Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Timothy 4:3
Forbidding to marry, [and commanding] to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
3. forbidding to marry ] See on 1Ti 4:1 and Introduction, pp. 46, 48, 50, 51. From the verb ‘forbidding’ must be supplied by the rule called zeugma (Winer, 661 e), the positive ‘bidding’ with the infinitive ‘to abstain from meats.’ ‘Meats’ is to be understood in its older sense ‘food for eating,’ though abstinence from animal food was the distinctive rule of the developed Gnostic systems, such as that of the Encratites or Purists under Tatian.
to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know ] The comma of A.V. (Parallel N.T.) after ‘believe’ (though inserted to prevent its being understood to mean ‘believe the truth’) has been omitted by R.V., apparently because there is only one article for the two clauses, and therefore they describe the same people under slightly different aspects: while the insertion might seem to make a higher class among those that believe, viz. those that know the truth fully, and to give the privilege of thus partaking to it only.
The word for ‘know’ is most exactly have come to full knowledge of, and implies that full experience of God’s will and ways which is open to all who have become ‘adherents of the faith,’ ‘faithful.’ Cf. note on 1Ti 3:4.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Forbidding to marry – That is, They will depart from the faith through the hypocritical teaching – of those who forbid to marry; see notes on 1Ti 4:2. This does not necessarily mean that they would prohibit marriage altogether, but that it would be a characteristic of their teaching that marriage would be forbidden, whether of one class of persons or many. They would commend and enjoin celibacy and virginity. They would regard such a state, for certain persons, as more holy than the married condition, and would consider it as so holy that they would absolutely prohibit those who wished to be most holy from entering into the relation. It is needless to say how accurately this applies to the views of the papacy in regard to the comparative purity and advantages of a state of celibacy, and to their absolute prohibition of the marriage of the clergy. The tenth article of the decree of the Council of Trent, in relation to marriage, will show the general view of the papacy on that subject. Whosoever shall say that the married state is to be preferred to a state of virginity, or celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or celibacy, than to be joined in marriage; let him be accursed! Compare Peter Dens Moral Theology, pp. 497-500.
And commanding to abstain from meats, … – The word meat in the Scriptures, commonly denotes food of all kinds; Mat 3:4; Mat 6:25; Mat 10:10; Mat 15:37. This was the meaning of the word when the translation of the Bible was made. It is now used by us, almost exclusively, to denote animal food. The word here used – broma – means, properly, whatever is eaten, and may refer to animal flesh, fish, fruit, or vegetables. It is often, however, in the New Testament, employed particularly to denote the flesh of animals; Heb, Mat 9:10; Mat 13:9; Rom 14:15, Rom 14:20; 1Co 8:8, 1Co 8:13. As it was animal food particularly which was forbidden under the Jewish code, and as the questions on this subject among Christians would relate to the same kinds of prohibition, it is probable that the word has the same limited signification here, and should be taken as meaning the same thing that the word meat does with us.
To forbid the use of certain meats, is here described as one of the characteristics of those who would instruct the church in the time of the great apostasy. It is not necessary to suppose that there would be an entire prohibition, but only a prohibition of certain kinds, and at certain seasons. That this characteristic is found in the papacy more than anywhere else in the Christian world, it is needless to prove. The following questions and answers from Dr. Butlers Catechism, will show what is the sentiment of Roman Catholics on this subject. Question: Are there any other commandments besides the Ten Commandments of God? Answer: There are the commandments or precepts of the church, which are chiefly six. Question: What are we obliged to do by the second commandment of the church? Answer: To give part of the year to fast and abstinence. Question: What do you mean by fast-days? Answer: Certain days on which we are allowed but one meal, and forbidden flesh meat.
Question: What do you mean by days of abstinence? Answer: Certain days on which we are forbidden to eat flesh meat; but are allowed the usual number of meals. Question: Is it strictly forbidden by the church to eat flesh meat on days of abstinence? Answer: Yes; and to eat flesh meat on any day on which it is forbidden, without necessity and leave of the church, is very sinful. Could there be a more impressive and striking commentary on what the apostle says here, that in the latter days some would depart from the faith, under the hypocritical teaching of those who commanded to abstain from meats? The authority claimed by the papacy to issue commands on this subject, may be seen still further by the following extract from the same catechism, showing the gracious permission of the church to the faithful. The abstinence on Saturday is dispensed with, for the faithful throughout the United States, for the space of ten years (from 1833), except when a fast falls on a Saturday. The use of flesh meat is allowed at present by dispensation in the diocess of Philadelphia, on all the Sundays of Lent, except Palm Sunday, and once a day on Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday in each week, except the Thursday after Ash Wednesday, and also excepting Holy-week. Such is the Roman Catholic religion! See also Peter Dens Moral Theology, pp. 321-330. It is true that what is said here might apply to the Essenes, as Koppe supposes, or to the Judaizing teachers, but it applies more appropriately and fully to the Papal communion than to any other body of men professing Christianity, and taken in connection with the other characteristics of the apostasy, there can be no doubt that the reference is to that.
Which God hath created – The articles of food which he has made, and which he has designed for the nourishment of man. The fact that God had created them was proof that they were not to be regarded as evil, and that it was not to be considered as a religious duty to abstain from them. All that God has made is good in its place, and what is adapted to be food for man is not to be refused or forbidden; compare Ecc 5:18. There can be no doubt that in the apostasy here referred to, those things would be forbidden, not because they were injurious or hurtful in their nature, but because it might be made a part of a system of religion of self-righteousness and because there might be connected with such a prohibition the belief of special merit.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 3. Forbidding to marry] These hypocritical priests pretending that a single life was much more favourable to devotion, and to the perfection of the Christian life. This sentiment was held by the Essenes, a religious sect among the Jews; and we know that it is a favourite opinion among the Romanists, who oblige all their clergy to live a single life by a vow of continency.
To abstain from meats] Both among the heathens, Jews, and Romanists, certain meats were prohibited; Some always, others at particular times. This the apostle informs us was directly contrary to the original design of God; and says that those who know the truth, know this.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Forbidding to marry: the Greek is, hindering to marry, but that might be by forbidding it by a law under a severe penalty. There are great disputes whom the apostle speaketh of, to find out which it is considerable:
1. That the apostle speaketh of a time that was then to come;
2. Of some who had it in their power to hinder it:
which will make the prophecy hardly applicable to any but the Romish synagogue, to be sure, not so applicable; for though there were some persons before them that condemned marriages, yet as they were but a small, inconsiderable party, so they were persons that had no power to hinder marriage by any penal laws, nor any that did it in such hypocrisy under a pretence of piety, when he who runs may read that they do it to maintain the grandeur of their ecclesiastical hierarchy. How applicable therefore soever this might be to the Ebionites, and those that followed Saturninus and Marcion, and the Encratitae, (which the papists contend for), it certainly more nearly concerns the papists themselves, who more universally forbade them to their clergy, and were the first that had a power to hinder them, and fell into much later times than any of the others.
And commanding to abstain from meats; to abstain from some meats; and this also they should teach in hypocrisy, i.e. under a pretence of piety. This every whit as well agrees to the Romish synagogue as the other, whose prohibitions of flesh are sufficiently known. Mr. Mede is very confident that the Holy Ghost doth here describe the popish monks, and those that gave rules to those orders.
