• 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"

The point I got from the original post is that the verse in particular was not gender specific.
That is correct, and he is correct in teaching that it isn’t gender specific.
That is not a doctrine,
True, but claiming that the Bible teaches that male responsibility for providing is anti-Biblical is an attempt make a doctrine from this verse.

Check out the context, the verse is specifically written to instruct families to take care of widows that are related to them.
It is not an instruction about providing for the needs of the family.
 
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.

Brother, your argument is not without merit. But sarcasm is the least persuasive rhetorical approach.
 
Brother, your argument is not without merit. But sarcasm is the least persuasive rhetorical approach.
Sarcasm in print is very much like a lie.

Personal attacks imply you are out of legitimate points to discuss.

Teachers aught not to mind repetition. Some people need a lot of exposure to the material before the light goes on and they get it.
 
I get @DiscipleOfChrist ’s broader point. We can not place a Biblical command on a man to be the sole provider for his family. And in the light of Proverbs 31 we absolutely can not forbid a woman from substantial and lucrative financial activity outside of the home.

I think a lot of what people are reacting to is a visceral knowledge that men represent God in The Metaphor of a husband and a wife.

God needs nothing from his creation. It provides him nothing he needs and instead he provides his creation with every sustenance. He derives things he wants from his creation but nothing he needs.

Providence is one of the names we use for him because he is such a good provider. Surely if we’re to treat our wives the way Christ treats the church then we will be a source of sustenance and providence for them.

Conversely though, God gave his creation work despite not needing anything from it. God could tend the garden and name the animals. He didn’t need his creation to do that. Can a woman be the source of a significant, and even dominant part of a family’s income?

According to scripture, absolutely. Should providence flow from the husband? I think it should.
 
We can not place a Biblical command on a man to be the sole provider for his family. And in the light of Proverbs 31 we absolutely can not forbid a woman from substantial and lucrative financial activity outside of the home.
Which is what I was trying to get at with the questions I was asking in the thread.

I believe there’s been a conflation between patriarchy and sole providership.

One doesn’t necessarily require the other.
 
Which is what I was trying to get at with the questions I was asking in the thread.

I believe there’s been a conflation between patriarchy and sole providership.

One doesn’t necessarily require the other.
Certainly scripture doesn't dictate the man must be sole or majority earner/provider. But again, it's one of those things where some go beyond what is written and create difficulties for others.
 
Certainly scripture doesn't dictate the man must be sole or majority earner/provider. But again, it's one of those things where some go beyond what is written and create difficulties for others.
At the same time we have seen women decide to leave men who wanted more than one wife....but at the time was the "stat at home dad" while she worked in the medical field. I think women need the rest that home affords, and men are better equipped hormonally to "take on the world."
 
At the same time we have seen women decide to leave men who wanted more than one wife....but at the time was the "stat at home dad" while she worked in the medical field. I think women need the rest that home affords, and men are better equipped hormonally to "take on the world."
I agree. Proverbs 14:1, The wise woman builds her house, ... . The household is the primary focus for the wife, yet working and investing is fine as we see in Proverbs 31. Each family situation needs wise leadership to know what is right, and the consequences rest on the shoulders of the man.
 
The household is the primary focus for the wife
While this has been our personal model, I can’t say that it’s a biblical mandate.

Each home needs to figure out what works. Mothers and fathers have their unique differences and those will complement each other in helping to develop the whole child.

Talents vary as well. I’m actually quite domestic. I could probably take care of the home cleaning, cooking, teaching of the kids and overall maintenance better than my wife. I actually enjoy it. But, I don’t have that motherly nurturing gene. Our children lived inside of her and I can never relate to them unconditionally like she can.

So, since this is Biblical families I’d have to say that the biblical mandates are deficient, but the biblical principles are overwhelming that providership contributes to the honor and respect for the husband/father and adds serious structure and order. I can’t see that mandated to follow one particular model, and I believe that it doesn’t exclude a wife from outearning her husband.
 
I think the fact that he's writing to Timothy, instructing him regarding how to set up an established congregation should be considered into the context. We typically read chapters as if they have relevance, when it was never designed that way. In fact, there wasn't even a separation of words when it was first penned, it would've been just a run on sentence essentially. So to put this into perspective, in the middle of telling Timothy about providing for widows, it is possible that he's saying that if a man isn't providing for his own household, he's worse than an infidel (or properly an unbeliever or pagan) because the context was providing for widows.

However, I do personally think the point is actually more along the lines of anyone (male or female) who's not caring for the widows of their own family, they are worse than an infidel. It reminds me of the passage from Yeshua Himself in the sermon on the mount... he speaks of "only" Loving those who love you (or your family) in Matthew 5:46. So Paul is likely saying something similar, but opposite, meaning he's saying that if someone (male or female) isn't caring for the widows In their own family, they are worse than the unbelievers, because they surely take care of the widows in their family.
 
It reminds me of the passage from Yeshua Himself in the sermon on the mount... he speaks of "only" Loving those who love you
I saw it as related to the concept Jesus explained that goes with the new commandment. "In as much as you have done it to the least of these my brethren, you have done it to me"

Even in the old Testament if someone remembered at the altar that a brother had something against them, they were told to leave it there and go make peace with their brother...then come and offer YHWH their sacrifice. He wants us to get along!

So not caring for those closest to you...in your own household is like denying that care to Jesus.....denying the faith.

Here is a catchy tune that will have you singing the concept all day!

 
Back
Top