DiscipleOfChrist
Member
"Just showed up" referring to how he "just showed up" on this thread with a reply of zero substance, not implying he was a brand new member.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
The abuse of 1 Timothy 5:8 as a "male provider role"
- Thread starter DiscipleOfChrist
- Start date
DiscipleOfChrist
Member
You still addressed nothing in my post.
The "point"? Biblical accuracy. Men and women alike are called to provide for family, not just men in particular, according to the wording of 1 Timothy 5:8. But again, the real point is: accurate reading of Scripture as I detailed on the original post which you clearly can't refute, just pitching a fit at a real/perceived conclusion, revealing intellectual bankruptcy at best.
Let him cook, it’s fun to watch the kids attempt to pontificate.
DiscipleOfChrist
Member
Then they can be "smart" enough to actually engage the points of my post if they think they see an actual issue with it.
Neither of you have even attempted to do that. In its place, just a mocking comment of no substance whatsoever.
You really should apologize for calling a brother a false brother just because he doesn’t agree with your understanding of the Bible. You’ve been asked to justify your name calling and have failed to do it.
But I won’t hold my breath because I don’t see you having the maturity to do it.
But I won’t hold my breath because I don’t see you having the maturity to do it.
I am trying to engage you in justifying your post starting with the title.
What you are not recognizing is that your verse exists in the context of taking in the widows that are of a man’s own family. It is unnecessary for it to be gender specific.
The husband/father is the only one that can take on the responsibility of a widow.
So your whole line of reasoning is superfluous. Of course family takes care of family but the instruction is about reaching beyond the immediate family and taking care of related family.
What you are not recognizing is that your verse exists in the context of taking in the widows that are of a man’s own family. It is unnecessary for it to be gender specific.
The husband/father is the only one that can take on the responsibility of a widow.
So your whole line of reasoning is superfluous. Of course family takes care of family but the instruction is about reaching beyond the immediate family and taking care of related family.
DiscipleOfChrist
Member
Finally! We have the SLIGHTEST attempt at saying something with substance! Credit where credit is due for that at least, at long last! We have a ways to go before we can even start to say that you addressed the points that I made, but let's roll with it.
So your claim is extra-biblical and very obviously wrong against the Bible itself:
1 Timothy 5:4: "But if a widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn to show godliness to their own household and to make some return to their parents, for this is pleasing in the sight of God."
1 Timothy 5:16: "If any believing woman has widows, let her care for them. Let the church not be burdened, so that it may care for those who are truly widows."
Even despite this, saying "it doesn't need to be gender-specific" is misleading because the text asserts gender-neutrality purely by the word choice alone, which does not merely not exclude women but actively includes them through the word "tis" (anyone) rather than "andre" (man).
What Bible are you even reading?
King Jim’s doesn’t read that way.
Look, I get it that you are all excited about the fact that you found out that the instruction is gender neutral.
How does it even matter?
Is this like the Pharisees arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Show me how it is extra-Biblical
Discussion turned into an argument rather then edification. Wisdom would call you both to humility.
First response by steve is and would be taken as a trolling anywhere else on the internet.
Responding to that post by claiming he's a false brother is equally wrong.
You both started off on the wrong foot. Both need to humble yourselves and both need to forgive
First response by steve is and would be taken as a trolling anywhere else on the internet.
Responding to that post by claiming he's a false brother is equally wrong.
You both started off on the wrong foot. Both need to humble yourselves and both need to forgive
DiscipleOfChrist
Member
How does it matter?
Biblical accuracy is MORE than reason enough. You shouldn't need any other reason than that whatsoever. This is exactly the kind of attitude that makes the legitimacy of someone's faith truly questionable. A believer is interested in the truth of God's word and doesn't ask "what's the point?" requiring some immediate worldly application.
1 Timothy 5:8 is very often preached as a fallacious male role as if it applies any less to women. That is sin against God and His Word.
The earthly ramifications? Cultures of men have MASSIVE problems of financial boasting, as well as a problem with men feeling soul-deep disturbed by how much money they make if they are poor or disabled to work.
I've discussed this issue before in other areas and without fail, I get "Christian men" -- absolute fools -- assuming that I must surely be some aspiring welfare queen which is a damning testimony against themselves on its own. As it happens I earn significantly above the median wage for a man and am BLESSED to own a house, and I have the sense to know that I would be out of my mind to talk like the way I hear so many men talking. I even heard a Christian man say "if you don't make it in this country, you aren't working hard enough" -- absolutely damning poor-shaming.
Meanwhile, it's also justification for this flak that women can't help themselves but be affected on every level toward a man based on his income, how much she can love and respect him, which is another stumbling block for a man for tying his value to his income, either boasting in finances or defeated in his soul based on income. All of this is utterly evil. It's reflected in a heretical teaching: no, there is actually no designated male provider role and 1 Timothy 5:8 is actually the verse that refutes it: men and women alike are commanded to provide for family (however able and appropriate), which excludes the concept of a male provider role.
Last edited:
You are taking a verse out of context and attempting to use it to prove a concept that is taught nowhere else in scripture. If I am wrong, please enlighten me.
I don’t know if you are aware, but Yah requires more than one witness to establish any principle.
I don’t know if you are aware, but Yah requires more than one witness to establish any principle.
I can see that my statement could be easily misunderstood.
