE shall prove who is the blessed and only Potentate the King of kings and Lord of lords[7] 16: Who alone has immortality[8] dwelling in the light which no one can approach unto whom none has seen nor can see[9] to whom be honor and power everlasting Amen 17: Charge them that are rich in this world that they be not high-minded nor trust in uncertain riches but in the living God who give us richly all things to enjoy 18: Do good Become rich in good works to be ready to give inclined to become [socially and financially] involved 19: storing up for themselves a good foundation against [that which] is coming that they may lay hold on eternal life
20: O Timotheos guard that which is committed to your trust avoiding profane and useless discussions even [the] antithesis [and] pseudonymos of knowledge 21: Which some profess [to understand and] have erred concerning the faith Grace be with you Amen


[1] The subject of 1 Timothy 6, is slavery. Paul did not change the subject after verse two but, because he could not safely or legally address the sinfulness of slavery overtly, he sought both the spiritual and physical welfare of all of his flock (both slave and free) by addressing the root causes of all sin.  

There had obviously been disputes about the rightness or wrongness of slavery. And, in chapter six, the apostle deals with the issue in a way that would have resolved the issue completely, if Christian hearts had been committed to living in God’s love and Christ’s example of humility. As late as the 19th Century, many Christian leaders insisted that the first few verses of Timothy chapter six, taught that slavery was mandated and ordained by God. This passage was wrongly used to that effect. Most contemporary Christian leaders agree that the verses in Timothy have historically been misused, and great harm has been done because of that. 

Slavery in ancient Rome was just as wrong as slavery in the the British Empire or slavery in the United States, but early Christians cannot be criticized for not becoming the first abolitionists. From this letter, it appears that some were and hot debate [on the subject] was going on. But few among the ancient peoples ever questioned slavery. It was too dangerous to do so and simply part of life. This writer believes the modern mind is so far divorced from the context of our forebear’s living reality, that great effort must be made to understand the risks and fear [associated with cultural change] that must have been an ever-present part of ancient life. 

Slavery was the law of the land, and early Christians faced crucifixion or worse for fomenting rebellion against Roman policy. At first, most believers were not citizens and were protected by few rights—and those, only if they toed the line. 

Slavery was an institution of Rome, passed down from the Greeks. Ancient Rome was a Greek culture. All ancient cultures had slavery. Some modern cultures still do. It was wrong then, and it is wrong now, but few people, even today, would risk crucifixion or some other cruel death, in order to become change agents. In the Roman Empire, death was guaranteed for dissenters. 

Through-out history, conviction in Christian hearts, has brought about much improvement and relief from suffering, including the abolition of slavery in the British Empire and the United States…but not in ancient Rome. That culture did not permit such movements, and mass-killings quickly discouraged any who might get any such ideas. 

Paul was a great traveler, spending his life for the gospel. He eventually became a prisoner of Rome, continuing his care for the churches while living under house arrest. The death penalty hung over his head for years. He knew the sentence would eventually be executed, and for nothing less than preaching the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. He understood better than most, that causes must prioritized…At that time

There is a time and a season for every purpose under Heaven…. Nothing could be gained by fomenting rebellion over slavery in the Roman Empire. The time for rising up against slavery had not yet come. Nothing but mass death could be accomplished by fomenting rebellion over the issue. All abolitionists would die; all rebellious slaves would die. This was not to be a permanent situation. The time would come when that would change. But not in Paul’s day. So the apostle did the only thing he could. He wrote to the young pastor and did his best to squelch the fiery debate between those who rightly saw the evil of slavery and the slave-holders whose hearts were not surrendered to God.

The only thing Paul could do, was encourage discipleship and Christian growth through love and humility. When the Holy Spirit has control of a heart, that person will do what is right. Paul knew that change comes from within. Outward laws must be enacted to protect the oppressed, only because people do not heed the laws that are already “written on our hearts.” Until hearts change, restraint must come through civil laws. But, concerning the sin of slavery, abolishing it was not a possibility in Paul’s day. Paul did what he could to mitigate the cruel effects of slavery on both slave and master, but he never condoned it.