Which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving; which meats, as well as other, God hath created for the use of man, giving him a liberty to kill and eat, only we ought to receive them with thanksgiving; which confirmeth our religious custom both of begging a blessing upon our meat before we eat, and returning thanks to God when we have eaten, for which also we have our Saviours example, Mat 14:19; 15:36.
Of them which believe and know the truth: not that such as believe not and are ignorant of the truth may not eat, but they have not so good and comfortable a right to the creatures as believers, Tit 1:15; and they know and understand their liberty to eat of those things, which others deprive themselves of by their superstitious opinions and constitutions.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
3. Sensuality leads to falsespiritualism. Their own inward impurity is reflected in their eyes inthe world without them, and hence their asceticism (Tit 1:14;Tit 1:15) [WIESINGER].By a spurious spiritualism (2Ti2:18), which made moral perfection consist in abstinence fromoutward things, they pretended to attain to a higher perfection. Mt19:10-12 (compare 1Co 7:8;1Co 7:26; 1Co 7:38)gave a seeming handle to their “forbidding marriage”(contrast 1Ti 5:14); and theOld Testament distinction as to clean and unclean, gave a pretext forteaching to “abstain from meats” (compare Col 2:16;Col 2:17; Col 2:20-23).As these Judaizing Gnostics combined the harlot or apostate OldTestament Church with the beast (Re17:3), or Gnostic spiritualizing anti-Christianity, so Rome’sJudaizing elements (1Ti 4:3)shall ultimately be combined with the open worldly-wiseanti-Christianity of the false prophet or beast (1Ti 6:20;1Ti 6:21; Col 2:8;1Jn 4:1-3; Rev 13:12-15).Austerity gained for them a show of sanctity while preaching falsedoctrine (Col 2:23). EUSEBIUS[Ecclesiastical History, 4.29] quotes from IRENUS[1.28] a statement that Saturninus, Marcion, and the Encratitespreached abstinence from marriage and animal meats. Paulprophetically warns against such notions, the seeds of which alreadywere being sown (1Ti 6:20;2Ti 2:17; 2Ti 2:18).
to be receivedGreek,“to be partaken of.”
of themliterally,(created and designed) “for them,” Though all(even the unbelieving, Psa 104:14;Mat 5:45) are partakers in thesefoods created by God, “they which believe” alone fulfilGod’s design in creation by partaking of them with thanksgiving;as opposed to those who abstain from them, or in partaking ofthem, do not do so with thanksgiving. The unbelieving have notthe designed use of such foods by reason of their “consciencebeing defiled” (Tit 1:15).The children of God alone “inherit the earth”; forobedience is the necessary qualification (as it was in the originalgrant of the earth to Adam), which they alone possess.
and know thetruthexplanatory and defining who are “they whichbelieve.” Translate as Greek, “and have fullknowledge of the truth” (see on Php1:9). Thus he contradicts the assumption of superior knowledgeand higher moral perfection, put forward by the heretics, on theground of their abstinence from marriage and meats. “The truth“stands in opposition to their “lies” (1Ti4:2).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Forbidding to marry,…. Which points out not the Encratites, Montanists, and Manichees, who spoke against marriage; but the Papists, who forbid it to their priests under a pretence of purity and holiness, and at the same time allow them to live in all manner of debauchery and uncleanness; for these are the persons that forbid marriage in an authoritative way, and in hypocrisy: for that phrase is to be joined to all the sentences that follow it; as through the hypocrisy of those whose consciences are seared; and through the hypocrisy of those that forbid marriage to their priests, this being, by the common people, taken as an instance of great purity and holiness, and hereby they are drawn into the deception; as well as also through the hypocrisy of those that command
to abstain from meats: not from some certain meats forbidden by the law of Moses, as did some judaizing Christians; but from all meats at some certain season of the year, as at what they call the Quadragesima or Lent, and at some days in the week, as Wednesdays and Fridays; and this all under an hypocritical pretence of holiness, and temperance, and keeping under the body, and of mortification; when they are the greatest pamperers of their bodies, and indulge themselves in all manner of sensuality: the evil of this is exposed by the apostle, as follows,
which God hath created; and therefore must be good, and ought not to be abstained from: and besides, the end of his creation of them is,
to be received: to be taken, and used, and eaten; and therefore it is wicked to command men to abstain from them, and evil in those that do it: and the manner in which they should be received is
with thanksgiving; since they are the creatures of God, and useful to men, and men are unworthy of them, having forfeited them by sin; and since they are the bounties of Providence, and a free use of them is allowed; so far then should men be from abstaining from them, that they ought to take them, and use them with all thankfulness: and especially this should be done
of them which believe and know the truth: that is, who believe in Christ, and know the truth of the Gospel, which frees from every yoke of bondage, and from the burdensome rites, ceremonies, and inventions of men; for these have the good creatures as the fruits of divine love, through Christ the Mediator, and as blessings indeed; and who have the best right, claim, and title to them through Christ, being in him heirs of the world, and for whose sake all things are; and therefore these, as they know how to use them, and not abuse them, are to receive them at the hands of God, with thanksgiving, and not put them away, or abstain from them under a pretence of religion and holiness.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Forbidding to marry ( ). Present active participle of common verb , to hinder, genitive case agreeing with . See Col 2:16; Col 2:21, where Paul condemns the ascetic practices of the Gnostics. The Essenes, Therapeutae and other oriental sects forbade marriage. In 1Co 7 Paul does not condemn marriage.
To abstain from meats ( ). Infinitive dependent, not on , but on the positive idea (implied, not expressed). Ablative case of after (present direct middle, to hold oneself away from). See 1Tim 4:1; 1Tim 4:14; 1Tim 4:15 for disputes about “meats offered to idols” and Co 1:22f. for the Gnostic asceticism.
Which God created ( ). First active indicative of (Co 1:16). Cf. 1Co 10:25.
To be received ( ). “For reception.” Old word, only here in N.T.
By them that believe and know ( ). Dative case, “for the believers and those who (one article unites closely) have known fully” (perfect active participle of ), a Pauline use of the word (Col 1:6).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Forbidding to marry and commanding to abstain from meats [ , ] . Kwluein, properly to hinder or check. Apecesqai to hold one’s self off. In Paul, 1Th 4:3; 1Th 5:22; Phl 1:15. Commanding is not expressed, but is implied in forbidding.; “Bidding not to marry and (bidding) to abstain from meats.” The ascetic tendencies indicated by these prohibitions developed earlier than these Epistles among the Essenes, an aseetic Jewish brotherhood on the shores of the Dead Sea, who repudiated marriage except as a necessity for preserving the race, and allowed it only under protest and under stringent regulations. They also abstained strictly from wine and animal food. This sect was in existence in the lifetime of our Lord. strong traces of its influence appear in the heresy assailed in Paul ‘s Epistle to the Colossians. The Christian body received large accessions from it after the destruction of Jerusalem (70 A. D.). The prohibitions above named were imposed by the later Gnosticism of the second century. Hath created [] . A common Pauline word. Only here in the Pastorals.
To be received [ ] . Lit. for participation. N. T.. o LXX lt occurs in Plato and Aristotle.
Of them which believe and know the truth [ ] . The dative depends on created for participation, and should be rendered; “for them which believe,” etc., marking those for whom the food was created. The A. V. misses this by the rendering to be received of (by). Pistoiv and ejpegknwkosi do not denote two classes, but one. Those who believe are described as those who have full knowledge of the truth.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Forbidding to marry” (koluonton gamein) “Forbidding or commanding (not) to marry,” such as spurious popery issues, false asceticism, without Bible sanction. Marriage is honorable in all for propagation of the human race and harmony in sex life, Heb 13:4; Pro 5:18-23.
