This is “First-Timothy—Paul’s Inconsistencies—Myths-Tales-Torah—Part-13 of the Paul and Hebrew Roots Series.”ng Part 12—Is 1 Timothy 2:9-15 Internally Consistent?

Donna Howell in her landmark book on the subject of un-silencing women of Faith (i.e., “The Handmaiden’s Conspiracy), points to “internal consistency” as the basis upon which the true purpose and content of 1 Timothy was written. Therefore, by Ms. Howell pointing to the existence of “internal consistency” in Paul’s writings, she is saying that one must give full respect and acceptance to a presumption that Paul was not contradicting himself at any point in his letter.  

Internal consistency is a commonly accepted concept in nominal-Christianity. It is the accepted belief that there are no inconsistencies or contradictions in the content of Paul’s first-letter to Timothy. This concept would, of course, apply to all the other Pauline writings as well. 

Questioning the Internal Consistency of 1 Timothy

In general, biblical internal consistency, according to Wikipedia, is about the coherence and textual integrity of the bible. The Wikipedia article contends that [perceived] biblical inconsistencies or contradictions have the great potential of challenging one’s belief in the integrity of scripture. Such [perceived] inconsistencies therefore cast doubts that certain books of the bible are truly inspired. This is one of the reasons some question Paul’s writings. These see the perceived lack or absence of internal consistency in some of his letters as a basis to question the authenticity of his writings.

In a sense, throughout this series, we have touched upon internal consistency as it relates to Paul’s writings. We have looked specifically at the perceived understanding that Paul did not support women holding leadership positions in the Body of Messiah in some portions of his writings, while in other places he extolled the virtues and works of many women leaders in the various assemblies that he oversaw. These women, if you will recall, included the likes of Phoebe; Junia; Priscilla; Lydia; Synthyche, Euodia, and Tabitha to name a few.

Pauline Internal Inconsistency Explained Away   

This obvious inconsistency is explained away by those who hold to a belief in Paul’s body of writings being internally consistent with desperate claims that the women leaders under Paul’s oversight were exceptions to Paul’s rules that prohibited women from teaching, preaching, leading corporate prayer and prophesying in the Assemblies of Messiah.   

Do I believe the bible is internally consistent? Well, yes and no. It depends. I would say in most places yes. In other places, I would say not so much. Allow me to explain. 

The Apparent Inconsistency of our Focus Passage

I take somewhat of an opposing position to that of Donna Howell that our focus passage of 1 Timothy 2:9-15 is internally consistent with the whole of 1 Timothy as well as with the whole Pauline canon of writings. As I see it, 1 Timothy 2:9-15, when read in the overwhelming majority of English renderings, is internally inconsistent with the rest of 1 Timothy.

Think about what we have looked at regarding this focus passage: Paul is confronting Jewish Gnosticism in the Ephesian Assemblies and he sends his young apprentice Timothy to Ephesus to take care of the problem. In so doing, Paul sends Timothy this letter of encouragement with explicit instructions on how he (Paul) wanted Timothy to confront the Gnostic problem. 

So 1 Timothy goes along just fine for the first chapter and eight verses. However, just as we witnessed in 1 Corinthians 14, out of nowhere, in 1 Timothy 2:9, after having instructed Timothy to have the men pray in their assemblies for all people lifting up holy hands, Paul brings up women specific issues. And instead of discussing women from the perspective of consistency with the previous content of his letter, he launches into a discussion on their dress; their appearance; their deportment; their learning of Torah; their teaching of Torah and the Gospel; their authority over men—presumably in the capacity of teaching in the assemblies; and their place in the natural, creative order.

 Being Honest With Ourselves and the Text

So if we are honest with ourselves and we look at this thing from a Truth-seeking perspective, we are forced into asking ourselves (and by default asking Paul posthumously) what he is really addressing in his letter to Timothy.

Let’s look at this inconsistency in the text for clarification sake:  

“(8) I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling…(9) likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire…” (1 Timothy 2:8, 9; ESV).

 Plain Reading Versus Contextual Understanding

Thus, according to a plain read of these two-verses, Paul is writing Timothy expressing his desire for the “men” (i.e., the “aner” according to the Greek, specific to males) in “every place” (presumably in every assembly gathering in Ephesus) engage in corporate prayer. And the prayers that Paul desired the men of the assemblies engage in would not be defiled by anger or quarreling.