I might have better said “I think that you are making a mountain out of a molehill”,
I have a tendency to match energy with energy and when someone comes on like Gangbusters making a big kerfluffle about something I sometimes simply react with pushback to see where it goes.
So far it hasn’t gone anywhere, other than in his own mind.
If anyone presumes to come on here and teach, if it is done with humbleness it should be treated with respect and humbleness.
I would be happy to meet those conditions, but the OP set the spirit of the discussion.
Let’s accept the premise.
Now let’s understand why it’s being proposed so vociferously.
Then, let’s see where there are other supports for this premise in scripture.
I’m always willing to learn. I just like more than the book sleeve explanation.
@DiscipleOfChrist, can you add a little more meat on the bones for your premise and if it’s directed at all men, Christian men, polygynous minded men, or individuals on this site?
Now let’s understand why it’s being proposed so vociferously.
Then, let’s see where there are other supports for this premise in scripture.
I’m always willing to learn. I just like more than the book sleeve explanation.
@DiscipleOfChrist, can you add a little more meat on the bones for your premise and if it’s directed at all men, Christian men, polygynous minded men, or individuals on this site?
I think there are many things where people take something far beyond what God intended. The point you highlight is worth keeping in mind. Cheers
Man_in_the_Middle
Seasoned Member
Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
Gen 3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
Gen 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
Adam was specifically tasked with having to work to provide food. Eve was his helpmate. She would thusly do as he instructed her. That may have been help in the "sweat of the face" work or it may have been some other thing that he needed doing at the same time as he was doing the "sweat of the face" work.
So, is the task of providing to both men and women? It is to the man but the woman is his helper to use as he best determines his needs are able to be met.
Early on in my business, I had my wife take a job until I was able to get my business flowing. The amount of money my business would make once it was flowing was far greater than either she or I could earn working for someone else. So, it made sense for her to earn money while I worked on getting work into the business.
In truth, we all have to work. It is to the man though to provide. Even if he is directing/managing it. It is on his head for EVERYTHING that happens. Provision is basic. Clearly he has to ensure that it happens. Same goes for protection, child rearing, bible study and spiritual growth.
Ultimately, it is ALL the man's responsibilities... He is the head and even if someone else drops the ball in one area or the other, he is responsible to sort it out.
This was to have been my coup de grace and I am happy that you have administered it.
You’ve done it more eloquently than I would have been able to.
DiscipleOfChrist
Member
I thought this one would come up. No, the curses in the garden are not an expressed or implied mandate of a particular gendered male provider role. This is probably the biggest other foolishly misread Scripture on the alleged male provider gender role subject. I'm not sure which one is worse, the blatant word-swap that people do with 1 Timothy 5:8 (imagining that it says "any man" rather than what it actually says, "anyone") because this one, likewise, is a matter of applying really basic reading comprehension as well as a ton of other common-sense statements
Let's walk through the curses very carefully, applying actual logic. Hopefully I can get away with just summarizing these passages and will be received in good faith so I don't have to copy/paste large passages.
Okay, so here is what we see when God lists to Adam and Eve:
To Eve:
*multiplied pain in childbirth
*her husband rules over her
Now, let's see if I can really persuade people to use their heads in a really, really basic case of deductive logic: notice that God does NOT directly tell Eve that she will die -- makes no mention of it.
"To the man, He said":
*Work from thorns and thistles
Then with no shift in audience -- for example, it doesn't say "to both of them, he said" -- God continues to Adam that he will die.
This is an incredibly basic logical deduction. Again, let's do some REALLY basic a + b = c kind of deductive logic:
(a) Eve is not told that she will die
(b) we know that women DO die just like men do
(c) death is a declared as a consequence only after Adam is addressed, and after God tells him about thorns and thistles
a + b + c = God intended BOTH of Adam's curses as understood to apply to Eve as well as Adam, not just the second. It is not possible to read the text, without deliberate coercion, as God telling Adam that the first curse only applies to Adam while the second statement to him -- again, with no shift in audience -- applies to both, which it clearly does, unless someone wants to insanely argue that women never die since only Adam was told that he would die, not Eve -- it has to be both or neither based on a simple reading of the text.
Purely reading comprehension and deductive logic, given that women aren't immortal, make it plain in the first place: both curses stated to Adam also apply to Eve, not just the second curse (death). Instead people idiotically:
Part 1 (Thorns/thistles/hard work): claim this applies only to men (the "provider role").
Part 2 (Death): quietly, without explanation, allow this to apply to everyone.
I'm a white collar worker. I have never worked from the ground in my life -- not even once. I'm pretty sure that most of us understand the "thorns and thistles" curse as a metaphor for something that pretty much none of us can avoid because of efforts of working. Interpreting this as "making money" is the most baseless and arbitrary viewpoint possible. I think even most housewives would love to tell you that their work within the home is not devoid of its own forms of pain and frustration just like (say) a man's white collar job has his, as well as someone who literally works the ground, which has always included both men and women.
Either way, the "curse to Adam" defense of a male provider role is foolish beyond belief, whether within the confines of reading of the passage itself, or applying even the slightest common sense. The curse "to Adam," which is really to them both, implies no mandate to Adam that he is particularly tasked as provider any more than the woman is:
*1 Timothy 5:8 applies to both men and women
*"thorns and thistles" also applies both to men and women
Hence, there is no particular male provider role, and we're left with the principles that we all work, albeit in different ways, and family provides for family as they are able and as necessary.