[2] Paul appeals to the Words of Jesus. Jesus said to treat others as we would have others treat us. If we do that, we fulfill the Word and Will of God. The apostle knew that, if they were so inclined, slave owners had the legal right to free their slaves, but he could not suggest such a thing. His letter to Philemon, concerning the slave, Onesimus, shows how sensitive and dangerous the subject of slavery was. It also shows how much faith Paul had in Philemon to read between the lines, do the right thing, and not kill Onesimus, but rather, to allow him to return to Paul and fulfill his calling and service to God. 

This passage on slavery, is relevant to the issue of gender-role-religion. Like slavery, gender-role-religion was never mandated by God and the cultural context is no longer relevant. Many of the same arguments used to keep slaves in bondage are still used today to keep women in illegitimate subservience to men. Paul dealt with the woman issue along with slavery and racial prejudice in his letter to the Galatians. He chided them for not tearing down the walls of prejudice that separated races, masters, slaves, women, and men. He said that even though the secular world was full of those things, they did not belong among Christians, who were all ONE in Christ Jesus.

[3] These would likely be professing believers defending slavery (the subject of verses one and two has not changed) against true believers who were convicted in their hears that slavery was wrong. The debate had heated up to the point where the debate itself had become sinful and possibly legally dangerous. The apostle saw a need to shut it down altogether.

[4] This verse appears to contradict the doctrine of eternal security/once saved always saved. https://hungryheartsministries.blogspot.com/2017/09/once-saved-always-saved-doctrine-of.html 

[5] Hierarchical theology assumes that all mentions of Theos refer to only one person within the Godhead—the Father, when in most cases, the reference is to the Godhead itself Colossians 2:9. There is no such thing as the first, second, or third persons in the Godhead. Such designations imply hierarchy where none exists and an exaggerated importance of the Father over the Son and Holy Spirit. This is misleading as Jesus is Jehovah John 1:1

Jesus is the Everlasting Father Isaiah 9:6. The Holy Spirit is Jehovah Acts 5:3-4. The Holy Spirit is the father of that holy thing which was conceived in the womb of Mary Matthew 1:18 & 20, Luke 1:35
The name Jehovah YHWH encompasses the fullness of the Godhead.  In Heaven, there is no BIG GOD who is the Father, followed by two little gods who are the son and the holy spirit. Elohiym is the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit. The Being who created and redeemed all things, the Godhead Elohiym [Genesis 1:1] is not a three-god triad. “Hear O Israel YHWH Jehovah Elohiym OUR GODS is ONE YHWH Jehovah”. 

The Hebrew word, Elohiym, is the plural form of the word, Elohwahh. Elohwahh, is the singular form of the word for God, which occurs in Deuteronomy 32:15 and 56 more times in the Hebrew text. Elohiym is the plural form of the word, God, that designates three [or more]. There is a Hebrew word for Gods that designates two. Elohiym is not that word. It means three [or more] and occurs 2,606 times in the Hebrew text. Elohiym is our creator Genesis 1:1. That means the Godhead is the Creator. Jehovah [the Godhead] is our Creator Isaiah 44:24 Jesus is Jehovah. Jesus is our Creator Colossians 1:16-17, John 1:1-3