The stated “anger and quarrels” appear to have been brought on by disagreements over unstated things. Those unstated things were likely the false teachers and their false teachings. Regarding those false teachings,  Paul wrote in 1:3 and 4:

“[they] promoted speculations (ie., the Greek being “zetesis;” referring to matters of controversy or debate) rather than stewardship (ie., the Greek being “oikodomia;” that is Godly edifying and building up of the Body) from YHVH that is by faith” (ESV).

Then out of nowhere Paul brings up the whole issue of women’s appearance, attire and deportment.

 What Gives Paul?

What is happening here? Did Paul inadvertently leave out something that would connect verse 8 to verses 9 and 10, that would explain why he chose to slam the Ephesian assembly women’s appearance and deportment at this point in his letter? Where is the so-called internal consistency that Pauline scholars contend exists?

Moreover, if that weren’t enough, why Paul launch into what appears to be restrictions on Ephesian assembly women learning of Torah and prohibitions against women teachers (and presumably preaching) in verses 11 and 12?

Now, we went over the whys and wherefores of this inexplicable transition from men praying in the assemblies to women’s attire and deportment in our last installment to this series. And if you’ve not had the opportunity to review that discussion, I would humbly encourage you to do so simply by using this hyperlink.

 

There is an Obvious Answer to the Question Rests With the Writer Himself

I contend that “internal consistency” must not be presumed in any of Paul’s writings. To presume and accept that Paul’s writings are internally and externally consistent without committing one’s self to deep study and truth searching, in my mind, potentially leads one to misinterpret some of Paul’s most difficult to understand writings.  

It is not that Paul’s writings are internally inconsistent in places. I believe the problem rests with the writer himself. For we a case of a hard-to-read; hard to understand; and often impossible to accurately interpret, writer. We talked at length in the first two to three installments of this series about the man and his work; that he was a brilliant former pharisee, Jewish apologist, and Torah scholar. Moreover, I will add to this portrait of the man Paul, that he was a gifted writer who had a tendency of leaving some vitally important information out of his writings.

Consequently, it is this nagging tendency of Paul leaving important information out of his writings that has led us to the place we are today. And because important elements and issues are left out of his writings, many of us are inclined to blindly accept what is written and not seek to fill in the missing pieces which comes only through intense research and contextual studies.

 Paul Is Often Hard to Understand

Never let us forget that it was the Apostle Peter who wrote of Paul:

“And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures” (2 Pet. 3:15, 16; ESV).

 It’s Okay to Question Our Bibles

Questioning what is printed on the pages of our bibles is never a bad thing. Questioning that which is printed on the pages of our bibles becomes a bad thing, however, when our hearts are not right; when our intent is to ignore the contextual and obvious scriptural Truth (i.e., keep God’s commandments; love one another; etc.) that is contained therein. 

Blind Acceptance is Never the Answer to Understanding Paul’s Writings

So, I assert that it is this blind acceptance of biblical internal consistency, that has been tempered with certain established male-dominated Church doctrines and traditions that has led many within and without our Faith to buy into lies and false teachings that women cannot serve as leaders in the Body of Messiah.

And I believe it is the rare, pure of heart truth-seeker who is able to clearly identify those apparent “inconsistencies” in many of Paul’s letters and cause us to consider whether we’re dealing with “Truth” or “tradition” in our understanding of key Pauline texts.

Pauline Internal Consistency Found Only in His Original Manuscripts and His Spirit Led Intent

Now, allow me do an about face here and assert that there is an internal consistency associated with Scripture. But that consistency is found only in the original autographs or manuscripts of the books of the bible, and in the Spirit-led intentions of the original writers of scripture.

I believe Paul’s writing style and the questionable hearts and works of various translators, scribes, scholars and teachers all worked together to bring us to where we are today in our discussion of Paul’s most difficult to understand works. Thus to me, it is not a question of 1 Timothy’s genuineness nor of contradictions in Paul’s writings.  For it all points back to Paul’s writing style and his Spirit-led intent. His writing style is difficult in that he left out key information. And his Spirit-led intent is clearly spelled out in the first chapter and a half of 1 Timothy.  

1 Timothy 2:9-15—Is Paul Addressing Women’s Roles in the Church or Something Else?

What we will find as we continue on in our study of verses 9-15 of 1 Timothy 2 is that our focus passage has little to nothing to do with women roles in the so-called “church.” For what we have in these 7-verses is more of a laundry list of proper-behavior and applied conduct intended to restore some semblance of order to the Ephesian assemblies. 