2) “And commanding them to abstain from meats” (apechesthai bromaton) “Arid commanding or bidding to abstain from food.” Demon and seducing spirits ignore the teachings of Christ or distort them. The eating or not eating of meats, restricted under the Law of Moses, has no law jurisdiction over Christians today, Col 2:16; Col 2:21-22; 1Co 10:25.
3) “Which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving” (ha ho theos ektisen eis metalempesin meta eucharistias) “Which the God created for partaking (according to a need) with gratitude.” Both partaking of food and the sanctity of marriage are of Divine authority for the good of humanity.
4) “Of them which believe and know the truth.” (tois pistois kai epegnokosi ten aletheian) “By the believers, even those having fully known the truth;” Paul vindicated the use of all (not just some) of God’s creatures, so far as they are not injurious, for food for mankind, as originally created, Gen 1:31. Both food and marriage, as sanctioned in the Scriptures, are to be accepted with gratitude by believers who comprehend Gospel truth in spite of false teachers, Rom 14:6; Eph 5:20.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
3 Forbidding to marry. Having described the class, he next mentions two instances, (71) namely, the prohibition of marriage and of some kinds of food. They arise from that hypocrisy which, having forsaken true holiness, seeks something else for the purpose of concealment and disguise; for they who do not keep from ambition, covetousness, hatred, cruelty, and such like, endeavor to obtain a righteousness by abstaining from those things which God has left at large. Why are consciences burdened by those laws, but because perfection is sought in something different from the law of God? This is not done but by hypocrites, who, in order that they may with impunity transgress that righteousness of the heart which the law requires, endeavor to conceal their inward wickedness by those outward observances as veils with which they cover themselves.
This was a distinct threatening of danger, so that it was not difficult for men to guard against it, at least if they had lent their ears to the Holy Spirit, when he gave so express a warning. Yet we see that the darkness of Satan generally prevailed, so that the clear light of this striking and memorable prediction was of no avail. Not long after the death of the apostle, arose Encratites, (who took their name from continence,) Tatianists, (72) Catharists, Montanus with his sect, and at length Manichaeans, who had extreme aversion to marriage and the eating of flesh, and condemned them as profane things. Although they were disowned by the Church, on account of their haughtiness, in wishing to subject others to their opinions, yet it is evident that those who opposed them yielded to their error more than was proper. It was not intended by those of whom I am now speaking to impose a law on Christians; but yet they attached greater weight than they ought to have done to superstitious observances, such as abstaining from marriage, and not tasting flesh.
Such is the disposition of the world, always dreaming that God ought to be worshipped in a carnal manner, as if God were carnal. Matters becoming gradually worse, this tyranny was established, that it should not be lawful for priests or monks to enter into the married state, and that no person should dare to taste flesh on certain days. Not unjustly, therefore, do we maintain that this prediction was uttered against the Papists, since celibacy and abstinence from certain kinds of food are enjoined by them more strictly than any commandment of God. They think that they escape by an ingenious artifice, when they torture Paul’s words to direct them against Tatianists or Manichaeans, or such like; as if the Tatianists had not the same means of escape open to them by throwing back the censure of Paul on the Cataphrygians, and on Montanus the author of that sect; or as if the Cataphrygians had it not in their power to bring forward the Encratites, in their room, as the guilty parties. But Paul does not here speak of persons, but of the thing itself; and, therefore although a hundred different sects be brought forward, all of which are charged with the same hypocrisy in forbidding some kinds of food, they shall all incur the same condemnation.
Hence it follows, that to no purpose do the Papists point to the ancient heretics, as if they alone were censured; we must always see if they are not guilty in the same manner. They object, that they do not resemble the Encratites and Manichaens, because they do not absolutely forbid the use of marriage and of flesh, but only on certain days constrain to abstinence from flesh, and make the vow of celibacy compulsory on none but monks and priests and nuns. But this excuse also is excessively frivolous; for, first, they nevertheless make holiness to consist in these things; next, they set up a false and spurious worship of God; and lastly, they bind consciences by a necessity from which they ought to have been free.
In the fifth book of Eusebius, there is a fragment taken out of the writings of Apollonius, in which, among other things, he reproaches Montanus with being the first that dissolved marriage, and laid down laws for fasting. He does not say, that Montanus absolutely prohibited marriage or certain kinds of food. It is enough if he lay a religious obligation on the consciences, and command men to worship God by observing those things; for the prohibition of things that are indifferent, whether it be general or special, is always a diabolical tyranny. That this is true in regard to certain kinds of food will appear more clearly from the next clause,
Which God created. It is proper to observe the reason, that, in the use of various kinds of food, we ought to be satisfied with the liberty which God has granted to us; because He created them for this purpose. It yields inconceivable joy to all the godly, when they know that all the kinds of food which they eat are put into their hands by the Lord, so that the use of them is pure and lawful. What insolence is it in men to take away what God bestows! Did they create food? Can they make void the creation of God? Let it always be remembered by us, that he who created the food, gave us also the free use of it, which it is vain for men to attempt to hinder.
To be received with Thanksgiving God created food to be received; that is, that we may enjoy it. This end can ever be set aside by human authority. He adds, with thanksgiving; because we can never render to God any recompense for his kindness but a testimony of gratitude. And thus he holds up to greater abhorrence those wicked lawgivers who, by new and hasty enactments, hinder the sacrifice of praise which God especially requires us to offer to him. Now, there can be no thanksgiving without sobriety and temperance; for the kindness of God is not truly acknowledged by him who wickedly abuses it.
By believers What then? Does not God make his sun to rise daily on the good and the bad? (Mat 5:45.) Does not the earth, by his command, yield bread to the wicked? Are not the very worst of men fed by his blessing? When David says,
“
He causeth the herb to grow for the service of men, that he may bring forth food out of the earth,” (Psa 104:14)
the kindness which he describes is universal. I reply, Paul speaks here of the lawful use, of which we are assured before God. Wicked men are in no degree partakers of it, on account of their impure conscience, which, as is said,
“
defileth all things.” (Tit 1:15,)
And indeed, properly speaking, God has appointed to his children alone the whole world and all that is in the world. For this reason, they are also called the heirs of the world; for at the beginning Adam was appointed to be lord of all, on this condition, that he should continue in obedience to God. Accordingly, his rebellion against God deprived of the right, which had been bestowed on him, not only himself but his posterity. And since all things are subject to Christ, we are fully restored by His mediation, and that through faith; and therefore all that unbelievers enjoy may be regarded as the property of others, which they rob or steal.
And by those that know the truth In this clause he defines who they are whom he calls “believers,” namely, those that have a knowledge of sound doctrine; for there is no faith but from the word of God; in order that we may not falsely think, as the Papists imagine, that faith is a confused opinion.
(71) “ Apres avoir mis le terme general, a scavoir Doctrines des diables, et puis une espece, a seavoir hypoerisie; maintenant ail met deux poinets par. tieuliers de ceste hypocrisies.” — “After having employed the general term, namely, Doctrines of devils, and next mentioned one class, namely, hypocrisy, he mentions two individual instances of that hypocrisy.”