EXCERPT FROM: JESUS, GOD OF THE BURNING BUSH: ETERNAL FATHER BELOVED SON
   When Jesus said that God was His Father, He was referring to the Godhead. The Bible says that God is not a man, so we will not refer to the One God as the first, second, or third person of the Trinity. Those are hierarchical designations…that do not exist.
   The Father is the one who beget Jesus?
   Who did the angel tell Joseph that Holy Thing within Mary’s womb was conceived by? 
   Wasn’t Jesus conceived by the Holy Spirit?
   Isn’t a child’s Father that person by which he is conceived?
   Wouldn’t that make the Holy Spirit Jesus’ Father?
   Do we find a contradiction here? No, there is no contradiction when we understand that the prophets spoke the truth when they foretold the coming to earth in the form of a man, not the “second person of the Godhead,” but rather, the Almighty.
   In Colossians we read that all the fullness of the Godhead resides in our Savior in physical form.
   This had to be so because the Almighty declared that there was no Savior but Himself. He also declared that He created all things by Himself, alone.
   Out goes the theory that the Father used a subordinate Son to create all things. That “subordinate Jesus” the Father used in creation goes hand in glove with the insidious Arian lie that Jesus was Himself a created being—the first creation of God—who was then used to create all other things (complementarian expositors conveniently cherry-pick Arius’ teachings expunging overtly unacceptable portions). The Bible says that in the beginning Elohiym (The triune God) created the heavens and the earth. Who created man? Elohiym, the Triune God—the Godhead—created man. Let Us create man in Our image.

[6] Paul makes reference to the coming or appearing of Jesus 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 in almost every one of his letters to the churches. That is a reference to Bible prophecy as well his own revelation, which aligns perfectly with the Law and the prophets 
.
[7] Deuteronomy 10:17, YHWH is Lord of Lords. Jesus is Yahweh

[8] Psalm 136:3, YHWH is the high and lofty one who inhabits Eternity (has immortality). Jesus is Yahweh.

[9] This verse refers to the Godhead. Jehovah (YHWH) in all his fullness is the Godhead, and no one can see the Godhead and live. Moses spoke with God face to face (Exodus 33:11) and lived, but God put his hand over Moses’ face (Exodus 33:18-23) when he partially granted his request to see His Glory (the Godhead in all its fullness) and only allowed him to see His back parts as He passed by...

1 Timothy 5 commentary


       1: Rebuke not elders but entreat as fathers and the younger as brothers 2: The elders as mothers the younger as sisters with all purity [1] 3: Honor widows [who are] truly [destitute] widows 4: But if any widow have children or grandchildren let them [the children or grandchildren] learn first to to put their religion into practice at home and to recompense and repay their parents for that is good and acceptable before God [[[5: Now she that is a widow and truly desolate left all alone trusts in God and continues in supplications and prayers night and day 6: But those who are wanton are dead while they live]]] 7: And these things declare that they may be blameless 8: But if any provide not for their own and especially for those of their own house they have denied the faith and are worse than [those who are] faithless [[[9: Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old having been the wife of one man 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 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 13: And withal they learn to be idle wandering about from house to house and not only idle but tattlers also and busybodies speaking things which they ought not 14: I will therefore that the younger women marry bear children rule the house give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully 15: For some are already turned aside after Satan]]][2] 16: If any man or woman that believes has widows let them relieve them and let not the church be [unnecessarily] burdened that it may relieve them that are widows [who are] truly destitute 17: Let the presbyteros that rule[3] well be counted worthy of double honour especially they who labor in the word and doctrine 18: For the scripture says You shall not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn And laborers are worthy of their rewards 19: Against elders receive no accusations except before two or three witnesses 20: Them that sin before all rebuke that others also may fear[4] 21: I declare before God and [the] Lord Jesus Christ and the elect angels that you observe these things without prejudices doing nothing from [motivated by] partiality 22: Hands quickly on no one lay [do not be quick to ordain] neither be partaker of the sins of others Keep yourself pure 23: Drink no longer water but use a little wine for your stomach's sake and your frequent infirmities[5] 24: Some people's sins are revealed beforehand and go before [them] to judgment and some they follow after 25: Likewise also the good works of some are manifest beforehand and they that are otherwise cannot be hid [at the judgement]



[1] The elder women [presbyteros] and elder men [presbyteros] are treated with perfect equality in these verses, as are the younger men and younger women. There is no difference in role or function detected. It is unfortunate, that translators saw fit to separate verse :2 from verse :1, as both verses are part of the same thought, which commands purity for both young men and young women [purity is not limited to the younger of course, but is accepted that it is usually more of a struggle for the young]. Our Creator and Savior commands purity in all his children—not just his female children. To apply the word purity only to women [as the translators make it appear in this passage] is certainly in line with history and virtually all cultures, but is opposed to the entire volume and message of the Holy Scriptures. The word “presbyteros” in these verses, appears to refer to age rather than leadership, although the same advice applies to dealings with leaders in our congregations.
 