The cause for the disorder was false teachers and their false teachings. Let us keep this fundamental element to this story at forefront of our minds. Furthermore, we must give some attention to prevailing Ephesian cultural and religious influences as part of the reason Paul called out the women of the assemblies on their attire, appearance and behavior. Recall that we addressed this very thing in our previous installment to this series.

 Quick Revisit on Ephesian Women Attire-Appearance-Behavior

In case you don’t have the time right now to read or listen to Part 12 of this series but you just want to continue on with our present discussion, allow me to quickly summarize 1 Timothy 2:9 and 10 for you.

The CEB translation of these verses reads as follows:

“In the same way, I want women to enhance their appearance with clothing that is modest and sensible, not with elaborate hairstyles, gold, pearls, or expensive clothes. They should make themselves attractive by doing good, which is appropriate for women who claim to honor God.”

Bottom line: verses 9 and 10 are Pauline instructions that the Ephesian women dress and carry themselves in a Godly manner (vss. 9, 10; CEB).

However, this admonishment of women moderating their appearance and deportment was to dissuade them from mimicking the fashion styles and behaviors of secular Ephesian women—in particular the flamboyant Artemis/Diana Temple prostitutes. Either-wise referred to as “bees,” this class of women had significant fashion and deportment influence throughout Ephesus.

Houstos Kai–Vital Connector Between Two Verses

Paul’s admonishments regarding the Ephesian women’s attire and deportment in the text were preceded by the Greek phrase–“houstos kai,” which we translate in English to mean “in the same way” or “in like manner.”

The phrase “houstos kai” demands we step back a verse or two prior to verse 9 to find out what the women are supposed to do in the same way or in like manner. And we came to understand that by our going all the way back to verse one of chapter two that Paul was encouraging the men of the Ephesian Assemblies to pray publicly for all people throughout the known world without anger or quarreling. Thus, the “like manner” that Paul prefaces his attire and deportment instructions to, must reasonably be linked to Paul’s instructions to the men of the assemblies to pray. In other words, Paul was telling the women to also pray publicly, in their assemblies, for people every–just like their Ephesian male counterparts. However, in his admonishing the women to involve themselves in public assembly prayer, he proceeds to admonish them in regards to their attire and behavior.

Now, having said all this, I want to take us into a rather controversial realm understanding whereby we ask the question:

Could Paul Have Been Addressing a Single Woman in our Focus Passage?

First: A Question of Cause and Effect

 The one safe way to look at this passage is for us to look at it from a “cause and effect” perspective. What I mean by this is that Paul did not just wake up one day and decide to write a letter to Timothy for the purposes of picking on the Ephesian Assembly women. Given what we already know about Paul’s admiration for certain female leaders of his evangelistic team, one is forced to question why he would lash out, so to speak, at the Ephesian Assembly women’s appearance.

Now, we have discussed the background and likely reason to these seeming hits on the women of the Ephesian and Corinthian assemblies. And the reasons we came up with in both cases were in response to a “cause;” that is, something that prompted Paul to address the women of both assemblies in the manner in which he did.

Given Paul’s lofty position in the Body of Messiah during that time, and given the high-stakes that would be at play whenever he wrote or spoke to assembly members throughout the Roman Empire, it makes logical sense that Paul was responding to something that he felt needed to be addressed in the Ephesian Assemblies. It is an almost certainty that Paul was not writing to Timothy to share some unbridled misogynistic viewpoints about women that he happened to have tucked away in his conscience.

 The Importance of Having a “Cause and Effect” Mindset When Studying Paul

Having a “cause and effect” mindset is crucial to our being able to interpret and understand many of Paul’s most challenging writings. In other words, instead of just reading over those difficult passages and accepting the plain English-language rendering of his difficult passages, it is imperative that we ask ourselves: why did, or why would Paul write such a thing? What thing(s) or what issue(s) or what circumstance(s) prompted Paul to write what he wrote. 

Let us not be snookered into thinking that Paul wrote the things he wrote in a vacuum. Paul received data or questions from various sources related to certain issues ongoing in the assemblies he oversaw. And he responded to that data and answered those questions accordingly, just as any experienced and competent administrator would do in his/her running of an organization.

