1: I exhort
therefore that first of all supplications prayers intercessions and giving of
thanks be made for all people 2: For kings and for all that are in
authority that we may lead tranquil and
peaceable lives in all godliness and honesty 3: For this is good and
acceptable in the sight of God our Savior Isaiah 43:11 4: Who desires all people to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth John
8:32 5: For there is one God and one mediator between God and humanity
the man Christ Jesus[1] 6:
Who gave himself a ransom for all The testimony Isaiah 53:7 in times
[its own] 7: To which I was appointed a herald and apostle I speak the
truth in Christ and lie not—a
teacher of the nations in faith and truth 8:
I will therefore the men in every place pray [and] lift up holy hands without anger and argument 9: And the women do likewise [pray, lifting up
holy hands…,] adorning themselves in modest apparel with reverence [2]
and self-restraint, not with [extravagantly] braided hair or [excessive] gold or pearls or expensive clothing [3]
10: But [that] which [is] becoming [to] women professing godliness with
good works 11: women [who] in quietness learn in all compliance [with
that which is right][4] 12: But I suffer not a woman to teach
nor to usurp authority over the man but to be in silence [5] 13:
For Adam was first formed then Eve[6] 14:
And Adam was not deceived but the woman being deceived was in the transgression[7] 15:
Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith
and charity and holiness with sobriety[8]
[1] How can Jesus be God and, at the same
time, mediator between God and humanity? The reference to God in verse :5, is a
reference to the Godhead, and the scriptures declare that all the fullness
of the Godhead dwells in Jesus in physical form Colossians
2:9. Jesus is God.
[2] How is it that, in virtually every
translation, only men appear to be included in the instructions to pray and
praise [unlike many places in scripture where the word “men” is used, this
verse actually is speaking to males], when the instruction clearly includes
women? The word “likewise” is a reference to the same directive given to men and “likewise” to the women. The men were instructed to pray and praise without anger and doubtful disputations,
and the women were instructed to pray and praise without becoming slaves to fashion. All three of these things:
anger, doubtful disputations, and slavery to fashion can become sinful
behavior, but [somehow] through gender-biased-English-translation-theology,
verses :8 and :9, became a holy directive to men in the matter of prayer and
praise, was followed by a lecture to women in how they should be ashamed of
themselves and to watch how they dress and do their hair. Translations that
leave the women out of the instructions on prayer and praise [and the misogyny
which lies at the root of such malicious scholarship], are shameful mistranslations. Concerning verse :9, 19th
Century scholar, Katherine Bushnell dealt with the made-up word,
“shamefacedness [used in the A. V.] and the fashion instructions. She wrote “To array themselves in a befitting catastola, with
reverence and self-restraint.” Under the conditions of peril to women, it
was very appropriate for the Apostle to impress the need of a very unobtrusive
costume for the women who took part in public meetings. Indeed it were well if
the Christian women of our own day would obey the Scriptural injunctions
regarding plain and unobtrusive dressing; women sin greatly in this regard. The
catastola is mentioned in Scripture only here and in the Greek O. T.
version at Isaiah 61:3. It was a loose garment that reached to the feet, and was
worn with a girdle. The word may be used as an equivalent for “garment,” yet it
seems more likely that the Apostle should have used this rare term (rare in
Scripture), rather in its specific application. A spirit of “reverence and
self-restraint” would ever prevent a woman from becoming a mere tool of
fashion. The word ”reverence” (aidos) translated “shamefacedness,” is
used in only one other place in the N. T., Hebrews 12:28. It was not necessary
for the translators to concoct an “unmeaning corruption,” as Dean Alford calls
“shamefacedness,” in order to describe what the word means, because it
applied to women. The Revisers changed it to “shamefastness,”an
obsolete word without meaning to the average mind; excepting that both words
convey the sense that women should always be ashamed of themselves.
http://godswordtowomen.org/Lesson%2043.htm (2 of 4) [11/30/2009 8:55:52 PM]
PAUL’S WORDS TO TIMOTHY EXPLAINED.
[3] Are braids, jewelry, and fashionable
clothing sinful? Of course not! Modern Christians agree the reference to
braiding hair in this verse, had to do with a cultural prohibition and [today]
completely disregard the instruction. But, as with anything, hair, clothing, and jewelry
fashions have the potential of becoming sinful stumbling blocks. Temperance and
moderation become all Christians. Both problems dealt with in verses :8 and :9,
can afflict either sex, but the apostle obviously felt that men were more
likely to stumble through angry debate, while women
were more prone to stumble through becoming obsessed with fashion.
