1 Corinthians Chapter 16: Commentary

  

  1: Now concerning the collection for the saints as I have prescribed to the out-calleds of of Galatia,[1] even so do ye 2: Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay aside themselves in store as God has prospered that there be no collections when I come 3: And when I come whomsoever you shall approve by your letters them will I send to bring your generosity to Jerusalem 4: And if it be worthwhile that I go also they shall go with me 5: Now I will come to you when I shall pass through Macedonia for I do pass through Macedonia ^{Acts 16:9} 6: And it may be that I will abide yes and winter with you that you may send me forth on my journey where-so-ever I may go 7: For I will not see you now by the way but I trust to tarry a while with you if the Lord permit 8: But I will tarry at Ephesus until Pentecost 9: For a great door and fruitful is opened to me and many ones opposing 10: Now if Timotheus come see that he may be with you without fear for he works the work of the Lord as I also do 11: Let not any therefore despise him ^{1 Timothy 4:12} but conduct him forth in peace that he may come to me for I look for him with the brethren 12: As touching [our] brother Apollos I greatly desired him to come to you with the brethren but his will was not at all to come at this time but he will come when he shall have convenient time [2] 13: Watch Stand fast in the faith Be strong [3], staunch 14: Do everything, your all, in love 15: I beseech you brethren you know the house of Stephana[4] that it is the firstfruits of Achaia and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints [5] 16: That you yield to [cooperate with] such[6] and to every one that works together and toils [7] 17: I am glad of the coming of Stephana and Fortunatus and Achaicus for that which was lacking on your part they have supplied 18: For they have refreshed my spirit and yours therefore be recognizing them that are such 19: The out-calleds of Asia salute you Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord with the out-called that is in their house 20: All the brethren greet you Greet ye one another with a holy kiss 21: The salutation of me Paul with mine own hand 22: If any love not the Lord Jesus Christ they are bound under a great curse ^anathema when our Lord has come when our Lord has come  ^{maranatha maranatha} [8] 23: The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you 24: My love be with you all in Christ Jesus Amen

---

[1] A hierarchical translation of this verse would have been typical during times when the Pope was the premiere political power in Europe. Translators of that period, would naturally interpret biblical languages through filters of subjection to Popes, Queens, and Kings who wielded much more actual authority, then, than they do today. But, though times have changed, the bias continues as modern translators continue to follow suit, even when both the text and entire tenor of the the New Testament do not call for it. A predilection for power is the only explanation for hermeneutical discrimination in favor of a military-like power structure. Additionally, history records that, with few exceptions, it is only men who have been included in that power structure ^{Genesis 3:16}. Paul would have been contradicting the example of Jesus himself ^{John 13:14} if he began ruling over the churches. Peter wrote that leaders should do no such thing, but should rather lead by example ^{1 Peter 5:2-3}. Paul asked the churches to follow him only as he followed Christ. He commended the Church at Berea for searching the scriptures daily to judge everything he said by the Word of God ^{Acts 17:10-11} (as the scriptures commanded they do ^{Isaiah 8:19-20}). Tyndale, who died at the stake for bringing the scriptures to the people in English, did not translate this verse in a hierarchical fashion. He wrote, “As I have ordained in the congregations…see also Tyndale’s translation in the last verse of 2 Corinthians, chapter 1, ‘…not that we be lords over your faith but helpers of your joy…’”

[2] 1 Corinthians 16:12: Apollos did not have a problem saying no. Notice he did not say he “couldn’t” come. He said he “wouldn’t” come. It seems the only reason he gave for declining the request was that it was not convenient for him at this time. It is OK to say no.

[3] The old English phrase “quit you like men” simply means “Be Strong.” When men are speaking to one another, they might say something like, “Man up!” or “Be a man!” But Paul is writing to the out-calleds of Corinth, which included both men and women, so we know he was telling every believer in Corinth (not just the men) to be strong and staunch—steadfast.

[4] The Textus Receptus (Greek Text of Stephens 1550, as seen in the Berry Interlinear) uses the feminine name, Stephana. But Berry, when he renders it in English, deceptively adds an “s” to the end of the name, ^{See image below}, in an attempt to mask the feminine proper noun (although, even with the “s,” Stephana[s] is still feminine).