[2] The apostle Paul wrote that there were counterfeit letters, sent to the churches, “as from” him 2 Thessalonians 2:1-2. Because of this, in Pauline letters, deviations from style, thought, and most of all, agreement with the entire volume of scriptures as a whole, should be suspect. Using this standard, verses :5-6 and :9-15, of 1 Timothy chapter 5, are suspect. The prophet, Isaiah, wrote that if anyone wrote or said anything that did not agree with what had already been written, that it was false. The Christians of Thessalonica checked Paul’s claims against scripture,using Isaiah’s criteria, and were commended for doing so. This passage [1 Timothy 5:9-15] is nothing short of a diatribe against women, which contradicts the entire volume tone of scripture, contradicting even verses one and two of this same chapter, where older women are affectionately described as mothers and declared to be treated as such, and where younger women are affectionately described in the same familial way and commanded to be treated as sisters. Yet the interpolation [vs 9-15] categorizes these same “mothers and sisters” into two groups diametrically opposed to the idea of how either mothers or sisters should be viewed. Christian women are described here as either wanton or pious (the accepted opinion of the time)—with near impossible standards on the pious side, demanding absolute perfection. 

This makes no sense outside of the context of the times and unless the higher [double] standard for women is taken into consideration. Any “so-called” God-breathed scripture, will not defend cultural standards against the entire volume of sacred writings, as a whole. Though 1 Timothy 5:5-6, 9-15, is in perfect accord with the cultural paradigm of the time, it is jarringly out of step, not only with the context of the chapter it is written in, but also with everything we know about the scriptures and our Creator, who made many provisions to protect women from misogyny. Yahweh, understood women would be the mercy of a fallen world, producing fallen systems, designed to keep men in power. This can only be done by oppressing women—keeping them in utter subjugation. It is written, that God sent his prophet well out of his way to provide for a widow and orphaned boy who did not even live in Israel—the scriptures provide no qualifiers that aid in judging her “worthiness,” outside of faith, for this miraculous intervention (whether she had only been widowed once, whether she was over age 60 etc… She was likely a young widow as her son is generally understood to still be a boy, as opposed to being a young man). We do not how many such missions of mercy there were [to widows] that went unrecorded in scripture. 

When bracketed off from the rest of the chapter, 1 Timothy verses :9-15 are easily seen to interrupt a clear and related train of thought concerning the responsibility of children to widowed mothers or grandmothers. The interruption is a barefaced tirade against women, painting them with a broad brush, accusing all women of being busybodies and sexually immoral, or both. The passage contradicts itself, painting marriage as an act of rebellion against Christ [while at the same time commanding young widows to marry], giving excuse to the greedy or stingy for withholding aid from destitute widows under the age of 60, whether or not they were pious. 

This writer believes the stereotype in 1 Timothy 5:5-6, 9-15, to be an interpolation, the work of a malicious scribe. Paul himself, warned that forgeries of his letters were circulating. They must have been abundant, and from the few examples we have seen, where the authenticity of a passage is in question 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, it is usually the status of women that is being addressed/corrected. Women in the early ekklesia, had broad discretion and large freedom under Christianity. Perfect equality was practiced, and many did not like this. Opposition began immediately. Thus, forgeries and interpolations.

