1 Timothy 4:3 Question

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. KJV
Have always wondered about the reference of meat. Will the world be commanded to be vegan or is meat referring to something else?

In context these are doctrines of devils

I think it means meat. But I don't think the world will be commanded that... I think he's referencing that some cults/religions will call for that.

Yea GC that's what I understand. Just wondering are meats in this verse referring to the bible, Tora, etc. or a t-bone?

After Jesus defeted death on the cross. We are in the last days, Paul goes on to say vs 4 nothing to be refused,if it be received with thanks.

I wonder if Paul was referring to the church? We know some churches do that which is in direct contradiction to biblical truth.

You mean kinda like how the RCs don't allow their priests to marry, or their people to eat meat during lent?

The apostle Paul is talking about doctrines of christian believers trying to bring people back under the law .through christ we have liberty. Jesus fulfilled the law which we never could uphold.

one example,yes

one example,yes

Do versus done.

like most biblical riddles it can mean whatever you want it to mean

it can be argued he is referencing the gnostics of his time or that it is prophesy of present time or of something yet to happen. abstention from meat is not new. hindu's were doing it before that was written.

YT I wasn't thinking of the RC's, I was more referring to those Christian churches who allow pastors who are knowingly living in sin to preach the Word to the masses. In other words, worldly churches.

No offense but this used to be used as a clap back towards Catholics with their priestly celibacy and weekly meat prohibitions.

Colossians 2 20Since you died with Christ to the elemental spiritual forces of this world, why, as though you still belonged to the world, do you submit to its rules: 21 “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”? 22 These rules, which have to do with things that are all destined to perish with use, are based on merely human commands and teachings. 23 Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.

This explains what Paul was saying. Don't conform to man's mandates. They are liars and hypocrites. You cannot become holy by doing these things. LLL

It means meat plain and simple. Also think about the time frame it was written in.

Acts 11:7Then I heard a voice saying to me, ‘Get up, Peter, kill and eat.’ 8‘No, Lord,’ I said, ‘for nothing impure or unclean has ever entered my mouth.’ 9But the voice spoke from heaven a second time, ‘Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.’

He was talking about meat. Specifically "four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, reptiles, and birds of the air." as stated in verse 6

And Jesus said this...Mathew15: 1Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2“Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”

3Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ 5But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ 6they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:

8“ ‘These people honor me with their lips,

but their hearts are far from me.

9They worship me in vain;

their teachings are merely human rules.’”

10Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. 11What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.”

Why are you just quoting verse 3? This is exactly what happens when people don't read things in their context. If you read verses 1 through 3 you will see that the meaning is entirely the opposite of what you are getting out of it. This particular scripture warns about cults that put crazy restrictions on people, such as forbidding them to marry or to eat meat.

This is a common practice actually. Scripture without context. Scripture clarifies Scripture when read for context. LLL

I sure have heard a lot of vegans try to say the Bible teaches their religion and many of them are also into the gay thing, so that seems to fit.
I think at Paul's time there were cults teaching a kind of monk type of religion where discipline in diet and no sex etc, gets one to heaven.
Every generation probably has similar false teachers.

Before you start throwing stones I did read the whole passage. Many think when Peter was called to kill and eat that which was unclean, it was about unclean animals. Really in that passage God was using that to show Peter if God says preach the Gospel to the unclean ,in other words Gentiles,do it!

X2.

I think a case can be made that this passage not only speaks to cult like practice but also to liturgical rite and tradition.

Specifically an argument could be made against both catholic celibate priesthood and baptist prohibition.

Baptist prohibition?

I shamelessly copied this from an article on the topic.

Food for thought....



The apostle Paul wrote the following to the young evangelist Timothy: “Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer” (1 Timothy 4:1-5).

Paul is here warning of a latter-day apostasy from the true Christian faith. Notice what these heretics would advocate:

Giving heed to demons.
Enforced celibacy and abstention from marriage.
Enforced abstention from certain foods that God gave and approved.
Could this refer to God’s law about clean and unclean animals?
Now let us consider whether these warnings could possibly refer to God’s ban on consuming meats labeled “unclean” in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14.

First, Paul identifies the aberrant doctrines as originating with demons. The laws of clean and unclean animals originated not with demons, but with God Himself, who gave them to Moses to pass on to the Israelites (Leviticus 11:1-2). And this knowledge goes back much further, since Noah knew which animals were clean and unclean before the Flood (Genesis 7:2).

Also, there are many examples in the writings of the apostle Paul where he quotes the Law of Moses approvingly. (See, for example, 1 Corinthians 5:13, which quotes Deuteronomy, and 1 Corinthians 9:8-9, quoting Deuteronomy 25:4. There are many more.) Nowhere does the apostle Paul refer to laws God gave through Moses as originating with demons! That would have been blasphemous!

Second, the reference to abstention from certain foods is mentioned in the same context as enforced celibacy and forbidding marriage. These truly are demonic doctrines, ones that never originated in the pages of the Hebrew Scriptures, but which have been enjoined by some religious authorities since the time of Christ. Indeed, required celibacy for religious leaders has been blamed for serious abuses and scandals in recent years.