James Strong, also exhibits bias and aversion to the feminine name, Stephanas (Original Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, using the Textus Receptus, Elzevir 1624^[?])**, passing the word off as a proper masculine noun. Strong counters the feminine appearance of the name, by claiming the stand-alone root word is probably a derivative and contraction of the masculine name, Stephanoo (G4737). Among scholars, there is strong consensus on masking the feminine nature of the name, Stephana/Stephanas, by claiming it is, “perhaps,“ merely a nickname for the masculine Stephanoo or Stephanotos. The complementarian editors of the online Blue Letter Bible, go along with the deception. They admit to the etymology of Stephana, as a stand-alone root word, yet include the claim that it is “probably” derived from the name, Stephanoo (G4737). They mis-define the word as a, “proper masculine noun.” Rather than admit that Stephana is a woman, commentators prefer to appear ignorant of the fact that Stephana has always been a known female name. They falsely claim the word is a mystery. Stephana has always been a common name for Greek women, and in modern Greece, the name is still in use. It is the feminine form of Stephanos, just as in English, Stephanie is the feminine of Stephan, Michael is the masculine of Michaela, Roberta is the feminine of Robert, so on and so forth…. http://www.meaning-of-names.com/greek-names/stephana.asp

**Both Stephens’ and Elzevir’s texts are called, Textus Receptus, because, as Berry wrote, “In the main, they are one and the same.”

[5] There is one addiction permitted to believers, and that is serving others. Stephanas and her household were addicted to caring for the needs of believers.

[6] Paul pleads with the Church at Corinth to cooperate with the house of Stephana. Was that request necessary because Stephana was a woman? He reminds the Corinthians that she and her family are worthy of honor and cooperation.

1 Corinthians 16:16 is an example of the Greek word, hypotasso (G5293), being used in the sense of mutual submission and cooperation among believers (with emphasis on cooperating with those who were of the house of Stephana). To say the word, hypotasso, is used here to mean a military-like chain of command, with Paul at the head (similar to a Pope), would be an exaggeration. Also, the emphatic “yourselves,” as in submit “yourselves,” is not found in the Greek. It is a translator supplement which is often used in tandem with the word, hypotasso. The addition of the emphatic, “yourselves,” aids in conveying a false understanding of a martial hierarchy that does not exist in the New Testament.   

[7] The hierarchical flavor of the passage increases with translator addition of the words “with us” (works “with us” ^AV), creating a non-existent military hierarchy consisting of the apostles down. All translations do not add the words “with us,” in verse 16, but some do even worse, such as the NASB mistranslating the Greek word, toioutos, as “men,” making that translation read, “be in subjection to such men…” Some of those from the house of Stephana (a woman) may have been men, but the scriptures do not specify that.

[8] 1 Corinthians 16:22, is a reference to the pre-tribulational resurrection and rapture of those who are “in Christ.”

The Greek word, maranatha, meaning “our Lord has come,” is repeated at the end of this verse: maranatha maranatha. Two things will happen when our Lord shall come…For the Lord himself shall descend from Heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God, and 1.) the dead in Christ shall rise first (resurrection) then  2.)  we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air (rapture); and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

Maranatha, Maranatha…The dead in Christ—Maranatha. And we who are alive and remain—Maranatha.

The anathema, the curse of The Great Affliction will bind those who will be left behind. The Great Tribulation is referred to in The Revelation 7:14, “These are the ones coming out of THE GREAT AFFLICTION.” The Greek is clear on this. The Great Affliction is the anathema that will follow on the heels of maranatha maranatha. The Great Affliction is synonymous with the time Jesus warned of in Matthew 24 (For then shall be great affliction such as was not since the beginning of the Kosmos to this time No nor ever shall be (again)). It is synonymous with the horrific time known as the Time of Jacob’s trouble. It is the curse contained in the flying scroll that Zechariah saw going forth.