(72) “Tatian, by birth an Assyrian, and a disciple of Justin Martyr, had a great number of followers, who were, after him, called Tatianists, but were nevertheless more frequently distinguished from other sects by names relative to the austerity of their manners. For, as they rejected with a sort of horror all the comforts and conveniences of life, and abstained from wine with such a rigorous obstinacy as to use nothing but water even at the celebration of the Lord’s Supper; as they macerated their bodies by continual fastings, and lived a severe life of celibacy and abstinence; so they were called Encratites, (temperate,) Hydroparastates, (drinkers of water,) and Apotaetites, (renouncers.)” — Moshezn’s Eccl. History.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(3) Forbidding to marry.This strange and unnatural counsel of perfection, St. Paul, thinking and writing in the Spirit, looked forward to as a perilous delusion which would, as time went on, grow into the impious dogma of certain of the great Gnostic schools. This teaching was probably, even in those early days, creeping into the churches. The Jewish sects of Essenes and Therapeut had already taught that abstinence from marriage was meritorious. Men belonging to these sects doubtless were to be found in every populous centre where Jews congregated, and it was always in these centres of Judaism that Christianity at first found a home. St. Paul, however, saw no reason to dwell on this point at any length; the gross absurdity of such a counsel as a rule of life was too apparent; it was a plain contradiction of the order of Divine Providence. But the next question which presented itself in the teaching of these false ascetics, as we shall see, required more careful handling.
And commanding to abstain from meats.Once more we must look to those famous Jewish religious communities of Egypt (the Essenes and Therapeut), the precursors of the great monastic systems of Christianity, as the home whence these perverted ascetic tendencies issued. These precepts too, like the counsel respecting marriage, were adopted in after years by several of the principal Gnostic sects; and it was especially those times St. Paul looked on to, although, no doubt, the seeds of their false asceticism had already been sown broadcast in the principal Christian congregations.
It has been asked why, in these solemn warnings against a false asceticism which St. Paul foresaw might and would be substituted for a really earnest Godfearing life, the question of celibacy was dismissed with one short sentence, while the apparently less-important question of abstaining from particular kinds of food was discussed with some detail. The reason is easily discoverable. The counsel to abstain from marriage was a strange and unnatural suggestion, one contrary to the plain scheme of creation. Any teaching which taught that the celibates life was a life peculiarly pleasing to God would, at the same time, throw a slur upon all home and family life, and the Apostle felt that mens ordinary common sense would soon relegate any such strange teaching to obscurity; but with the question of abstaining from meatsthat was connected with the precepts of the Mosaic law, which dealt at some length (probably from reasons connected with the public health) with these restrictions in the matter of meats.
These false teachers, while they urged such abstinence as a likely way to win Gods favour, would probably base, or at all events support, their arguments by reference to certain portions of the Mosaic law, rightly understood or wrongly understood.
These points, then, might have risen into the dignity of a controverted question between the (Pauline) Gentile and the Jewish congregations. So St. Paul at once removed it to a higher platform. All food was from the hand of one Makernothing, then, could really be considered common or unclean without throwing a slur upon the All-Creator.
Which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving.Gods primeval intention is thus sharply contrasted with mens arbitrary restrictions. This divine intention is repeated with still greater emphasis in 1Ti. 4:4.
Of them which believe and know the truth.The true Gnostics, in St. Pauls eyes, were not those self-sufficient men who were out of their own corrupt imagination devising these strange and unnatural methods of pleasing God, but those holy, humble men of heart who believed on His crucified Son, and knew the truth of the glorious gospel.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
3. Some of their particular tenets are now specified. They present the ascetic side of Gnosticism as distinguished in our note on 2Th 2:7. Jude and John deal with the licentious side. Hence Paul imputes to the leaders not so much sins of the flesh, as sins of the spirit.
Their sin consisted in an apostasy from the Christian faith, and the formation of a spiritual influence, power, and ultimate despotism, based upon the diffusion of an austere and oppressive superstition among the people.
Forbidding to marry From an ascetic view of the sinfulness of matter an exaggerated estimate of a virgin life was propagated. This same view among the Christian Gnostic heretics rejected the real manifestation of Christ in the flesh, maintaining that his was a body in appearance only, and condemned by 1Jn 4:3, as antichrist. A matter-condemning celibacy was antichrist, because it condemned the incarnation. This doctrine of the angelic nature of a celibate life deeply infected the Church. It tinges the writings of the earliest post-apostolic fathers, the coloring growing intenser until monasteries and nunneries covered the face of Christendom. These became the organized support of the absolute despotism of the Roman conclave. The last display of this superstitious reverence for virgin life was the enforcement as an article of faith in our own day of the dogma of the immaculate conception of the blessed virgin, followed by the proclamation of the infallibility of the pope. Paul might well say, even in his own day, “The mystery of iniquity doth already work,” (2Th 2:7😉 and John as significantly assert that the elemental “antichrists” were already “many” in existence. 1Jn 2:18.
Abstain from meats Note on Rom 14:1-6.
Created to be received These meats, matter though they be, are not concrete and solid lumps of sin. They were not brought into existence by the principle of evil; nor are they the eternal evil principle itself, opposed to the true God. They are created by the true God, to be both the proper gratification of our created appetite and the proper support of our bodily life.
Received Of them which believe This does not mean, as Alford, quoting Calvin, maintains, that the world and its gratifications are created for believers alone; but that they are rightfully used by true believers when thankfully used. Christian faith enjoins the enjoyment sweetened by the gratitude.
Know the truth The truth of 1Ti 3:16, that matter and flesh are honoured by the incarnation.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from certain types of food, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.’
Here we get to the heart of their false teaching. They forbid marriage and command men to abstain from certain foods. This may well be connected with Judaisers. The abstention from certain foods, in accordance with Leviticus 11 was important to them, while the forbidding of marriage was certainly known among the Essenes, the aim in both cases being to maintain ritual purity. In the Old Testament sexual relations were often seen as causing ‘uncleanness’ (Exo 19:15; Lev 15:16-18; 1Sa 21:4-5).
The majority, however, relate these abstentions to an early form of Gnosticism where the purpose of the abstention was to avoid fleshly things so as not to tarnish the new ‘spiritual’ experience that had been enjoyed through gaining certain kinds of religious ‘knowledge’ that in their view had brought them nearer to God as pure spirit. This would tie in with the emphasis on the positive participation by Christians in eating earthly creatures, and possibly the teaching prevalent at Colossae (see Col 2:16-18 which also, however, suggests Jewish connections). By partaking in fleshly things with gratitude to God they are thereby demonstrating the falseness of this incipient, possibly Jewish, Gnosticism. However, we could equally say that he was demonstrating the falseness of a certain kind of Judaism. Whichever way it is Paul decries it. He declares that God provided these physical things to be received with thanksgiving. There is nothing wrong in them, or even slightly shady. Rather they are good and to be received with gratitude from God. Any idea that flesh in itself is bad and spirit is good is therefore rejected. Compare how in 1Ti 3:16 Jesus came in flesh and was justified in spirit. Spirit and natural flesh are both therefore to be seen as parts of the Christian experience.
‘By those who believe and know the truth.’ He is not by this excluding unbelievers from partaking of what God has provided, but simply bringing out the right attitude and therefore subsequent blessing of the true people of God. The difference being that the unbelievers do not genuinely receive it from God with thanksgiving, because their attitudes of heart are wrong, while those who believe do. They recognise that it is the provision of their Heavenly Father (Mat 6:32).
