| Most Recently Posted Ask a Question | |||||||
| Q: | 1 Timothy Regarding 1 Timothy 5:8, I have heard that the original language speaks to outcome rather than intent, and if one follows the language exactly, anyone who attempts but does not succeed in providing for his family is worse than a unbeliever (the context make clear that providing is in the material sense). I also have heard rationalizations that try to make the case that even though the original language speaks to outcome, the language should be interpreted as speaking only to intent and action, rather than outcome. My question is this: Can we ignore the original language in this fashion, while holding to Luther's interpretation of "is, is, is" with regards to real presence? If we do ignore the original language in 1 Timothy 5:8, are we being inconsistent in our interpretation of the real presence? | ||||||
| A: | 1 Timothy 5:18 says, "If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." The Greek verb rendered "provide for" can mean either to "care about" and "be concerned about" or to "provide for." The word itself does not determine whether intent or successful provision is the point of the passage. The context of Scripture, however, does. In both the Old and New Testaments the Bible is filled with passages that make it clear that God does not condemn the victims of oppression or disaster who cannot provide for their families because of injustice, war, or famine. Rather he is concerned about their needs, is responsive to their prayers, and will punish those responsible for injustice. The explanation that the original language speaks to outcome rather than intent is clearly wrong. It ignores both the meaning of the word and the context. The explanation that the passages is speaking about intent and action, rather than outcome is correct. The passage condemns those who through their own negligence and indifference fail to provide for their families. (Naturally, where there is lack of intent and action, there will also be a lack of outcome.) This interpretation is not ignoring the meaning of the original language, but correctly interpreting it in its context. | ||||||
| |||||||