There were few places in the economic structure of the time, for women alone. If they had no families, it did not matter if widows were 16 or 60, widows of any age were completely dependent. Younger widows were likely to have small children to provide for, and if they had no families, they were in dire straits indeed. Most widows with no relatives, were utterly destitute. This makes the instruction to provide no relief—at all—to widows under age 60, particularly heinous and contradicts clear scriptural instruction from James [1:27 and 2:14-18], where the brother of Jesus [without qualifiers of any sort], gives explicit instructions to care for widows and orphans. Professing believers are told that if they tell someone to go, be fed and clothed, without giving them the things needful for the body, then their religion is in vain. Yet the Pauline forgery [1 Timothy 5:9-15] mercilessly instructs Christians to just that. Believers are instructed not to provide for any widow under the age of 60 (tell them to go pray). 

The brother of Jesus, wrote that a believer’s generous response [or not] to widows and orphans, reflected the true status of their faith. What if a widow was 59 years old and married more than once? That would not have been uncommon. The Mosaic Law provided for this eventuality and commanded men to marry their brother’s widows Matthew 22:23-28, Genesis 38:8-26, Deuteronomy 25:5-10

This law was purely a protection for women, that, sadly, had to come with a necessary caveat to male pride as an inducement to obey. In light of the fact that God commanded men to marry widows, marked them as disobedient if they failed to do so (a scarlet letter for men, so to speak), how could a widow be considered as casting off her faith and condemning herself to hell…if she marries? What possible difference could the fact of previous marriages have to do with whether a widow is destitute and worthy, or not? Yet, according to the spurious instructions of verses :9-:15, a young widow (with or without young children), or a widow who had been married more than once, was to be ignored by the church regarding provision, because, according to the suspected forgery, such a widow would most certainly fall away into immorality—or, God forbid, get married again. 

This was the prevailing opinion of men towards women in the Greek culture of the day [and beyond] but is a blatant contradiction to both the spirit and the letter of both the Law and of Christian New Covenant. Even if young widows did not “damn their souls” by marrying again, the interpolation informs us that they will fall away anyhow—by falling to immorality, or by becoming lazy gossipers and busybodies. 

So what was a woman to do? Note the writer contradicting himself, when he commands the younger women to condemn themselves anyway, by getting married again! Talk about damned if you do and damned if you don’t! A note about the idea of marrying because one has abandoned Christ. Since when is marriage a sign of rebellion against God? The Bible says marriage is honorable. It was ordained by God Himself in the very beginning—one man, on woman (at a time). 

After the Fall, polygamy quickly became common [still is in patriarchal cultures around the world]. God permitted polygamy in ancient times because of the desperate straits patriarchal cultures and widowhood plunged women into. But Jesus made a point that polygamy was never God’s perfect plan for marriage. Under the New Covenant, polygamy was not permitted for men who aspired to church leadership (the husband of one wife, meant polygamy—not divorce**). 

Under both Covenants, marriage is honorable and provisions for the care of widows is explicit. So, how, under the New Covenant, could marriage suddenly be interpreted as rebellion against Christ? How could abandoning widows (and by extension, fatherless children) suddenly become a good thing? Are men who marry widows also in rebellion against Christ? This omission is a clue that this passage is a fake. Where do we read in the Bible that widows who have been widowed more than once or possibly been divorced by treacherous husbands [either before or after becoming believers] be disqualified from receiving basic necessities of life? This writer does not believe there are contradictions in the Word of God, which God declared he would preserve to every generation. Yet this passage is so fraught with contradictions [both within the passage itself and with the Bible as a whole], it so utterly opposes both the letter and spirit of what had already been written Isaiah 8:20, that fakery is obvious. 