 Dr. Eddie L. Hyatt’s Single Woman Theory

Dr. Eddie L. Hyatt, in his book entitled, “Paul, Women and Church,” seems to agree with this logical approach to understanding Paul’s writings. Hyatt presumes that our focus passage (ie., 1 Timothy 2:9-12) is (1) “addressing a specific situation in Ephesus that is having a particular effect on the women” of the assembly; and (2) “he may also be addressing a particular woman (who may be representative of a company of women) who is propagating the “other doctrine” about which he is so concerned” (pg. 91).

Now, to me, Hyatt’s first presumption is obvious. However, his second presumption is most fascinating and something that I do not believe we should overlook or dismiss, despite possible conflicts with convention.

Nevertheless, Dr. Hyatt’s suggestion that Paul was addressing a specific woman is, in my opinion, not only fascinating, but also controversial and speculative. For nowhere do we find mention by name this supposed “particular woman.” And we know that Paul does not seem overtly opposed to naming names in some of his writings, as he did in another part of this letter and in a later letter to Timothy where he singles out individuals by name, such as Hymenaeus, Alexander, and Philetus (1 Tim. 1:20; 2 Tim. 2:17).  

 An Unnamed Entity

Beyond these stated individuals, Paul in his 1 Timothy letter is pretty general in his addressees, sticking simply to general descriptors and terms when addressing specific topics of discussion. Nevertheless, it would not be beyond the realm of possibility that Paul is in fact addressing a specific woman in our focus passage. 

Indeed, it is possible that Paul simply did not know the name of the specific woman in question, or that he simply wanted to spare the woman in question embarrassment by keeping her name out of the conversation. It is impossible to be certain either way. 

 Hyatt’s Contention Runs Against Hard and Fast Convention

It is extremely difficult to get past the English translations’ conventional use of “women” (plural) in virtually all English Bible translations of verses 9 and 11). 

In my BibleWorks software compilation of some 20-English translations (there are others, but I’ve chosen 20 English translations for my desktop workspace), every single translation of verse 9 uses the term “women” as opposed to “woman.” 

The Ancient Greek

In looking further into the Koine Greek term used for “woman” or “women,” which is “gune-aikos,” the common definition in the handful of Greek-English Lexicons I referenced is that of “a woman of any age, whether a virgin, or married, or a widow; a wife or betrothed woman; an adult female person of marriageable age; as a form of address in speaking politely to a female person” (Louw-Nida Lexicon). Consequently, the lexicons do not discern between the term being plural or singular, which suggests to me that the Greek term was used in both the plural and singular sense and it was up to the receiver to discern the context therein. 

So, it may be difficult to agree to Dr. Hyatt’s assertion that Paul is addressing a specific, unnamed woman in verses 9 and 10 just by simple assertion. However, verses 11 and 12 in my opinion provide him the greatest support for his “single woman” contention. 

The passage reads:  

“Let THE woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence” (KJV).  

Interestingly, only the Douay-Rheims translation of verse 11 is the only other English Bible translation I’ve come across, beside the KJV, that uses the phrase, “Let THE woman learn…” Otherwise, all the other English translations seem to stick to women in general.  

 Dr. Hyatt’s Theory on Paul’s Prohibition Against Women Teachers

So what we have in verse 12 in light of Dr. Hyatt’s contention is what appears to be Paul making a command decision to restrict THE woman’s (i.e., the woman in question) teaching at that particular time. 

The verse reads “I do not permit,” which is a present tense phrase in the Greek denoting “I am not permitting at this time” (ibn; pg. 9) this particular woman to teach. Or if we put aside Hyatt’s “the single woman” assertion, but rather stick to the convention that Paul is addressing all the Ephesian assembly women, Paul would be saying “I am not permitting, at this time, the Ephesian assembly women to teach.”  

Paul’s Instructions Regarding the Woman’s Teaching Was Not Gender Focused

If this is indeed the case: that Paul is placing a temporary moratorium on this one woman’s teaching practices, then his prohibition is not gender-focused. In other words, Paul’s concern, based upon the premise of the letter, was not the woman’s sex, but the content of her teaching. And it would be because of her teachings that from that point forward, she would not be permitted to teach in the Ephesian Assembly; at least not until she changed course; got some learning and understanding under her belt; and showed true competence in her ability to teach the Word of Truth. 

