"He has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever"

[Maedchen]

May God be with all of you.

I have a question regarding the understanding and consequence of 1. Timothy 5:8. It reads in NASB translation:

"But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."

Does that consequently mean that if a mother or father is leaving the family because of unbearable circumstances, that she / he is automatically "worse than an unbeliever"? Could she / he ever gain God's favor again after leaving?
Or does that verse clearly indicate that leaving the household is never a Christian option, no matter what the circumstances are?

Your thoughts are much appreciated.
Maedchen

 

[farouk]

May God be with all of you.

I have a question regarding the understanding and consequence of 1. Timothy 5:8. It reads in NASB translation:

"But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."

Does that consequently mean that if a mother or father is leaving the family because of unbearable circumstances, that she / he is automatically "worse than an unbeliever"? Could she / he ever gain God's favor again after leaving?
Or does that verse clearly indicate that leaving the household is never a Christian option, no matter what the circumstances are?

Your thoughts are much appreciated.
Maedchen

@Maedchen :

I think the question assumes a lot in terms of North American practice and culture.

First of all, I'd like to say that many people do constantly suffer immense pain and anguish in difficult family situations.

There is also the fact that many people in North America have the benefit of some level of social security, if their circumstances impel a provider to leave (although this is not to be regarded as the best solution).

Also there is the widespreak practice of divorce and remarriage, which among New Testament era Christians was far less common.

That being said, trying to come up with a single solution scenario for what in so many cases is 'three dimensional chess' is hard. One should in the end fall back on what seem to be the clear statements of Scripture regarding various family issues, although not all Christians will agree on what some of these are.

Blessings.

 

[JLB]

May God be with all of you.

I have a question regarding the understanding and consequence of 1. Timothy 5:8. It reads in NASB translation:

"But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."

Does that consequently mean that if a mother or father is leaving the family because of unbearable circumstances, that she / he is automatically "worse than an unbeliever"? Could she / he ever gain God's favor again after leaving?
Or does that verse clearly indicate that leaving the household is never a Christian option, no matter what the circumstances are?

Your thoughts are much appreciated.
Maedchen

The primary meaning of this scripture is directed at men, and them working and proving for the needs of the household.

There are secondary meanings such as the man, preparing in advance for the things of life.

JLB

 

[Deborah13]

I think this verse is speaking to the Christian man who lives with his family but does not provide for them. It is saying even the man who is not a believer knows he should take care of his families needs and does.

 

[JLB]

I think this verse is speaking to the Christian man who lives with his family but does not provide for them. It is saying even the man who is not a believer knows he should take care of his families needs and does.

Yes Ma'am.

Very well put.

 

[Maedchen]

Thank you, dear farouk, JLB and Deborah.

When I look into the Greek original, the word for "anyone" is 'tis', which is an indefinite pronoun, meaning really anybody. Thus I thought this verse to be applicable even for women.
So assuming a wife would feel that she could not stay in the household any longer, wouldn't she act against God's will by leaving, according to the verse of 1. Timothy?

 

[JLB]

Thank you, dear farouk, JLB and Deborah.

When I look into the Greek original, the word for "anyone" is 'tis', which is an indefinite pronoun, meaning really anybody. Thus I thought this verse to be applicable even for women.
So assuming a wife would feel that she could not stay in the household any longer, wouldn't she act against God's will by leaving, according to the verse of 1. Timothy?

The word anyone would be any man.

8 But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.


JLB

 

[farouk]

Thank you, dear farouk, JLB and Deborah.

When I look into the Greek original, the word for "anyone" is 'tis', which is an indefinite pronoun, meaning really anybody. Thus I thought this verse to be applicable even for women.
So assuming a wife would feel that she could not stay in the household any longer, wouldn't she act against God's will by leaving, according to the verse of 1. Timothy?

[MENTION=96768]Maedchen[/MENTION]:

It's often the case in North America that if a woman leaves, any children she has will leave with her, and courts will often award her custody irrespective of who is 'at fault'. In any case, who is recorded (as opposed to actually) at fault will often depend on who the lawyer is and how much s/he is paid.

'Providing' is thus a many-faceted arrangement, so often.

Family law and case practice are truly a minefield, but we may be assured that there is One Who knows the secrets of all hearts and who sees through the virtuous front of the self-righteous, be they plausible preacher who mistreats his family, or self-centered, dissatisfied wife, or - as may be more usual - a vague and complex combination of faults on both sides. However, sometimes there is all too obviously an innocent, longsuffering party to a sad domestic situation.

Blessings.

 

[Maedchen]

Dear JLB,
thank you for that explanation.