[4] The question in verse :11, regarding
compliance, is *compliance with what? This writer does not believe that
compliance with men is the meaning here. Such a definition would be in line
with virtually all cultures—up to the present day—but would contradict the
whole of scripture; the prophet Joel, and the words and actions of Paul, in
both learning from and supporting the unfettered speaking and leading
ministries of women. Women both spoke and taught under the Old Covenant, and
even more so under the New Covenant [especially so in the early church] but
were generally kept “in their place,” by the Jewish culture and all
cultures in the ancient world. Women continue to be oppressed in most cultures
in the modern world. Even many democratic cultures have those within them that
use religion to keep women in perpetual subjection to men, e.g., the the Jewish
culture in Israel (Israel actually passed an Equal Rights Amendment), and
the Christian culture [through the efforts of CBMW] in the United States.
The hierarchical translating of “hypo” words , such as hypotagē (pronounced hü-po-tä-gā'), as
subjection, submit, or be subject to, is not in line with New Covenant usage
which defines itself in 1 Peter 5:5 (A.V.) and Ephesians 5:2,1 as preferring
one another before ourselves, i.e., the golden rule (which is based on the
words of Jesus in Luke 10:27). The definition of the prefix hypo as always denoting the
hierarchical position of “under” is false, as evidenced by the use of the word hypo as meaning “over,” in 2 Corinthians
2:11. Yet, not a single lexicon reflects that nor includes the definition of
“over” regarding the the primary preposition, hypo.
*Translator supplements are common and frequently helpful.
But care must be exercised in considering both context and the tone of scripture
as a whole.
[5] How
are we to understand verses :11 and :12 in light of the fact that Paul himself
was taught by the woman, Priscilla, and In his letter to the Corinthians, he
included protocol for women speaking publicly? If, in 1 Timothy, he is teaching
absolute and utter silence and subjection for all women, then he is not only in
contradiction of his own teaching but is commanding God’s people to disregard
the scriptures themselves. The sacred writings of the Jews, not only featured
women speaking and teaching, but foretold the time the Apostle was living in
fulfillment of, the time when women would in great numbers begin to freely and
authoritatively preach and prophesy. Since few believe that Paul was
contradicting himself and commanding believers to disregard the scriptures,
then he must have meant something else entirely and not the popular
interpretation of male dominance when he wrote this passage.
In the book, Woman this is War! Gender, Slavery and theEvangelical Caste System, this commentator wrote: “The apostle wrote, “For
Adam was first formed then Eve. And Adam was not deceived but the woman being
deceived was in the transgression.”
This verse in 1 Timothy 2:…, corresponds with the verses in 1 Corinthian
14:34-35 where women are forbidden to speak, “as also saith the Law…” Yet nowhere
in the Law of Moses are women forbidden to speak. The words of holy women who
spoke are recorded in the Bible on equal basis with the words of holy men. So, Paul
must have been referring to extra-scriptural
oral tradition—which, in any case, is not authoritative. Even if we could find
[in the scriptures—which we cannot] where such a thing was written, those of us
who have been born again and have committed our lives to Jesus Christ [both men
and women], have been redeemed from both the transgression and from the Law.
Born again Christian men and women are no longer in the transgression nor are they under the Law.
So who are these women Paul
refers to who are in the transgression and under the Law? As Margaret Fell
brought to our attention in the seventeenth century, they were obviously unsaved Jewish women who were attending
church with their saved husbands. The likelihood of that being the case was
high, as Paul chose the residence which adjoined to the synagogue in which to
conduct his first Christian meetings in Corinth. The leader of the synagogue
was one of his converts. It is known that after his departure, meetings
continued in that location. It would not be inappropriate to assume that
converted Jewish husbands would bring unconverted Jewish wives to the Christian
meetings. Taking advantage of the freedom given to Christian women, though not
yet accepting Christ themselves, these wives likely felt free to carry on
conversations with their husbands during the meetings. In addition to being
disruptive, these unsaved women must also have been the ones exhibiting the bad
example of wearing excessive jewelry, extravagantly styled hair, and expensive
clothing. Corinth was a center of commerce. Not only was it known to be an
extremely materialistic city, but Jews living under the Law of Moses believed
that material prosperity reflected the approval of God. It was inevitable and
understandable that Paul would feel the need to issue warnings against these
kinds of ostentatious displays. Paul’s admonitions were obviously heeded,
because the Church in Corinth eventually became known for its piety and
adherence to scriptural godliness. We cannot know the exact scenario, but we do
know that it was to women who were still in the transgression and still under
the Law that Paul commanded to silence and instructed to wait and ask their
[saved] husbands at home about the things concerning Christianity that they did
not yet understand. The apostle was clearly not addressing redeemed, Christian,
women, nor was he issuing general instructions to the church or married couples
about leadership or role relationships.