 False Teachings Came From Both Men and Women

Now, none of this is to say that the women of Ephesus were the only ones passing on false doctrine to the assemblies. The men were equally participatory in this spiritual crime. Let us not overlook two men who Paul named as being especially active in disseminating false teachings—Hymenaeus and Alexander. Paul describes these two men as “having rejected faith and a good conscience;” and in so doing made a “shipwreck” of the Faith in the assemblies (ibn; pg. 92; 1 Tim. 1:19, 20). So damaging was the work of these two men that Paul informed Timothy:  

“…I have delivered unto Satan (ie., Hymenaeus and Alexander) that they may learn not to blaspheme” (1:19, 20).  

The Woman Never Had The Opportunity to Learn

Whoever this female false teacher may have been (assuming Hyatt is correct in his contention), it stands to reason, at least in Paul’s mind , that she had not been given the opportunity to learn the Truth. Thus, in our cause and effect filtering of Paul’s writings, it became Paul’s instruction to Timothy that “the woman learn in silence with all submission” (2:11). 

If this is indeed true about the single woman being put into a “teaching time out” (so to speak) because she had not been afforded the opportunity to learn the Truth, Paul’s instruction that she be afforded the opportunity learn showed forth the special love and admiration he had for the women of the assemblies of Messiah. 

Willful Versus Ignorant False Teaching

This all being the case, in bringing this issue of women being temporarily barred from teaching in the Ephesian assembles because they’d not been properly taught, it would seem reasonable to conclude that the two-men condemned by Paul to hasatan knew the full Truth (that is they had been formerly trained or taught) and that they had willfully abandoned that Truth for the lie of Jewish Gnosticism or the fusing of paganism with Torah and or the True Faith. 

Paul had no pity for these two men. On the other hand, however, it seems Paul sympathized with the knowledge deficient women or the woman of Ephesus. Thus, Paul lovingly sought to give the women—or the woman—the opportunity to learn the Truth. 

Myths as Part of the Ephesian Problem 

Before digging deeper into our focus passage, we must first touch briefly upon these “myths” that were being spread around by various individuals in the Ephesian Assemblies. The responsible person could possibly have been “the woman” that Dr. Eddie Hyatt alluded to in his discussion of our focus passage. Unfortunately, we just don’t know the full extent of the players associated with the stated proliferation of myths in the Ephesian assemblies.

These myths were no doubt linked or associated with the twisting of Torah to a greater or lesser extent. The problem associated with the proliferation of these myths in and through the Ephesian assemblies was that they had the tendency of diverting the hearers from the Truth (Richard and Catherine Kroeger; “I Suffer Not a Woman”).

 

 Myths Versus Gnosticism

It is easy to conflate myths and Gnosticism. And as possible as it may have been for the Jewish Gnosticism and the Jewish Myths that Paul and Timothy were combating to have been one and the same things, it’s a better than average chance that they were actually two separate issues.

Paul singled out Gnosticism in his letter:

“O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called “knowledge (gnosis=science in KJV)” (1 Tim. 6:20; ESV). 

However in 1 Timothy 1:3-7 instruction Timothy regarding myths:

“They (i.e., members of the Ephesian Assembly) shouldn’t pay attention to myths and endless genealogies. Their teaching only causes useless guessing games instead of faithfulness to God’s way of doing things” (CEB).  

The Cretan Assemblies were undergoing a similar problem and Paul writes in Titus 1:14:

“They (i.e., members of the assembly) shouldn’t pay attention to Jewish myths and commands from people who reject the Truth” (CEB).  

First-Century Jewish Myths

What do we know about Jewish myths at the time of Paul? The mythologizing of the “Creation and Fall” stories were in wide circulation in the first century C.E. Obviously, these myths worked hand-in-hand with the whole Jewish Gnosticism that had also taken hold in Ephesus, likely prior to the establishment of the assemblies there.

It is evident in other portions of Paul’s letter that some in the Ephesian Assembly forbade marriage (1 Tim. 4:3). Paul, in trying to work through the obvious problems associated with his opponents’ position on marriage, insisted that the younger widows of the assemblies—choice prey for these bootleg women passing on their myths and tales door-to-door—”marry, bear children, rule the household and give no opportunity for slander to the opponent” (1 Tim. 5:14; Kroegers).

Indeed, there is a companion passage in Titus where Paul instructed the older Cretan assembly women to encourage the young women of the assembly to give themselves over to domestic responsibilities “so that the Word of God would not be slandered” (Tit. 2:2-5; ibn; 172). These were slandered through the application of ongoing myths and tales.