[[[9: Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old having been the wife of one man (James gave no age qualifier) 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  (what if she was a new believer with no history as yet? Again, James gave no such qualifier)11: But the younger widows refuse for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ they will marry (Misogynistic Stereotype. And so what if they do? Why wouldn't we care for them during their time of need, and then, later, celebrate their happiness in a new marriage?) 12: Having damnation because they have cast off their first faith (where does the Bible say that marriage is sin?) 13: And withal they learn to be idle wandering about from house to house and not only idle but tattlers also and busybodies speaking things which they ought not (evil woman stereotype. Misleading Broad Brush) 14: I will therefore that the younger women marry (contradiction of verse 11 where marriage is viewed as a bad thing, a defection from the faith, bringing damnation) bear children rule the house give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully (the forger flip-flops, now marriage is Ok) 15: For some are already turned aside after Satan (Look at those faithless wanton women! They are all alike!)]]]
Accountability is required in God’s people. “Let the prophets speak…and let the others judge.” Unless this passage can be authenticated “in the mouths of 2 or 3 witnesses [let every word be established]—which it cannot—this writer has judged 1 Timothy 5:5-6, 9-15 to be a malicious fraud:

1.     Where are two or three witnesses found [in the Bible] that all young widows are prone to immorality, laziness, and gossip? Plato would agree to that, but he doesn’t count. It was the prevailing opinion of all ancient philoshophers (and beyond), but the scriptures never accuse women as such.
2.     Where are two or three witnesses [in the Bible] where men are commanded not to marry widows? We see the opposite in scripture. The Bible contains at least two or three witnesses where men are commanded to marry widows and are censured if they do not. The Bible contains more than two or three witnesses about God’s will towards marriage, that men who find a wife find “good” and that marriage [if not a “good” experience for one or both of the spouses] is always honorable.
3.     Where are two or three witnesses [in the Bible] that show “damnation” connected to widows who marry? This passage stands alone in stark contradiction to scriptural declarations that wives are good for men and marriage is honorable.
4.     Where are two or three witness [in the Bible] commanding backs to be turned on widows and orphans? We read just the opposite—care for them.
5.     Where are two or three witnesses [in the Bible] that show it is God’s nature to give a person only two choices—either to be pious and starve or to condemn one’s self to hell by marrying again. Both are ludicrous ideas with not one word of supported in the sacred writings of Jews or Christians.

The possibility is high, that the passage [vs 9-15] in 1 Timothy 5,  is a malevolent , misogynistic, forgery, that was copied, re-copied, and liberally shared among all the churches, and eventually adopted by early church “Fathers,” as authentic, is high. There were undoubtedly many who understood that only male dominated structural hierarchies, could effectively combat the elevated status and influence of women in leadership, which influence was not only common but encouraged in the early ekklesia.

Anti-woman Jewish Tradition, was rife among early Christian converts (for a time, almost the entire early ekklesia consisted of Jews—even the twelve were aghast when Jesus spoke with certain women, allowed women to touch him, and spoke against putting wives away for just any reason). Paul’s letter to Galatia contested the Law of Judaism, along with the racism and misogyny that its Traditions fostered. Here are a few examples from third century Christianity and Jewish Tradition; (Ecclesiasticus) Better is the wickedness of a man than a woman who does good; and it is a woman who brings shame and disgrace. Ecclesiasticus (also called the Wisdom of Jesus ben Sirach) is 3rd century BC. Things could only have been worse—if possible—in the 1st century. Tertullian (c. 200 AD) wrote to women: You are the devil’s gateway; you are the unsealer of that [forbidden] tree; you are the first deserter of the divine law; you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God’s image, man. On account of your desert – that is, death – even the Son of God had to die. Precursors to Tertullian and his ilk, were do doubt just as numerous in the 1st century.

**One possible motivation for the forged stipulation of a widow being the wife of “one man” (thereby disqualifying all women who had been widowed more than once from receiving assistance), could be that it was written as a backlash against the stipulation that male leaders in the church could only have one wife at a time. The forger could have been a polygamous scribe who was disqualified himself from church leadership, and therefore bitter. The restriction referred to polygamy and not to divorce.

1 Timothy 5:9-15, as far as this writer knows, is found in virtually all extant manuscripts. That does not mean, however, that the original autographs and earlier non-extant copies contained the anti-woman invective. The same can be said of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, as is said of 1 Timothy 5 (that it is found in all extant mss). Yet, despite this, many excellent scholars believe the 1 Corinthians passage to be a scribal interpolation. This writer concedes, that unlike the Timothy insertion, there may be some scriptural arguments for the 1 Corinthians inclusion (Fell and Boothe). But it is astounding that the unscriptural broadside against women in 1 Timothy, has never been challenged as being a fraud, though it has no redeemable quality nor merit to it.