We learn elsewhere that some were teaching that the resurrection was past already (2Ti 2:18). Thus they probably considered that some kind of mystical experience, possibly as resulting from esoteric knowledge, had made them spiritually out of this world (misinterpreting Paul’s teaching in Ephesians). Thus like the angels they now neither married nor gave in marriage, and only ate angel food, whatever they considered that to be.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
1Ti 4:3. Forbidding to marry, &c. VI. This is a farther character of the promoters of this apostacy: the same hypocritical liars, who would promote the worship of demons, would also prohibit lawful marriage. The monks were the first who brought a single life into repute: they were the first also who revived and promoted the worship of demons. One of the primary and most essential laws and constitutions of all monks is, the profession of a single life; and it is equally clear that the monks had the principal share in promoting the worship of the dead. The monks then were the principal promoters of the worship of the dead in former times; and who are the great patrons and advocates of the same worship now? Are not their legitimate successors and descendants, the monks, and priests, and bishops, of the church of Rome? And do not they also profess and recommend a single life, as well asthe worship of saints and angels? Thus have the worship of demons, and the prohibition of marriage, constantly gone hand in hand together; and as they who maintain the one, maintain the other, so it is no less remarkable, that they who disclaim the one, disclaim the other. VII. The last mark and character of these men is, commanding to abstain from meats, &c. The same lying hypocrites, who would promote the worship of demons; would not onlyprohibit lawful marriage, but likewiseimpose unnecessary abstinence from meats. And these two, as indeed it is fit they should, usually go together as constituent parts of the same hypocrisy. It is as much the law of all monks to abstain from meats, as from marriage. Some never eat any flesh; others only certain kinds on certain days. Frequent fasts are the rule and boast of their orders. So lived the monks of the ancient church; so live, with less strictness, perhaps, but with greater ostentation, the monks and friars of the church of Rome; and these have been the principal propagators and defenders of the worship of the dead, both in former and in latter times. The worship of thedead, is indeed so monstrously absurd, as well as impious, that there was hardly any probability of its ever prevailing in the world, but by hypocrisy and lies: but that these particular sorts of hypocrisy,celibacy, under pretence of chastity,and abstinence, under pretence of devotion,should be employed for this purpose, the Spirit of God alone could foresee and foretell. There is no necessary connection between the worship of the dead, and forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats; and yet it is certain, that the great advocates of this worship have, by their pretended purity and mortification, procured the greater reverence to their persons, and the readier reception to their doctrines; but this idle, popish, monkish abstinence, is as unworthy of a Christian, as it is unnatural to a man; it is perverting the purpose of nature, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving by believers, and them who know the truth. The apostle, therefore, approves and sanctifies the religious custom of blessing God at our meals; as our Saviour, when he was to distribute the loaves and the fishes, looked up to heaven, and blessed, and brake it: and what can be said of those, who have their tables spread with the most plentiful gifts of God, and yet constantly sit down, and rise up again, without suffering so much as one thought of the Giver to intrude upon them? It is but a thought, it is but a glimpse of devotion; and can they, who refuse even that, be thought to believe or know the truth? Man is free to partake of all the good creatures of God; but thanksgiving is the necessary condition. See 1Ti 4:4-5. The apostle proceeds to say, that it is the duty of the ministers of the gospel to press and inculcate these things, 1Ti 4:6. But all that is preached up of such abstinence and mortification as above specified, with all the legends of the saints, were no better than profane and old wives’ fables,like Rabbinical dreams, and traditions. Godliness is the only thing which will truly avail us here and hereafter, 1Ti 4:7-8.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
1Ti 4:3 . Further description of the heretics.
] Since even the Essenes and Therapeutae made abstinence from marriage a necessary condition of a holy life, there is no ground whatever for supposing that this description proves the heretics to have been followers of the later Christian gnostics (especially of Marcion, according to Baur).
] similar construction in 1Ti 2:12 ; 1Co 14:34 ; the infinitive is dependent on the implied in (= ); see Winer, p. 578 [E. T. p. 777]; Buttmann, p. 343. Isidor of Pelusium unnecessarily corrects into . In the Epistle to the Romans (chap. 14) the apostle speaks of weak brethren’s anxiety in regard to the enjoyment of many meats, and the heretics combated in the Epistle to the Colossians are distinctly described as forbidding the enjoyment of certain meats; but neither here nor in these passages is it said what kinds of meat were forbidden, nor why (comp. also Tit 1:14-15 ). It is, however, not improbable if we follow the analogy of later gnostics that animal food, and perhaps also wine (Col 2:6 : ), are specially meant. There is no indication that the prohibition was founded on gnostic dualism (van Oosterzee); it is more probable that the false asceticism of the heretics was connected with the Mosaic distinction between clean and unclean (comp. Tit 1:15 ); so also Wiesinger. [155]
In the Epistle to the Colossians (Col 2:22 ) the apostle indicates the perversity of such a prohibition in a brief relative clause; and so also here.
. . .] Different answers have been given to the question why only the second, and not also the first error is refuted. It may have been that the heretics did not make abstinence from marriage, as they made abstinence from certain meats, a command laid on all. It may have been, too, “that the prohibition to marry stood in manifest contradiction with the divine order of creation, whereas the prohibition of certain meats might appear less objectionable because of its analogy with the prohibition in the law of Moses” (Hofmann). Besides, the apostle has already indicated in 1Ti 2:15 the opposition of the gospel to this prohibition to marry.
The word occurs only here, though in Act 27:33 we find .
The apostle does not content himself with saying that God made food to be enjoyed, but he shows at the same time how God meant it to be enjoyed, viz.: (comp. on this 1Co 10:31 ). He then limits the general thought by a special reference to believers: , as those in whom the purpose of creation is fulfilled, solis filiis suis Deus totum mundum et quicquid in mundo est destinavit, qua ratione etiam vocantur mundi heredes (Calvin). The apostle’s thought is distorted by adding “also” before , as is done by some expositors.
Heydenreich rightly says that the words are equivalent to . . Hofmann unjustifiably takes exception to this, and in spite of beginning a new sentence seeks to connect not with what goes before, but with what follows (!). The added words: . . ., show most clearly the perverse conduct of the heretics in forbidding the enjoyment, and to believers of all people. are “believers,” and not “those convinced that enjoyment is permitted to them;” . . . also does not denote a special class of the : “the Christians who have come to the true gnosis” (as Heydenreich thinks probable), but the themselves, as those who, in contrast to the heretics, have recognised the truth, i.e. the divine truth. is epexegetical; comp. 1Ti 2:4 .
[155] Hofmann, with no good reason, declares, on the other hand, that attention is directed here to the Essenes and Therapeutae, and to the weak Christians mentioned in the Epistle to the Romans, as well as to the heretics at Colosse.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
Ver. 3. Forbidding to marry ] Papists forbid some to marry at any time, as the clergy; all, at some times, and that not as a precept of convenience, but necessity and holiness. In Anselm’s time, cursed sodomitry and adultery passed free without punishment, where godly matrimony could find no mercy. The cardinal of Cremona, after his stout replying in the Council of London against the married estate of priests, was shamefully taken the night following with a notable harlot. They hold that it is far better for a priest to keep many whores than to have a wife. This, say they, is the heresy of the Nicolaitans.