Opposition to Moshe

Mention is made of Jannes and Jambres in the Timothy letter. Allegedly, these two Egyptian magicians opposed Moshe before Pharaoh. (Exo. 7:9-13). According to the Kroegers, Jannes and Jambres were considered“magicians par excellence” in both pagan and Jewish sources (ibn; 63). In fact, Pliny the Elder (i.e., a first-century Roman author, naturalist and philosopher and friend of Roman Emperor Vespasian) made notes in his writings of a certain Jewish sect that practiced magic and believed itself as having actually originated from Moses and Jannes (Pliny the Elder Natural History 30.2.11 (ibn; 63)).

Paul counsels Timothy to have nothing to do with these individuals who were perpetrating myths—who twisted Torah and Tanakh stories into tales that warped the Truth of God’s Word:

“But stay away from the Godless myths that are passed down from the older women. Train yourself for a holy life” (1 Tim. 4:7; CSB).

 The Proliferation of Myths and Tales by Older Women or Possibly Hyatt’s Older Woman

Richard and Cagthleen Kroeger point out that many English translations of this verse purposely leave out “from the older women,” which in the Greek is “graodeis,” an adjective (normal accusative masculine plural) that is characteristic of elderly women (ibn; 64).

The Kroegers go on to explain that in the ancient near east, certain older women were renowned for their storytelling acumen or talents. At times, the stories they told “put the gods in outrageous light” (ibn; 64). These kept alive the myths of old and these myths were described as “bebelos;” that is, they were opposed to God (ref. 1 Tim. 4:7). Yet most translators in their English translations downplay the significant threat these myths or tales posed to the Faith. Yet we can see clear evidence in these Pauline Pastorals that Paul took these tales or myths quite seriously.

The Overall Involvement of Women in the Poliferation of Myths in Ephesus

Sadly, certain Ephesian women—or in Dr. Eddie Hyatt’s thinking a particular woman—were behind the proliferation of myths in the assemblies.

Regarding women being behind the scourge of Jewish myths in the Ephesian assemblies Paul wrote:

“But refuse to enroll younger widows, for when they are drawn away from Christ by desire, they want to marry and will therefore receive condemnation because they have renounced their original pledge. At the same time, they also learn to be idle, going from house to house; they are not only idle, but are also gossips and busybodies, saying things they should not say. Therefore, I want younger women to marry, have children, manage their households, and give the adversary no opportunity to accuse us. For some have already turned away to follow Satan” (1 Tim. 5:11-15; CSB).

It seems obvious that for the most part women or a particular woman was behind the destructive heresies, false teachings and spreading of tales and myths in Ephesus, supposedly spreading them house-to-house. The Kroegers suggests (which I think is a good call on their part) that many of the homes either these women or the woman visited  actually hosted some of the home fellowships or assemblies in that region (ibn; 62).

This being the case, of course, made the spreading of these myths and tales existential threats to the individual assemblies in Ephesus. If you have these women (or the woman) spreading these tales and myths to the unwitting and ignorant hosts of the various home fellowships of Ephesus—and doing so door-to-door–it would not be too much of a stretch to think that on any given Shabbat, the teaching of false doctrines would easily spread through each fellowship and create complete and utter chaos, leading dozens, if not hundreds, astray.

The Kroegers make note of Gordon D. Fee’s work as it relates to these meddlesome women:

“It seems certain from 2:9-15, 5:11-15, and 2 Timothy 3:6, 7 that these [false teachers] have had considerable influence among some women, especially some younger widows, who according to 2 Timothy 3:6,7 have opened their homes to these teachings, and according to 1 Timothy 5:13 have themselves become propagators of the new teachings” (ibn; 61, 62).

An ancient Greek, extra-biblical literary piece—”Menander the Charioteer”—made note of the manner in which the priests of Cybele routinely drew women into their religion by going house-to-house as Paul mentioned above (ibn; 63). Therefore, an extra-biblical piece of literature testifies to that which Paul was writing to Timothy about. Our bible is Truth and we are wise to heed its Truths.

The Kroegers suggests also that some of these “busybody” women–likely satanists–likely involved themselves in the region’s age-old magic cults, which they no doubt blended with Gnosticism. It seems that certain sects of Gnosticism dabbled in the occult and in magic. These busy bodies, according to Paul, were speaking things they should not be saying. Could these unspeakable things be magical incantations or even curses? This is a good question. The blending of myths and Gnosticism with magic would be a most virulent prescription for spiritual disaster, which could have spelled the end of the Ephesian Assembly if Paul did not take the corrective actions he took.

