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.
No comments:
Post a Comment