To abstain from meats ] As the Papists superstitiously do upon certain days, when to eat an egg is punished with imprisonment. (Schol. in Epist. ad Episc. Basil.) Qui autem totam diem Dominicam vacat temulentiae, scortis, et aleae, audit bellus homo, saith Erasmus: But he that spends the whole Lord’s day in drinking, dicing, and drabbing, is let go for a good fellow.
Which God hath created ] He made the grass before he made the beasts, and the beasts before man, that all might have food convenient for them.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
1Ti 4:3 . : Spurious asceticism, in this and other departments of life, characterised the Essenes (Joseph. Bell. Jud . ii. 8, 2) and the Therapeutae (Philo Vit. Contempl . 4), and all the other false spiritualists of the East; so that this feature does not supply a safe ground for fixing the date of the epistle. At the same time, it is not likely that this particular heresy was present to St. Paul’s mind when he was writing 1Co 7:25-40 ; see especially 38, ; but similar views are condemned in Col., see especially Col 2:16 ; Col 2:21-22 . See also Heb 13:4 . St. Paul had come to realise how tyrannous the weak brother could be; and he had become less tolerant of him.
: The positive , commanding , must be supplied from the negative , commanding not = .
[265] . [266] . [267] . Vulg. preserve the awkwardness of the Greek, prohibentium nubere, abstinere a cibis . But Faustus read abstinentes , and Origen int. et abstinentes se a cibis . Epiphanius inserts after ., and Isidore inserts before ., which was also suggested by Bentley. Theophylact inserts similarly . Hort conjectures that is a primitive corruption for or . He maintains that “no Greek usage will justify or explain this combination of two infinitives, adverse to each other in the tenor of their sense, under the one verb ; and their juxtaposition without a conjunction in a sentence of this kind is at least strange”. Blass, however ( Grammar , p. 291) alleges as a parallel [ sc . ] from Lucian, Charon , 2. Another instance of zeugma, though not so startling as this, is in 1Ti 2:12 , . See also 1Co 10:24 ; 1Co 14:34 (T.R.). For , as used in this connexion, see reff.
[265] The Latin text of Codex Claromontanus (sc. vi.), a Grco-Latin MS. at Paris, edited by Tischendorf in 1852.
[266] The Latin version of Codex Augiensis (sc. ix.), a Grco-Latin MS., at Trinity College, Cambridge, edited by Scrivener in 1859. Its presents the Vulgate text with some modifications.
[267] The Latin text of Codex Boernerianus (sc. ix.), a Grco-Latin MS., at Dresden, edited by Matthi in 1791. Written by an Irish scribe, it once formed part of the same volume as Codex Sangallensis ( ) of the Gospels.
, . . .: It has been asked why St. Paul does not justify by specific reasons the use of marriage, as he does the use of food. The answer seems to be that the same general argument applies to both. The final cause of both is the same, i.e. , to keep the race alive; and man is not entitled to place restrictions on the use of either, other than those which can be shown to be in accordance with God’s law.
is one complex conception. This expresses the ideal use, truly dignified and human, of food. See Rom 14:6 , , ; and 1Co 10:30 , , ; St. Paul of course does not mean that believers only are intended by God to partake of food. His argument is an fortiori one. “Those that believe,” etc., are certainly included in God’s intention. He who makes His sun to rise on the evil is certainly well pleased to make it rise on the good.
Again, St. Paul does not merely desire to vindicate the use of some of God’s creatures for them that believe, but the use of all of God’s creatures, so far as they are not physically injurious. “God saw every thing that he had made, and behold, it was very good,” (Gen 1:31 ).
For the association of compare the phrase , Act 2:46 , and reff. on 2Ti 2:6 .
: dat. commodi , as in Tit 1:15 , where see note.
means, as elsewhere in these epistles, the Gospel truth in general, not the truth of the following statement, , . . .
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Forbidding to marry. This has been taken as indicating the Church of Rome, but that church only enjoins the celibacy of priests and monks and nuns. Spiritism, or the teaching of demons, enjoins being united only to the “spiritual affinity” and has wrecked many homes.
abstain. Greek. apechomoi. See Act 16:20.
meats = efoods. Spiritist teaching is that animal food is unfavourable to the development of mediumistic power. The permission of Gen 9:3 is significant, coming immediately after the outbreak of 1Ti 6:1-4.
God. App-98.
hath. Omit.
to be received = for (Greek. eis) reception. Greek. metalepsis, Only here.
with. App-104.
thanksgiving. See 1Ti 2:1.
of, &c, = by believers. App-150.
know = have (fully) known. App-132.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
1Ti 4:3. , , forbidding to marry-to abstain from meats) The hypocritical appearance of false doctrines, very austere and plausible, which gains a show for all the rest of their dogmas (giving colour to them in the eyes of the dupes), is here expressed: comp. Col 2:23. Explain the sense by analysis thus, commanding, not to marry, to abstain from meats. is the same as I command, that not, not to. To marry and to abstain are construed with commanding; the negative belongs only to the expression, to marry. Pricus has pointed out examples of this Zeugma, of which examples that of Chrysostom corresponds most nearly to the present instance: , , , I mention these things, not forbidding you to take care, but desiring you to do this only in due measure. Paul refutes the more specious error respecting meats. He considers it enough here merely to mention that respecting marriage (unless the , which, that follows, is to be referred to this also), and he refutes it also below, ch. 1Ti 5:14.-, meats) They shall not forbid all kinds of meats (therefore the article is not added); for who would listen to such prohibitions? therefore it is only some kinds that they forbid. Also it is implied here, that he who forbids even one kind does a wrong to his Creator and to believers. The old heresies are chiefly denoted; but their remains, however, have come down to those who pride themselves on antiquity.-) the Dative, as the Hebrew , signifies, so far as concerns believers. For God hath created meats, even for those who are without faith and do not give thanks. Paul turns away from them who are without faith and the knowledge of the truth, and leaves them, as it were, to themselves; he declares that he is speaking of believers.- , to them who believe and have known) The words are synonymous. The second synonym, knowing the truth, gives occasion for presently declaring the truth, , …, and forms a more express antithesis to lying, , which is contained in , 1Ti 4:2.- , the truth) This is explained in the following verse.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
1Ti 4:3
forbidding to marry,-Some of the errors into which they lead men are here enumerated. Now and then men may be found like. Paul who can live lives of virtue and purity without marriage and develop themselves more faithfully in the service of the gospel; but usually to hinder a man from marriage is to lead to a life of sin and uncleanness. The universality of marriage is an indication of a high state of virtue and civilization.
and commanding to abstain from meats, which God created to be received with thanksgiving-God created meats for man and they will administer to his good if they are received with thanksgiving.