One God and One Mediator

The last thing I’ll mention regarding the dangerous myths and tales that were being spread throughout the Ephesian assemblies by these meddlesome women (or by Hyatt’s lone-woman) is Paul having to reassert to the Ephesian assembly members a central truth of our Faith. That central Truth being that YHVH is the sole Creator of the Universe and Yahoshua is the sole Mediator between God and mankind. This central Truth of Faith seems to have been challenged by the proliferation of these myths and Gnostic teachings and tales in and around the assemblies.

Of course, this should not be at all surprising. For in a region and culture that revered a pantheon of gods and hunreds if not thousands of mediators between the pagan gods and man, Paul understood that it was critical that he set the record straight regarding there being one God (1 Tim. 2:7) and one Mediator between YHVH (i.e., God) and man (i.e., mankind). 

Paul wrote:

“There is one God and one mediator between God and humanity, the human Christ Jesus” (CEB).

It appears that certain sects of Gnosticism recognized as many as 365 “celestial beings” who possessed certain ranks in the celestial being order. In at least one sect of Gnosticism, YHVH, being the craftsman of the universe, ranked in the middle of the celestial order (Epiphanius Panarion 33.7.2). And it is with this type pagan-religious foolishness in mind that Paul asserts the Truth of there being one God. 

We have to take a step back and revisit the issue of the “hetairai” in order to address the issue of “mediator.” It appears, according to Richard and Catherine Kroeger, that the Diana/Artemis cult had three ranks of priestesses: the honeybees (or postulants); the priestesses; and senior priestesses Kroegers; 71). In fact, images of bees were carved into the statute of Artemis.

Remember the Hetairai as Mediators?

It appears that by the first-century C.E., priestesses all but entirely replaced priests in the various pagan religious cults. Thus, women of these cults were viewed as “mediators” of the gods. In fact, women were credited with introducing the mysteries of Dionysius—Greek god of wine and the grape harvest—into the Greek and Roman pantheon (Koegers; pg. 71).

Additionally, we must not overlook the story of the oracles at Delphi, Dodona and Didyma. These oracles, all women, served as the so-called mouthpieces of the gods (ibn; 72). For it was widely accepted throughout the region, “only through them was the will of Zeus and Apollo revealed. For they alone could serve the Fates and Furies” (ibn; 71).

Women as Mediators in Gnosticism

Gnosticism, we have come to learn, placed as much emphasis on women being mediators in their religion . In one Gnostic text we find the following interesting tidbit:

“Peter said to Mary, “Sister, we understand that the Savior loved you more than the rest of the women. Speak to us the words of the Savior which you recollect, those which you know and we do not, nor have we heard them” And Mary answering said, “I shall explain to you what has been hidden from you,” and she began to speak to them” (”the Gospel of Mary 10.1-8; Papyrus Berolinensis 8502.1).

Ultimately, adherents to the Gnostic religion believed that the hidden knowledge could only be revealed to men from woman. Thus, women became the default, defacto mediator between pagan gods and mankind. (Can you now see more clearly the significance of the mention of the Adam and Eve story in 1 Timothy 2:12-15?)

It should be mentioned that in the Gnostic tradition, “Mary of Bethany, Mariamne, the sister of the apostle James, Philoumene, Sophia, and Eve, all served as mediators of truth” (ibn; 72).

These twists to the Truth of God’s word; the meddlesome works of these women (or the woman) going door-to-door peddling myths and tales; the growing Jewish Gnostic threat to the true Faith once delivered, either individually or collectively, played havoc with operation of the Ephesian Assemblies and Paul sent Timothy to reverse this existential threat to the Faith there in Ephesus.

Friends, can you see that the situation as it was on the ground there in Ephesus was no simple matter of women speaking out of turn and trying to take over from men. In fact, it involved so much more. It was indeed a complex set of circumstances, centered primarily upon false teachers and false teachings. However, the false teachers and their teachers were just the tools by which the enemy was waging a spiritual war against the Ephesian Assembly of Messianic Believers. And it would be Paul, through Timothy and the work of the Holy Spirit, who would reverse the enemy’s assault on the people of God there in Ephesus. This is truly a story bigger than life that few people of Faith have actually come to understand in its fullest.

We have a lot more to discuss regarding our focus passage of 1 Timothy 2:9-15. We’ll pick this discussion up in Part 14 as Father wills.

Faithfully