Mark Driscoll—controversial pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, WA.—has offered a free book online, Pastor Dad: Scriptural Insights on Fatherhood.
Here’s the opening paragraph from Chaper four: “The Masculine Duty to Provide”:
Godly fathers consider it a masculine honor to provide for their wives’ and children’s needs. First, a godly father gives spiritual sustenance to his children. It is dad who should also be reading the Bible with his kids, praying with them, and answering their questions—not just mom, the church Sunday school teacher, or the youth pastor. Second, a godly father provides for the physical needs of his children. This point may seem obvious to some, but it is apparently lost in our culture, where children are the most likely people to live in poverty, and elementary schools now serve breakfast to children because many of them were not eating breakfast and were falling asleep in class as a result. My point is simply this: if you want to be a godly man who provides for his wife and children, you will need to out-work and out-earn other men and take to heart Paul’s words from 1 Timothy 5:8: “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.” read entire chapter…
So pastor Mark Driscoll clearly interprets “anyone” (Gk. tis) masculine as well as the rest of the verse per the translation of the ESV.
But is the ESV to be blamed? Are the pronouns “his” and “he” to be understood as gender specific, “male,” or gender inclusive, “anyone,” without regard for gender, in the ESV?
Now if the ESV means for 1 Timothy 5:8 to be read from a masculine perspective, then it must be a matter of context and not the underlying Greek text.
About T.C. R
A Christ-follower, husband, father, shepherd-teacher, speaker, and a blogger too!
Mark Driscoll does exegesis? I thought he just yelled and sweated a lot.
Nick,
You gotta believe it.
Nick and swore a lot…
but his larger point being, dad’s need to be doing their best to provde for their families… and sadly there are many dads out there not really providing for their families.
but I amd with you. “tis” is someone, anyone, a certain one. I don’t see “man” “his” or “he” in there anywhere.
I will continue to blog on this passage, examining how others exegete it.
Brian,
Yeah, we have to go for his larger point and not dwell on his use of 1 Timothy 5:8 from the ESV – as a proof text.
Sue,
For a start, complementarian Bill Mounce takes a generic approach to the text in his Word Biblical “1 Timothy” (p. 285).
Maybe I am missing the point but why does being a godly man demand that I “out-earn other men.”??? That has nothing to do with providing for a family. I get the work ethic thing, and doing all one can to pay the bills, put food on the table, etc. etc. but since when has a comparison of actual earnings become a gauge of how well a person is walking with God??
I might be splitting hairs here but that seems like a REALLY irresponsible thing to place in a sermon or message.
Tomg,
Pastor Driscoll is known for careless statements. But his general thoughts are in order for those of us who share his position.
This whole “provider” thing is nasty for both men and women. Of course, men should have jobs. But do they have to work two jobs while the wife stays home? Can a woman only work if her children have grown up and left the house, and she does not neglect her primary duty, (ie her husband) AND she has pure motives?
This kind of complementarianism sets men and women against each other. Terrible expectations.
But my main point is that some preachers will use scripture any old way, they really don’t care at all what it actually says.
Sue,
It’s called “proof texting.” Some have actually mastered it.
Regarding how a home is run, I believe it’s up to that family, however they’re informed.
TC,
I know you understand this, but there are still some who claim that using a generic “he” in English is permissible and will not lead to a misreading of the text. I have posted more on my blog. From John McArthur down to younger men, we can see that each of of these men misunderstood the “his” in this verse to mean “men” that is males.
They claim the authority of the word of God and are restricting the activity and lifestyle of both men and women on a false premise.
Sue,
Wow! I just looked at the quotes you’ve provided and have to say that these guys are indeed reckless with this text.
TC,
I have many reasons for being interested in this. First, the Erasmus Latin translation just came online and I can confirm that he translated it with a feminine subject. This is an historical interest. Then, the use of generic “he” needs to be dumped once and for all, forever and amen.
Next, husbands and wives ought to be encouraged to make decisions in the normal way and completely replace the principle of “male authority” with the principle of “common sense.”
Finally, it needs to be pointed out that CBMW has wandered down a path that leads away from an orthodox and scripture based Christianity. That’s my rant for now. I had to take a brief break from painting etc. since I have a cold.
Sue,
I just found an interesting note in Fee’s “1 and 2 Timothy, Titus commentary”: “The combination his relatives, and especially for his family (lit. “his own household”), p. 118.” But I don’t see any Greek justification for his lit. “his own household.”
At some point, we’ll have to dump the generic “he.”
εἰ δέ τις τῶν ἰδίων καὶ μάλιστα οἰκείων οὐ προνοεῖ,
but if anyone for the[ir] own(pl) and especially for the[ir] household(pl) does not provide …
I am not sure what you are disagreeing with in Fee. It is impossible to translate this into English and be in any way at all literal.
Sue,
My contention is with his use of “his,” but he may have been using it in the generic sense.
Oh, right. That one went right by me.
He probably doesn’t naturally use the singular they. Lots of people don’t. But I guess he thinks that it refers to a child or grandchild providing for the widow, whereas, Erasmus thinks that this verse is about the widow caring for her children or grandchildren.
What bothers me perhaps is not how it is translated but how it is then used to coerce people into a certain behaviour. I am actually surprised that so many preachers are using it to say only men are providers. I think the problem is not with the language per se but with the doctrine of compism. Keep the language and dump the doctrine. How’s that? I dunno.
Sue,
Well, he should have have been more exact on that one.
Towner in his recent commentary on the Pastorals cite a few who take Erasmus reading on that verse. I’ll have to dig some more.
Well, if the behavior is unbiblical and so on, then I totally agree with you.
Towner in his recent commentary on the Pastorals cite a few who take Erasmus reading on that verse. I’ll have to dig some more.
Interesting. I haven’t seen this.
Sue,
Here’s the footnote: “Roloff, 292, for the view that the “anyone” in the instruction is the widow belonging to a household who is to discharge her responsibilities in that sphere(p. 343).”
Thanks. I was able to read Towner in google books. I noticed that quite a few others did not mention this. The passage is a bit hard to untangle, between the plurals and singulars and who is to do what, like the rest of Timothy. Very frustrating sometimes.
Sue,
Apparently it’s not that compelling to engage more commentators.
I like the snow! Comments are very helpful. I am reading and learning – thanks all.
Iris,
I saw the snow-option in WP extras. 1 Tim. 5:8 is quite interesting, esp. if you’re committed to a particular position.
I agree. It may not be that interesting to some, but I wanted to blog about it because I had just found the Erasmus version online. I needed to read that and the commentaries to make sure I understood how he had translated it. Thanks for pointing out Towner’s note.
Sue,
No prob. I was looking for more interaction from some of the commentaries I have but not much going on.
Honestly, I think that Erasmus solution is too complicated. It really refers to the family providing for their relatives and household. It could refer to men but obviously includes women too. Women are always supposed to be looking out for everyone in the extended family to see that they are all cared for.
Sue,
Well, the generalization seems to fit best.