Only when you compare Latin texts, Greek as well (or even modern German and English), you'll find that the female pronoun often is assumed to be integrated into the male one. Often, for the sake of reduction or brevity, one reads "he", but meaning men and women alike.

So don't you think that a woman who leaves the household will be "worse than an unbeliever"?

 

[farouk]

Dear JLB,
thank you for that explanation.

Only when you compare Latin texts, Greek as well (or even modern German and English), you'll find that the female pronoun often is assumed to be integrated into the male one. Often, for the sake of reduction or brevity, one reads "he", but meaning men and women alike.

So don't you think that a woman who leaves the household will be "worse than an unbeliever"?

@Maedchen :

In one of the Latin American countries, secularists introduced divorce law, whereby a woman could divorce her husband; but for years it was the case that secular feminists there were adamantly opposed to the same applying to men: a man wasn't allowed to divorce his wife.

When in arguing the legalities of divorce both men and women show that they are basically proud of being unbelieving secularists, it gets somewhat obscure and notional for believers to project their own thinking from the Scriptures as to who, among the secularists, is supposedly acting Scripturally or not.

Blessings.

 

[JLB]

Dear JLB,
thank you for that explanation.

Only when you compare Latin texts, Greek as well (or even modern German and English), you'll find that the female pronoun often is assumed to be integrated into the male one. Often, for the sake of reduction or brevity, one reads "he", but meaning men and women alike.

So don't you think that a woman who leaves the household will be "worse than an unbeliever"?

I am not in your shoes.

I don't know what you are going through.

I can only think of one reason why you would leave your kids with him, but at the same time want to leave him.


JLB

 

[Maedchen]

Yes, dear farouk.

Regarding the woman in reference to someone " worse than an unbeliever", it would be the "self-centered, dissatisfied wife". I understand.

 

[farouk]

Dear JLB,
thank you for that explanation.

Only when you compare Latin texts, Greek as well (or even modern German and English), you'll find that the female pronoun often is assumed to be integrated into the male one. Often, for the sake of reduction or brevity, one reads "he", but meaning men and women alike.

So don't you think that a woman who leaves the household will be "worse than an unbeliever"?

I am not in your shoes.

I don't know what you are going through.

I can only think of one reason why you would leave your kids with him, but at the same time want to leave him.


JLB

[MENTION=90220]JLB[/MENTION]:

Since you don't know what [MENTION=96768]Maedchen[/MENTION]'s circumstances are, and she doesn't have to tell us what they are, how can you be so sure of what you say you think?

 

[Maedchen]

Dear JLB,
thank you for that explanation.

Only when you compare Latin texts, Greek as well (or even modern German and English), you'll find that the female pronoun often is assumed to be integrated into the male one. Often, for the sake of reduction or brevity, one reads "he", but meaning men and women alike.

So don't you think that a woman who leaves the household will be "worse than an unbeliever"?

I am not in your shoes.

I don't know what you are going through.

I can only think of one reason why you would leave your kids with him, but at the same time want to leave him.


JLB

What would that one reason be, may I ask?

 

[Maedchen]

Thank you JLB for your pm. But that is not the case.
Also, I never said that I am talking about me.

But I appreciate your thoughts, from everyone. Thank you so much.

 

[JLB]

Thank you JLB for your pm. But that is not the case.
Also, I never said that I am talking about me.

But I appreciate your thoughts, from everyone. Thank you so much.

I am glad to be wrong.

Thank you for searching for the truth.

God bless you.


JLB

 

[Deborah13]

If a woman were the only support her children had and she didn't financially care for them, when she was capable of doing that then I think the situation would be the same as for a man.

 

[Maedchen]

I am glad to be wrong.

Thank you for searching for the truth.

God bless you.


JLB

May God bless you.

 

[Maedchen]

If a woman were the only support her children had and she didn't financially care for them, when she was capable of doing that then I think the situation would be the same as for a man.

Yes, dear Deborah, there is no difference then between the responsibility of the father or the mother. I would agree.

But you emphasized only the financial part. Assuming that financially the children are well cared for. The parent who is left with them could afford a nanny and a helping person at home.
My question would rather be if my quoted verse would condemn the leaving parent in any case? Not because of a financial hardship, but because he / she would no longer serve his / her household? I thought it more as a moral question.

 

[Deborah13]

Not because of a financial hardship, but because he / she would no longer serve his / her household? I thought it more as a moral question.

I believe that this scripture is talking about care as in food, clothing, shelter, etc.
So I think what you are getting at is the woman's part in caring for the home and family.
I cannot say by this scripture or any other that I can think of. Different circumstances can demand different actions.