Titus 2 commentary

    1: But you speak things which are fitting for sound doctrine 2: Men [who are] elders be sober grave temperate sound in faith in love in patience 3: Women [who are] elders likewise in deportment reverent not false accusers not given to much wine teachers of good things 4: To nurture ^[Tyndale] the young be sober affectionate [1]maternal 5: self-controlled pure [2]guards [of the] home good yielding to their men [3] that the word of God be not evil spoken of 6: Young [men] likewise exhort to exercise self-control 7: In all things showing yourselves a pattern of good works in doctrine showing uncorruptness gravity sincerity 8: Sound speech that cannot be condemned that [they] from [the adversary who are] against [us] may be ashamed having no evil thing to say of you 9: Slaves to be obedient unto your masters and be well pleasing in all things not talking back 10: Not embezzling but showing all good fidelity that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior[4] in all things 11: For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to every person 12: Teaching us that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts we should live soberly righteously and godly in this present age 13: Looking for that blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ ^{Jesus is God} 14: Who gave himself for us that he might redeem us from all sin and purify unto himself a unique people zealous of good works 15: These things speak and exhort and rebuke with all authority Let no one despise you

---

[1] There is nothing weak or subordinate about being maternal. The Holy Spirit (Greek Pneuma neuter / Hebrew Ruwach feminine) is maternal. We see that in Genesis 1:2 where Ruwach Elohiym broods and flutters over the face of the waters (like a mother hen or bird). Deborah, as supreme leader of the nation, was called a Mother in Israel.

[2] How is it that “guards of the home” gets translated into house-keepers or housewives? Only by misogyny in Bible translation and commentary. 

[3] In the social hierarchy of ancient times, the status of women was only just above that of slaves. The equal status of Christian women under Paul’s leadership was scandalous. The Greek word, hypotasso, mistranslated here [concerning wives] as “be obedient to,” is grammatically in the “middle voice” which softens it from a military term to a voluntary, Christlike, yielding, as in “preferring one another before ourselves.” We see a New Testament example of the word being used in just such a manner in 1 Peter 5:5 (KJV).  

The word hypotasso, most often translated as submit,be subject to, and be in subjection to, does not always mean to be arrayed “under.” So, the accepted definition is erroneous. If Paul intended hypotasso to mean “obey” or “be subject to” in this verse [and we maintain that he did not], it should be taken entirely within the cultural constructs of the time where just a few verses down, he also instructs slaves to be obedient to masters. 

The entire civilized world, now rightly condemns the enslavement of human beings and recognizes it for the primitive sin that it is. So why is it that using religion to enslave women [female submission doctrine] continues to be accepted and touted as God’s *glorious design? 

The fact that some women claim to cheerfully accept the yoke of gender-based bondage, does not change the nature of it. The fact that some women have “good masters” does not negate the fact that their autonomy as adults is abridged by complementarian doctrine. 

Using religion to coerce women into subjection to men is a form of slavery. Calling the design “glorious” is pure propaganda. 

*Since the 2010 release of, Woman this is War! Gender, Slavery and theEvangelical Caste System,” where the “glorious design” motto of CBMW (and the rhetoric of ***prominent complementarians) was compared to that of the Civil War Confederacy,” in touting their “glorious” cause [of preserving a way of life built entirely on slavery], CBMW has since deleted from their website any mention of, **“Proclaiming God’s Glorious Design for Men and Women.” However, leading complementarians in concert with one another, continue use a slightly modified form of their former motto. They are now “Proclaiming God’s Good Design.”

 ** The former motto can be viewed via internet archive screen shots. By 2014, CBMW had completely scrubbed it from its website:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120128171603/http://www.cbmw.org/Resources/Articles/Summaries-of-the-Egalitarian-and-Complementarian-Positions

*** “Discipline doesn’t stifle; it gives power…Why shouldn’t it be so when we consider the glorious hierarchal order too?” (emphasis added) Elizabeth Elliott, Let Me be a Woman: Notes to My Daughter on the Meaning of Womanhood, Living Books, Wheaton, Ill, 1982

[4] Jesus is YHWH. Jesus is God…not a subordinate member of the Godhead. ALL the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Jesus in Physical form (Colossians 2:9). The hierarchical theory of the Godhead is the old Aryan Heresy that, historically, was soundly rejected by all respected biblical scholars but revived in the 1980’s by complementarian leaders who found that it worked nicely to shore up female subjection doctrine that is so flimsy, Charles Stanley wrote in his 1988 book, A Man’s Touch (published one year after the Danvers Statement), that if there was no hierarchy within the Godhead, then complementarians had no basis for teaching gender-based subordination.
.. 

... 

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 1^st 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 1^st 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.