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
[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 always
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 and tone of scripture. It contradicts 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 suspected 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 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, etc.. She was likely under age 60 as her son is generally understood to still be a boy--not 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] and
gives excuse to the greedy or stingy for withholding aid from destitute widows under the age of 60, whether they were pious or not.
This writer believes the hateful stereotype in 1 Timothy 5:5-6, 9-15, to be an interpolation, the work of a malicious scribe. Paul himself, warned about 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.
If a professing believer told 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 scribe, 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
the 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, by going on to instruct the younger
women to condemn themselves anyway. He commands them to get 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 (never ordained it) 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 the 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 can abandoning widows (and by extension, fatherless children) become a good thing?
Are men who marry widows also in rebellion
against Christ? That omission is another clue that we are reading a forgery.
Where do we read, aside from 1 Timothy 5, that widows who have been widowed more than once or
possibly have been divorced by treacherous husbands [either before or after
becoming believers] are disqualified from aid in 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 and 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!)]]]
The scriptures command accountability in believers. "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 Believer 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. He held to opinion of all ancient philosophers (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 5-6, 9-15] in 1 Timothy
5, is a malevolent and misogynistic
forgery, that was copied, re-copied, and freely shared among all the churches, and eventually
adopted by early church “Fathers,” as authentic.
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. Precursers
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 5:5-6, 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 (that it is found in all extant mss), yet, despite this, many reputable scholars believe that the 1 Corinthians passage is a scribal interpolation. Unlike the Timothy insertion, this writer concedes that there may be some scriptural arguments
for the 1 Corinthians inclusion, along with egalitarian interpretation of (Fell and Boothe). What is astounding, though, is that the
unscriptural broadside against women in 1 Timothy, has never once been challenged as
being a fraud, though it has no redeeming 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
Woman this is WAR! examines Bible
commentary and translation practices which have historically been androcentric
(male centered) and even misogynistic (anti-woman).
These have adversely effected
understanding of the scriptures, relations between women and men, the happiness
of men and women, and, in general, has hindered the work of the gospel, by
forbidding women to preach, pastor, or serve as elders or deacons. The book
chronicles the early history of the women's rights movements, as well as the
role of church leadership in aggressively suppressing both women's rights and
the historical record of Christian initiatives within the movements.
Through the complementarian
movement, many of the same arguments used to support the institution of
slavery, are still used today in suppressing the rights of Christian women.
This book documents identical arguments used by Christian leaders against both
movements and is an unparalleled resource for all who desire an in-depth study
of gender equality from a historical and Christian perspective.
This
book traces history of women’s rights, much further than usual, to the very
first feminists…who were Christians—godly women, who brought the issue
of women's rights to the forefront as they struggled to alleviate the suffering
of others, and found they were hindered in doing so for no other reason than
the fact of their sex. This work, provides valuable historical insight into
Christian initiatives in the movements for women’s rights, that are rarely
included in Christian literature. 
No comments:
Post a Comment