In the 19th
Century, medical doctor, missionary, and Hebrew/Greek scholar, Katherine
Bushnell, had this to say about the passage in 1 Timothy 2: Occasionally a
Bible expositor comments on the seemingly narrower sphere allotted to
women under the Gospel than was accorded them under the law. Kalisch says: "The New Testament is . . . even more
rigorous than the Old; for whilst it commands the woman 'to learn in silence
with all subjection, but not to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but
to be in silence,' she was in the Old Testament admitted to the highest
office of teaching, that of prophets, as Miriam, Deborah, and Huldah." But
we may well suspect such an interpretation of the Bible as makes the Gospel
appear less kindly, less liberal, more contemptuous toward women than the Old
Testament law, and which represents women as less able, by grace, to conquer the
vices of the sex and rise above them, than the law enabled them to do. There
must be something wrong in such a representation. We should constantly bear in
mind; in studying these Lessons, the point we have made: It was during the
"days of mingling," especially, that the teaching got hold of the
mind of the Jew, that his wife, merely because of her sex, was his inferior. It
was during these days that the first translation of the Bible—the Septuagint
Greek version—was made**. This version, in some places, incorporated in its
renderings the idea of woman's inferiority; and all other versions since have
followed suit, more or less. "Men only need," says Dr. Beard,
"to bring to the Bible sufficiently strong prepossessions, sufficiently
fixed opinions, to have them reflected back in all the glamour of infallible
authority" (Beard's Hibbert Lectures, p. 192).
**Notes: For
the most part, It is believed that all but educated Jews lost their knowledge of Hebrew during the
seventy years of captivity in Babylon. After their return, the Oral Tradition came
into being (Nehemiah 8:8) which is the basis of the Targums and the Talmud.
[6] Paul did not teach gender-based
primogeniture (Federal Headship). The interpretation of this verse to mean that males are somehow superior
and designed to lead women because Iysh
(man) was formed before Ishshaw (woman),
loses credibility when considered in light of the fact that all of life, except the woman, was
created before the man. Creation
order has no hierarchical significance. The same crowd that teaches
primogeniture, also teaches that audawm
(both Ishshaw and Iysh) was God’s crowning creation
because they were created last. This commentator agrees that audawm is God’s crowning creation, not because humanity was created
last, but because every human is created in his image, with no gender-based differences in that
respect. So, exactly what did Paul mean by this statement? No one knows.
[7] Both Iysh and Ishshaw fell
from grace. So interpret this passage to mean that only the woman needed
redemption is a gross misinterpretation. And no one to date has gone so far as
to suggest that. Yet Christian patriarchy ignores the problems created by their
interpretation of portions of the passage, while refusing to address how
the implications of their view impact the entire passage. Despite glaring
inconsistencies, they continue to use obscure verses that twist and contradict
the entire message and tone of the gospel in defense of their
scripturally indefensible position of male dominance.
[8] What a checklist for women to follow if
they want to saved! Does any thinking Christian really believe that salvation
by faith alone is meant only for men,
while women must tow the line having babies and watching everything they do or
say, because any lapse of faith or faltering step could be the thing that
spirals them straight into hell? The Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood
cites only a portion of this passage, in efforts to under-gird their doctrine
of male dominance. They ignore the calling and scriptural authority of God’s
daughters, while disregarding the entire context of the passage, which makes it
clear that it is unsaved women
he is referring to. Who but the unsaved could be “in the transgression?” Role-religionists, make no attempt at
interpreting verse :15, even though it completes the thought. What could Paul have meant when he wrote that
women are saved by childbirth? No one really knows, even though some Christian
sects, such as the patriarchal quiverful movement [that the Southern Baptist
Convention seems to have come on-board with, since Al Mohler’s uncontested
statement that he believed birth-control was against God’s plan] behave as
though they believe 1 Timothy 2:15 literally. Even so, no respected scholar
agrees that Paul taught that giving birth is a means of salvation for women.