by them that believe and know the truth.-By those who understand how properly to use them.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Forbidding: Dan 11:37, 1Co 7:28, 1Co 7:36-39, Heb 13:4
to abstain: Rom 14:3, Rom 14:17, 1Co 8:8, Col 2:20-23, Heb 13:9
which: Gen 1:29, Gen 1:30, Gen 9:3, Ecc 5:18, Act 10:13-15, 1Co 6:13
with: 1Ti 4:4, 1Sa 9:13, Mat 14:19, Mat 15:36, Luk 24:30, Joh 6:23, Act 27:35, Rom 14:6, 1Co 10:30, 1Co 10:31, Col 3:17
believe: 1Ti 2:4, Joh 8:31, Joh 8:32, 2Th 2:13, 2Th 2:14
Reciprocal: Gen 1:28 – General Ecc 7:16 – Be not Ecc 8:15 – Then I Joe 2:26 – and praise Zec 14:21 – every Mat 8:14 – wife’s Mat 19:10 – General Mar 7:15 – nothing Mar 8:6 – gave thanks Act 10:15 – What Rom 14:20 – All 1Co 9:5 – to lead Gal 2:14 – the truth Col 2:16 – in meat Col 2:21 – General Col 2:23 – a show 1Ti 3:2 – the husband 1Ti 4:5 – it 1Ti 5:11 – they will 1Ti 5:14 – the younger Tit 1:15 – the pure Rev 14:4 – for
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1Ti 4:3. Forbidding to marry. This is a specific prediction of the doctrine of Rome, for no one of the clergy of that institution, from the pope down to the ordinary priest is permitted to marry. It makes no difference to them that Paul declares that “marriage is honorable in all” (Heb 13:4). The edict of the “man of sin” is of more weight to them than a declaration of an apostle. Abstain from meats. The last word may include anything that is used as food, but in this passage it refers to the flesh of animals. Even in our day the members of the church of Rome are told not to eat the flesh of animals on any Friday. They make an exception by permitting the use of fish on that day. Their inconsistency is proved by Paul’s statement in 1Co 15:39, that the bodies of fishes is flesh also. This is another one of their “lies in hypocrisy.” Paul declares that every creature that God made is good for food, and is so regarded by them which be-lieve and know the truth. This gives us the conclusion that the devotees of Rome do not believe the truth.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
1Ti 4:3. Forbidding to marry. The phenomenon taken by itself has been so common in all ascetic systems that it is not easy to identify the particular system to which St. Paul referred. Some of the Essene communities practised celibacy, and there were, as St. Pauls own teaching shows (1Co 7:25-35), reasons why many should prefer it. Here, however, the teachers condemned went beyond the acceptance of celibacy as the higher life, and forbade marriage. The nearest and earliest approach to this form of error was found in the teaching of Saturninus and Marcion, and the school of the Encratites which took its rise from them; and it is probable enough that the germs of this, as of other forms of Gnosticism (comp. Col 2:23), existed even in the Apostolic Age. The East has never emancipated itself from the feeling of the inherent impurity of matter, and of all acts that tended to perpetuate and reproduce its existence in new forms.
Commanding to abstain from meats. The word commanding is not in the Greek, but is supplied by a natural ellipsis from the previous prohibition. The word rendered meats is, as in Rom 14:15-18, 1Co 6:13, generic, but is probably used with special reference to animal food, abstinence from which has always been the mark of a false asceticism.
Hath created to be received. The statement strikes at the root of all Mankhan theories of creation. God has made these things, and pronounced them good; He created them not as temptations and stumbling-blocks, but for men to partake of.
With thanksgiving. There is no ground for thinking that the word () had as yet acquired the higher sense which it afterwards gained in liturgical phraseology, but it is not unlikely that St. Pauls thoughts travelled on to the logical conclusion from the dogma against which he was protesting, as afterwards in the case of the Encratites, and more recently, of some of the extreme advocates of total abstinence. Men were drifting to a position from which they looked even on the Supper of the Lord as common and unclean. To this thought we may, I believe, trace the increasing solemnity of language in 1Ti 4:5.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
1Ti 4:3. Forbidding to marry The same hypocritical liars, who should promote the worship of demons, should also prohibit lawful marriage. This false morality was very early introduced into the church, being taught first by the Encratites and Marcionites, and afterward by the Manicheans, who said marriage was the invention of the evil god; and who considered it as sinful to bring creatures into the world to be unhappy, and to be food for death. In process of time the monks embraced celibacy, and represented it as the highest pitch of sanctity. It is a thing universally known, that one of the primary and most essential laws and constitutions of all monks, whether solitary or associated, whether living in deserts or in convents, is the profession of a single life, to abstain from marriage themselves, and to discourage it all they can in others. It is equally certain that the monks had the principal share in promoting and propagating the worship of the dead; and either out of credulity, or for worse reasons, recommended it to the people with all the pomp and power of their eloquence in their homilies and orations. At length celibacy was recommended by the priests, and by the orthodox themselves, and more especially by the bishops of Rome, the great patrons of the worship of angels and saints. For they strictly enjoined their clergy, both regular and secular, to abstain from marriage. Thus the worship of demons and the prohibition of marriage, though naturally unconnected, have gone hand in hand in the church, as the Spirit here foretold. And commanding to abstain from meats The same lying hypocrites, who enjoined the worship of demons, would not only prohibit lawful marriage, but likewise impose unnecessary abstinence from meats. This part of the prophecy hath been exactly fulfilled; for it is as much the rule of the monks and nuns to abstain from meats as from marriage. Some never eat any flesh, others only of certain kinds, and on certain days. Frequent fasts are the rule, the boast of their order; and their carnal humility is their spiritual pride. So lived the monks of the ancient church; so live, with less strictness, perhaps, but with greater ostentation, the monks and friars of the Church of Rome: and these have been the principal propagators and defenders of the worship of the dead, both in former and in latter times. Here therefore the apostle hath pointed out two instances of the hypocrisy of the lying teachers, who should enjoin the worship of demons. Under the false pretence of holiness, they should recommend abstinence from marriage to the monks, friars, and nuns; and under the equally false pretence of devotion, they should enjoin abstinence from meats, to some men at all times, and to all men at some times. There is no necessary connection between the worship of demons and abstinence from marriage and meats. And yet it is certain that the great advocates of this worship have commanded both: and by this pretended purity and mortification have procured the greater reverence to their persons, and the readier reception of their doctrine: a proceeding this which the Spirit of God alone could have foreseen and foretold.
Which meats God hath created to be received with thanksgiving So that this Popish, monkish abstinence is as unworthy of a Christian, as it is unnatural to man. It is perverting the purpose of the Author of nature, and prohibiting the use of the creatures which he hath made, and given to be used of them who believe and obey the truth Here the apostle intimates that only true believers have a covenant right to the creatures of God, though others may have a providential right. By those, however, who know the truth, he may chiefly intend those who are instructed to place religion not in such indifferent things as abstaining from marriage, or from certain meats, but in things more truly excellent and worthy of God, and who know that all meats are now clean, and therefore may be used with a pure conscience, and with thanksgiving flowing therefrom. For every creature of God Fit for mans food; is good Lawful to be used, and nothing to be refused , to be rejected, or cast away, either from peevishness, or a fancy that it is unlawful; if it be received with thanksgiving Which is a necessary condition. For it is sanctified That is, under the gospel all meats are made lawful to us; by the word of God Allowing us to eat of every kind in moderation; and by prayer To God, that he would bless us in the use of it. Observe, reader, the children of God are to pray for the sanctification of all the creatures which they use, and to give thanks for them: and not only the Christians, but even the Jews, yea, the very heathen, used to consecrate their table by prayer and praise. What then, says Bishop Newton, can be said of those who have their tables spread with the most plentiful gifts of God, and yet constantly sit down and rise up again without suffering so much as one thought of the Giver to intrude upon them? Can such persons be reputed either to believe or know the truth?
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
ARGUMENT 10
EATING AND DRINKING
3. Forbidding to marry. Here is a prophetical allusion to popery and other prohibitions of Christian wedlock. Marriage is Gods institution, old as Eden, and lies at the bottom of Christian civilization, not only the source of all the untold bliss of the Christian home, but a breakwater against floods of sin, which engulf millions in hell. Hence, we should be careful how we forbid to marry, lest we fall under this condemnation, as well as the Romanists. The Savior is plain, permitting divorce for adultery, a breach of the matrimonial covenant. This is for the defense and benefit of the injured party. (Mat 5:32.)
