An Atheist Explores the Bible Part 229: Don’t go to Paul for advice on healthy living. Plus: How to mess up future Christianity with some really vague advice (1 Timothy 1-6)

1 Timothy 1-6
Don’t go to Paul for advice on healthy living. Plus: How to mess up future Christianity with some really vague advice.

Welcome to another instalment of An Atheist Explores Sacred Texts (Bible version).

In this series I work my way chapter-by-chapter through the King James Bible, commenting on it from the point of view of the text as literature and mythology.

For more detail, see the introductory post http://bit.ly/2F8f9JT

For the online KJV I use, see here http://bit.ly/2m0zVUP

And now:

1 Timothy 1

“Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.”

Paul writes a letter to Timothy, whom he calls “my own son in the faith”. Timothy is in Ephesus, making sure the Christians there “charge some that they teach no other doctrine”. Paul tells Timothy some of his own history, which he must surely know by now. This reads like the kind of clunky exposition that you tend to get at the start of a Shakespeare play – “As you know, my lord, your cousin Gloucester, who by devious means sought to usurp your kingdom” etc. etc.

But what is the main purpose of what Paul has to say? He tells Timothy that faith (charity and conscience) are more important than following the laws and rules-lawyering, “vain jangling” as Paul calls it. This is kind of the message that Jesus was teaching when He annoyed the Pharisees by pointing out that they spent more time picking at minutae of doctrine rather than actually having any particular faith or feeling towards their fellow humans.

Paul points out that the law still applies, however, especially to a long list of sinful types that he rather gleefully lists – “the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons”. Surely the perjurer, not the perjured, perhaps a translation error? The line about “them that defile themselves with mankind” is one of those excuses used by homophobes, I think, but it’s a bit ambiguous. Surely it would say “men” rather than “mankind”? Even for a period where women tend to be overlooked, “mankind” suggests to me all people regardless of sex. It falls in between “whoremongers” which makes one think of sexual acts, but then is followed by “menstealers” which is surely some kind of kidnapping or slave-taking. Too vague, Paul. Too vague. I do wonder – Greek tends to have a lot more precision in the meaning of its words, can we get something more accurate from the older versions?

Paul mentions some of his brethren who have “put away good conscience” have ended up getting shipwrecked (I recall a couple of those from Acts), these would be Hymenaeus and Alexander, who Paul says he has “delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme”. What does that means? The early Christian version of the naughty step?

1 Timothy 2

“But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.”

Paul seems to be coming more and more conservative with each epistle. Here, in the first part of the chapter he exhorts people to pray everywhere, “up holy hands, without wrath and doubting”. He supports the social order, asking that prayers be given “For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty”. Kings are okay, but pray that they use their authority wisely. Which, I guess, is fine. Someone, somewhere, has to be in some sort of charge, even if investiture of supreme power in one person is probably never a good idea, and if they are in charge, best they are good and wise as far as possible.

Paul then goes off against the women, though. So when he says that “men should pray”, he means male men, because the women should show their piety through “good works”, avoiding displays such as “broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array”. Okay, I mean, I think he’s asking the same of the men, that they dress somberly and conduct themselves seriously and soberly. It’s a bit dull, but I’ve discussed the physical vs. spiritual concepts before. But wait, “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.” Because Eve was created second, and she was deceived by the serpent but not Adam (although, Adam did listen to Eve and there’s no records that the serpent visited him first and was rebuffed), therefore women are bad, according to Paul. But he rather grudgingly allows them to be saved as well. What happened to Phebe? And Priscilla?

1 Timothy 3

“A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;”

In this chapter Paul lays down some guidelines for the type of person ought to become a bishop or a deacon – the bishop is a kind of stern paterfamilias, “One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity”. This authority at home is needed in order to provide authority at work. Likewise the deacon, to a lesser extent. Both can only be married to one woman (which, I suppose, is evidence of three things; the existence at the time of acceptable polygamy, tacit statement that priests don’t need to be celibate, and a hidden denial of the position to women by assuming that the bishop is male with male priorities. The wives are meant to be good obedient and quiet wives as well.

1 Timothy 4

“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils”

This chapter provides a good example of how a single line can lead to all kinds of doctrinal issues. Most of the chapter is given over to Paul telling Timothy to be a good and diligent Christian missionary, and is largely repetition of the same kind of sentiment – “Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee”.

However, near the beginning Paul warns of the coming of false prophets who will talk of “Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats”. Paul strikes a contradictory note concerning physical matters here. Evidently, celibacy is considered wrong by him, if forbidding marriage is wrong. Likewise, vegetarianism is a crime against God because “every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused”. This statement would seem to contradict the Levitican dietary laws – does Paul include the forbidden pork and shellfish in this? And … all creatures? Rats? Dogs? Slugs?

However, he also says that “bodily exercise profiteth little” and that Timothy should “exercise thyself rather unto godliness”. So, eat what you like and do no exercise. Are you sure that’s wise?

1 Timothy 5

“But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth.”

Paul continues to make pronouncements about women. This chapter is ostensibly largely about the treatment of elders. Treat them well, says Paul, and if anyone makes a complaint against them, hear it in front of two or more witnesses.

Largely, though, it concerns widows. An old widow, with no dependents, is welcome in Paul’s community. He thinks that if a widow has a family, the family should look after her and not the church, because “if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.”

Paul is wary of young widows, though. He feels that at some point they will re-marry and then leave the church in order to wander around gossiping –“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.” Better that they marry and have some kids to straighten them out, says Paul.

I wonder if that’s what happened? Was he disappointed by a woman with a mind of her own? Seems possible.

Oh, and elsewhere, Paul advises Timothy in a little medicinal boozing – “Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities”.

1 Timothy 6

“Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.”

Servants should accept their lot in life, particularly if their masters are also Christian. In fact, striving is a bad thing, especially after material gain – “For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out”. This is the chapter from which we get the famous quote “the love of money is the root of all evil”.

Paul does not, however, condemn people for being rich per se, merely for making the pursuit of wealth more important than their faith. He tells Timothy to encourage the rich to make themselves spiritually “rich” as well – “Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy”. He doesn’t tell Timothy to encourage the rich to divest themselves of their wealth (possibly for the betterment of the church), which I guess is something.

And that’s it for 1 Timothy. Compared to some of the other “how to Christian” epistles, this one is a lot more concerned with mechanics rather than obscure spiritual doctrine, and consequently reads a lot more authoritarian and proscriptive in places, although looked at as a whole it equivocates a lot on certain points. The sense I get from it, especially compared to the earlier epistles, is that there are now lots of converts who profess belief in Paul’s Christ, so now Paul is trying to come up with guidelines to try to give some kind of conformity to all these people across the Greek world. I’m now seeing these epistles as subtitled “Christianity: A Work In Progress”.