• 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"

D

DiscipleOfChrist

Member
It should infuriate ANY of us to see people go so far into the realm of coercing Scripture into saying what they want it to say that it gets to the point where they are straight-up refusing to read the words on the page:

1 Timothy 5:8
But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever

The word for "anyone" used here, "tis," is absolutely indisputably gender-neutral. It does not use the Greek word for "man."

Luke 10:38
Now as they went on their way, Jesus entered a village. And a woman named Martha welcomed him into her house.

The word "tis" is used here also, in reference to a woman, Martha.

I'm going to go even further. Even IF the word the word in 1 Timothy 5 8 DID use the word for "man," which it doesn't, even that couldn't assert gender-specific on its own because the Bible uses context -- in ADDITION to use of the word for "man" -- to clearly indicate that the subject is men, not women.

Matthew 14:21
"The number of those who ate was about five thousand men, besides women and children."

Now here we can see that the word for men is distinctly used and yet the text STILL explicitly indicates that the "five thousand" were men -- male -- not female. So the text doesn't just say "five thousand men." It goes specifically out of its way to spell out that that number doesn't include women.

This makes sense that context is necessary to understand that only men are the subject because quite often words like "brethren," despite being male, apply to men and women alike. For example:

Philippians 4:8
Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things.

This clearly applies to everyone, male or female. No one tries to argue that this or many other passages where the audience is addressed as "brethren" doesn't actually address all people.

So the point is this: interpreting 1 Timothy 5 8 as referring to "any man," not women, is preposterous, in any literal OR interpretive sense, to the point that it is truly a case of refusal to acknowledge the word on the page. The verse is a million miles from saying any such thing.

In short, family takes care of family, and that's the what the context indicates. Assigning a provider "gender role" here is not a concept whatsoever. In fact, 1 Timothy 5:8 is actually firm proof that there actually IS no "male provider role" in its gender-neutrality as it directly asserts family providing for family with nothing implying (or even suggesting) any gendered direction.
 
Last edited:
DiscipleOfChrist said:
In short, family takes care of family, and that's the what the context indicates. Assigning a provider "gender role" here is not a concept whatsoever. In fact, 1 Timothy 5:8 is actually firm proof that there actually IS no "male provider role" in its gender-neutrality as it directly asserts family providing for family with nothing implying (or even suggesting) any gendered direction.
Click to expand...
Interesting!

He also said if we do, or don't do things to others (the least of these my brethren) it is the same as doing (or not doing) it to Him.
It would make sense then that caring for those closest to us is a minimum expectation for people of faith.

Thanks for bringing that out.
 
DiscipleOfChrist said:
It should infuriate ANY of us to see people go so far into the realm of coercing Scripture into saying what they want it to say that it gets to the point where they are straight-up refusing to read the words on the page:

1 Timothy 5:8
But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever

The word for "anyone" used here, "tis," is absolutely indisputably gender-neutral. It does not use the Greek word for "man."

Luke 10:38
Now as they went on their way, Jesus entered a village. And a woman named Martha welcomed him into her house.

The word "tis" is used here also, in reference to a woman, Martha.

I'm going to go even further. Even IF the word the word in 1 Timothy 5 8 DID use the word for "man," which it doesn't, even that couldn't assert gender-specific on its own because the Bible uses context -- in ADDITION to use of the word for "man" -- to clearly indicate that the subject is men, not women.

Matthew 14:21
"The number of those who ate was about five thousand men, besides women and children."

Now here we can see that the word for men is distinctly used and yet the text STILL explicitly indicates that the "five thousand" were men -- male -- not female. So the text doesn't just say "five thousand men." It goes specifically out of its way to spell out that that number doesn't include women.

This makes sense that context is necessary to understand that only men are the subject because quite often words like "brethren," despite being male, apply to men and women alike. For example:

Philippians 4:8
Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things.

This clearly applies to everyone, male or female. No one tries to argue that this or many other passages where the audience is addressed as "brethren" doesn't actually address all people.

So the point is this: interpreting 1 Timothy 5 8 as referring to "any man," not women, is preposterous, in any literal OR interpretive sense, to the point that it is truly a case of refusal to acknowledge the word on the page. The verse is a million miles from saying any such thing.

In short, family takes care of family, and that's the what the context indicates. Assigning a provider "gender role" here is not a concept whatsoever. In fact, 1 Timothy 5:8 is actually firm proof that there actually IS no "male provider role" in its gender-neutrality as it directly asserts family providing for family with nothing implying (or even suggesting) any gendered direction.
Click to expand...
Joh_1:11 He cameG2064 untoG1519 his own,G2398 andG2532 his ownG2398 receivedG3880 himG846 not.G3756

1Ti 5:8 ButG1161 ifG1487 anyG5100 provide not forG4306 G3756 his own,G2398 andG2532 speciallyG3122 for those of his own house,G3609 he hath deniedG720 theG3588 faith,G4102 andG2532 isG2076 worseG5501 than an infidel.G571
 
Man_in_the_Middle said:
Joh_1:11 He cameG2064 untoG1519 his own,G2398 andG2532 his ownG2398 receivedG3880 himG846 not.G3756

1Ti 5:8 ButG1161 ifG1487 anyG5100 provide not forG4306 G3756 his own,G2398 andG2532 speciallyG3122 for those of his own house,G3609 he hath deniedG720 theG3588 faith,G4102 andG2532 isG2076 worseG5501 than an infidel.G571
Click to expand...
Neither of those quotes implies gender.