Whosoever may marry the divorced woman
[E.V., is a wrong translation; it should read, Whosoever may marry the cast-off woman; i.e., cast-off without a divorce, and consequently still the wife of the cruel husband] commits adultery. If the woman had been legally divorced according to Scripture, it would be all right to marry her. This erroneous translation has led many astray. The balance of this verse, 4th and 5th, are on the meat question, which is so clear as to hardly need comment. Everything is good and nothing to be rejected, being received with thanksgiving, sanctified by the Word of God and by prayer. Certainly we have large liberties under the broad banner of the New Covenant. You can eat and drink anything you please in harmony with the moral and hygienic laws, the old ceremonial law of clean and unclean having fulfilled the period of symbolism, is now transferred to the spiritual man. Of course, all poisonsi.e., intoxicating drinks, opium, tobacco, etc.are to be rejected for moral and hygienic reasons. in the boundless department of edibles, which God, in his merciful providence, has provided, we must somewhat discriminate hygienically. E.g., the meats are all too heavy for my constitution; consequently, as a rule, I prudentially abstain especially from swine, though I do not Judaize. Do not get into legal bondage about anything. We live in a dispensation characteristic of large liberties. At the same time we should all live hygienically, for which no rule can be given, in view of the infinitesimal constitutional diversity peculiar to different persons. I am glad I do not know the taste of coffee, though I have rather a favorable opinion of it. But I find it masters some who drink it, so they are out of kilter without it. As I want to be always loaded and ready to shoot for God, I use no coffee nor tea. Use the good sense God has given you; live hygienically, do not Judaize nor run into legalism.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 3
Forbidding, &c.; that is, enjoining self-imposed penances and mortifications, as a mode of obtaining the favor of God. There has been, in all ages of the church, a great tendency to this error.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
1Ti 4:3 Forbidding to marry, [and commanding] to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
Well we know that Dr. Adkins isn’t a false prophet – he would never tell anyone to abstain from meats! (Dr. Adkins has set forth the high protein, low carbohydrate diet which involves eating lots of meat.)
Why might someone forbid people to marry?
a. Personal power struggle with the person.
b. Trying to run another person’s life.
c. Perpetrate wrong, or falsehood.
d. Try to get someone to agree with your idea of not marrying.
e. Doing it for spiritual gain.
f. Trying to make them emotionally reliant on the leader.
“forbidding to marry” There are some of the cults that forbid marriage until the leader has chosen the mate and then the couple can be married. The followers readily submit to this activity.
This type of forbidding of meat is refuted in Col 2:16, “Let no man therfore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:”
Paul chose two topics, marriage and meats, probably because they were problems at the time in Ephesus.
He did not mean to limit seducing spirits to only spreading two false teachings. There are many false teachings around today including these relating to marriage and meat.
It is of interest to me that these terrible nasty doctrines of devils are what I would call today some minor false teaching in relation to what we have going on today. Forbidding to marry or worrying about what meats to eat or not eat seems small potatoes in light of the ordination of women, homosexual churches and pastors, abortion, euthanasia etc. Not to mention the deity of Christ, inspiration, inerrancy, and the Trinity.
Do you suppose that this is in of itself a monstrous rebuke of our own times and church? We have not addressed those smaller problems that Paul term large problems and we have progressed so far down the road that we are dealing with things that Paul never even imagined were possible in the church!
A missionary to Venezuela mentioned of the numerous churches that had been planted in his tribe, and how the elders come together from all churches once a year to work on problems and have Bible teaching. If the elder or pastor does not settle the problems in his own church the pastors of the other churches will go to that church and take care of things. This is probably not best in that all churches should be independent, yet it points up the fact that the Indians are doing great work for God because they do not allow problems to strangle them.
Anything which is against Scripture would fit into this verse.
“commanding to abstain from foods”
Catholics have been guilty of both of these until recent years when they lifted the meat restrictions. They still forbid the priests and nun’s to marry though this teaching is also under heavy fire within the Roman church. Married priests and nun’s are serving up the mass and holding services in liberal renegade churches in our country.
Concerning marriage, I believe we have some real fallacies in our teaching on the subject. We need to concentrate on marriage in the children to youth years so that they understand it before they enter into it, find trouble and walk away from it!
Let’s chase a rabbit for a moment and talk about singles in the church. By singles I mean someone that has not been married before. If you have singles, keep your nose out of their marriage business. Don’t push them about marriage. Don’t “fix them up – THEY AREN’T BROKEN!” Don’t pester them. They are single because they desire to be or just haven’t found the right person. Just because you are married, it does not require everyone to be married.
Feel free to ask if they are interested in meeting singles of the opposite sex, but don’t force or push them.
Singleness is not a plague. It is at times a choice.
A professor at one of the colleges I attended was single by choice and felt this is what God wanted for him. He had much more time for study and preparation.
He mentioned in class one day that there was one thing in the church that really bothered him and that was the fact that every little old lady had a nice young lady for him to meet.
He had no desire for marriage.
Another item that is off the subject but seems to fit here. Single missionaries. One of the things you can pray for when praying for singles workers is that they will be able to cope with their singleness. In many cases the single missionary is single because of circumstance not by desire.
Missions have found that if a single person returns for a third term on the field that they will normally remain single for life.
Can you feature the commitment it would take to return for that third term single?
I have had good discussions on the internet with single believers of all ages, and they strongly agree with what I have set forth above. Many of them add the great need for fellowship and nurturing within this group of people.
7th Day Adventists often hold to the Law’s stipulations on the eating of meats, while others abstain from all meat.
Both meats and marriage can be gratefully shared in if we believe in God and know the truth. The unsaved world as a whole today is not “grateful” for marriage. Some are rejecting it, many are trying to get out of it and many are just unhappy in it.
The Christians of this country are prone to this same thinking. We had a missionary in our home that we have known for many years and we were talking of the many friends that we had in common. We were appalled at how many had fallen into divorce.
I counted in one of our year books 117 students. Of those students we could only name 17 that had entered ministries, and some of them were now out of the ministry due to family problems.
Marriage and meat can be good to some people, but are not required. For example – pastors would have much more time for their ministry if they did not have family responsibilities.
1Co 10:31 tells us everything is to glorify God.
Rom 14:4-5 shows what God thinks of forcing this type of abstinence upon people. If you continue in Romans 14, you will see that this area is an area of judging others and Paul says this is not right. We all will be judged, so why do it? (“Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.”
III. REJECTING FALSEHOOD
Fuente: Mr. D’s Notes on Selected New Testament Books by Stanley Derickson
4:3 {3} Forbidding to marry, [and commanding] to abstain from meats, {4} which God hath created {5} to be received {6} with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
(3) He sets down two types of this false doctrine, that is, the law of single life, and the difference of meats.
(4) He proves that he justly called such doctrines devilish, first, because the teachers of them make laws of things which are not their own: for have they created the meats?
(5) Secondly, because they overthrow with their decrees the reason why they were created by God, that is, that we should use them.
(6) Thirdly, because by this means they rob God of his glory, who will be honoured in the use of them. And here with this, the apostle declares that we must use the liberality of God solemnly, and with a good conscience.