Read 1 Timothy 5:9-15, and experience the seamless unity of the message, without the interpolations: 1: Rebuke not elders but entreat as fathers and the younger as brothers 2: The elders as mothers the younger as sisters with all purity 3: Honor widows [who are] truly [destitute] widows 4: But if any widow have children or grandchildren let them [the children or grandchildren] learn first to to put their religion into practice at home and to recompense and repay their parents for that is good and acceptable before God And these things declare that they may be blameless 8: But if any provide not for their own and especially for those of their own house they have denied the faith and are worse than unbelievers 16: If any man or woman that believes has widows let them relieve them and let not the church be [unnecessarily] burdened that it may relieve them that are widows[who are] truly destitute 

[3] Jesus was the first person to use the words “New Covenant” in reference to a change from the Old, Mosaic, Covenant to the new one that he ushered in with his death and resurrection. As such, Jesus alone set the example for how his church should operate. His example made no place for a ruling class in the Body of Christ. His example gave no hint that followers should establish hierarchical organizations and call them churches. There is only ONE Church, and it is relational in structure—not organizational.  Both women and men were elders (presbyteros) in the early Church, and anyone who was a presbyteros, cared for the flock like shepherds caring for the flock and living their lives as examples to the flock John 13:14-15, 1 Timothy 4:12, 1 Peter 2:21

They were considered mothers and fathers to the flock—not rulers of the flock. 

Even under the Old Covenant, the prophets [who superseded the King] did not rule, but served as examples James 5:10. Deborah, Leader of all Prime Minister), Israel, both Prophet and Judge, was called a “Mother” in Israel. The example of Jesus, Creator, Savior, and Lord of all creation, and Everlasting “Father,” gives solid hermeneutical ground for assigning the biblical meaning to the word, proïstēmi (G-4391), as lead—not rule when it is used in a non-judicial context. 

Jesus commanded his followers not to imitate the culture surrounding them, where the priesthood in most religions (even in Israel) were a ruling class and where husbands and fathers were literally priests in the family cults of ancient Greece. Jesus, in both word and example, made it clear that in the Body of Christ, there is no room for any human to “rule” in either our homes or our assemblies. 

[4] Sin is dangerous to to everyone, even believers. Sin does not just effect the person committing the sin.  Just like good, evil has a ripple effect. Others can and do experience the consequences, which can range from inconvenient to downright fearful. Paul alluded to such in his letter to the Corinthians where he admonished them about their sinful behavior when taking the Lord’s Supper together. He pointed out that some were sick and some had died because of their sin in this regard. Writing to believers, James described the progress of sin, from conception, to gestation, to birth, to death. Sin is nothing for believers to take lightly, and just like the prophets under the Old Covenant, the writers of the New Testament warned believers against complacency regarding sin. 

Does that mean believers should be constantly afraid they are sinning? No. Both Jesus and Paul said that to love God with all our hearts, souls, and minds, and to love our neighbors as ourselves is to fulfill all of the Law and all of the Prophets. In the Body of Christ, the laws of love and liberty reign. Although sin has temporal consequences (at the very least, it steals peace of mind) If we repent of [and confess] known sin, God is faithful and just to forgive us, not only of the sins we are aware of and are turning from, but we are also cleansed from all unrighteousness (sins we may as yet be unaware of). The sins we need to be greatly afraid of, are the sins that we, as believers, engage in knowingly and deliberately, as well as the more subtle (but deadly) sins of greed, pride, and arrogance.

[5] Taken in context with verses :22-24, verse :23 must be a metaphorical reference to taking a stronger stance against sin. It is not speaking of literal, physical, infirmity but rather the sickness of sin invading Timothy’s congregation.