Titus 2:5 "to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their ownG2398 husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed."

The word "own" here is explicitly G2398 - idios - the exact same word used in 1 Timothy 5:8, and here it is directly attached to women referring to what belongs to them.

This is a direct refutation of any claim that G2398/idios implies a male subject. The word is completely gender-neutral in its function and simply indicates belonging or relationship regardless of who the subject is.

The Greek word translated "his own" is "idios" (G2398) which simply means "one's own" - indicating relationship or belonging. It carries no gender designation whatsoever.

Your John 1:11 parallel actually backfires on you. In that verse "his own" refers to Jesus, who is male - so the possessive pronoun follows the subject's gender. That's exactly the point: "idios" itself doesn't carry gender. The subject determines how it gets rendered in translation.

And the subject in 1 Timothy 5:8 is "tis" (G5100) - which is indisputably gender-neutral, as even a basic Greek reference confirms. "His own" in the English translation is simply the translator defaulting to conventional rendering following the subject. It is not a declaration that the subject is male.

You are essentially looking at an English translation's conventional rendering and treating it as proof of a gender designation in the Greek text. That's not exegesis. That's ignoring the underlying Greek entirely.

The subject of 1 Timothy 5:8 is gender-neutral. "Idios" carries no gender. Therefore nothing in this verse designates provision as a male responsibility. The argument collapses the moment you actually look at the Greek rather than an English translation.

You need BOTH of these things to assert a male provider role:
*The Greek word for "man" in 1 Timothy 5:8
AND
*A surrounding context ensuring that it's a distinction (as I mentioned in my post)

You have neither. The gender-neutral command for family to provide for family -- an obligation -- is incompatible with the claim of any biblical notion of "male provider role."
 
Last edited:
It would be strange for mother to refuse to provide for her children because she lacks husband or he is far away.

I think verse covers this possibility.
 
No, I’m just mocking your attempts at being intelligent.

1). Explain how a false brother can be walking in salvation.
2). Your post obviously tries to dismantle the idea of male responsibility for providing for the family. I’m asking why, what point are you trying to make?
 
Hmmm, "just showed up" reveals you have not read earlier posts. This is an open forum that is easily researched. Perhaps different phrasing could be in order.
 
Maddog said:
Hmmm, "just showed up" reveals you have not read earlier posts. This is an open forum that is easily researched. Perhaps different phrasing could be in order.
Click to expand...
Let him cook, it’s fun to watch the kids attempt to pontificate.
 
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.
 
steve said:
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.
Click to expand...

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).
 
DiscipleOfChrist said:
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."
Click to expand...
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?
 
steve said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Thomas said:
First response by steve is and would be taken as a trolling anywhere else on the internet.
Click to expand...
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?
 
DiscipleOfChrist said:
It should infuriate ANY of us to see people go so far into the realm of coercing Scripture into saying what they want it to say that it gets to the point where they are straight-up refusing to read the words on the page:

1 Timothy 5:8
But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever

The word for "anyone" used here, "tis," is absolutely indisputably gender-neutral. It does not use the Greek word for "man."

Luke 10:38
Now as they went on their way, Jesus entered a village. And a woman named Martha welcomed him into her house.

The word "tis" is used here also, in reference to a woman, Martha.

I'm going to go even further. Even IF the word the word in 1 Timothy 5 8 DID use the word for "man," which it doesn't, even that couldn't assert gender-specific on its own because the Bible uses context -- in ADDITION to use of the word for "man" -- to clearly indicate that the subject is men, not women.

Matthew 14:21
"The number of those who ate was about five thousand men, besides women and children."

Now here we can see that the word for men is distinctly used and yet the text STILL explicitly indicates that the "five thousand" were men -- male -- not female. So the text doesn't just say "five thousand men." It goes specifically out of its way to spell out that that number doesn't include women.

This makes sense that context is necessary to understand that only men are the subject because quite often words like "brethren," despite being male, apply to men and women alike. For example:

Philippians 4:8
Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things.

This clearly applies to everyone, male or female. No one tries to argue that this or many other passages where the audience is addressed as "brethren" doesn't actually address all people.

So the point is this: interpreting 1 Timothy 5 8 as referring to "any man," not women, is preposterous, in any literal OR interpretive sense, to the point that it is truly a case of refusal to acknowledge the word on the page. The verse is a million miles from saying any such thing.

In short, family takes care of family, and that's the what the context indicates. Assigning a provider "gender role" here is not a concept whatsoever. In fact, 1 Timothy 5:8 is actually firm proof that there actually IS no "male provider role" in its gender-neutrality as it directly asserts family providing for family with nothing implying (or even suggesting) any gendered direction.
Click to expand...
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top