Third, these heretics would seek to ban the consumption of certain foods that God created to be enjoyed. “For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving” (verse 4). Does this mean human beings should consume just anything: Leeches? Rats? Poisonous frogs? Cockroaches? Flies? Obviously no.

So what does 1 Timothy 4:1-5 mean?
The meaning here is not that we should go ahead and just eat anything; the reference is to the heretical doctrine of abstaining from foods that God gave and approved. “For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer” (verse 5, emphasis added). The Word of God, in the Old Testament, defines which meats are to be consumed and which not.

Through the last 2,000 years of history, some religious leaders have sought to impose vegetarianism on their followers, while others have taught abstention from certain foods, such as meat, on certain days. Such doctrines do not originate in the Bible and are therefore heretical. Paul was warning of those heretical teachings, not of the biblical requirement to avoid pork and shellfish.

So we see that 1 Timothy 4:1-5 does not abolish God’s law about clean and unclean animals.

Because man would rather be wise in his own eyes, than to gain Godly understanding.

In Proverbs, wisdom asks, How long, simple ones, will you love simplicity?

Satan tried the same thing when he tested Jesus in the wilderness. Out of context challenges. Hath God really said?
Same old lie. At some point, Christians should learn to identify it.

The one most notable in it's flouting.

Southern Baptists in particular are staunch teetotalers with many congregation having actual temperance literature.

And yours truly is guilty as charged.

I say "are" as in as the convention has yet to reverse past statements against the consumption of alcohol. It's really a quandry to me as it's one of those things we claim as tradition yet do otherwise in individual practice.

For me I interpret read Paul's all things in moderation and instruction to Timothy to take a little wine plus the warnings against drunkenness to mean consumption is allowable if consumption itself doesn't become the issue. But then there is also Paul's warning to refrain from an allowable activity if it should be cause for another to stumble.

And I thought you said the Bible isn't subject to interpretation.

Jim

It isn't

Poor choice of word on my part. Read would've been better.

In context of the rest of your words, the difference isn't material.

Jim

I would say that to equate the SBC's stance and statement on alcohol to demonically inspired is beyond a stretch. Can you name one drug in this country that has destroyed more families than alcohol? I am not SBC by any means.But I do not think it even remotely relates to the context of this passage.

Valid point and I can't argue the SBC stance against alcohol abuse and the ills that accompany it. I would opine that the holding to a tenet without basis until it becomes sinful.

To give an example the tenet itself led to the split of a family within the church of my upbringing.

This family was one of the older families and well established. All God fearing members of the Baptist church. One brother owned one of the two (at the time) local gas stations that sat at one of the two forks in the road. It was a prime location where everyone stopped to get cokes and chips or bait before heading to the river.

Well this brother decided that with the river traffic he should add beer to his offerings. Almost instant disfellowship, unwelcome at family gatherings and no one from the community (at least the baptists and their families) dared set foot on the property lest it be thought they might be imbibing.

I was of driving age before it became acceptable to shop there.

I thought Jesus had wine delivered to a wedding after the host ran out? In fact a superb wine. Now me personally, I would think at a wedding people were at least slightly intoxicated, especially after all the hosts wine were drank, probably dancing and singing and celebrating the union.

At least thats what I think is where the water into wine story came from

He did indeed and I've heard sermons through the years explaining that the actual words were grape juice or vinegar and anything but alcohol.

My point exactly where the teaching of non biblical beliefs become demonic and lead people astray. The longstanding epithet for baptists in the south is hypocrite and has long been the stumbling block for many.

If indeed there is a concern for alcoholism and abuse then let more properly refer to scripture than warns us of drunkeness.

I would opine looking around my denomination that we might be better served with a temperance movement directed towards food. Or maybe we should start studying scripture warning against gluttony.

Also, guilty as charged.

When i was a kid I was taught the proper interpretation for water into wine was water into grape juice. But when you read the tale it goes on to say it was a particularly excellent wine. The host was asked why it wasn't served first. Seems an odd thing if talking about grape juice. I also find it hard to believe that ancients used the same word for wine and grape juice. Also without refrigeration or chemicals grape juice begins fermenting immediately upon pressing it out. The warnings against drunkenness' only make sense if they knew the difference and were not calling fresh squeezed grape juice wine.

Not really a big deal to me till church folk look at me cross-eyed when I am enjoying a nice hoppy beer of an evening.

It takes a really stretched interpretation to say that wine means grape juice. As Danny says, the ancients knew the difference.

Jim

Proverbs 23:20

I'm a total abstainer.

Considering sanitation of the time, and for most of human history, it was suicidal to drink anything that wasn't fortified with disinfectant.

Wine was wine and those saying it was grape juice are twisting scripture to fit their needs. And even Jesus himself drank it. The sin comes in drinking to excess. Is Posco's verse above, the term used is "winebibber". The definition of winebibber is someone who drinks wine too much

19The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ But wisdom is proved right by her deeds.”

I'd wager He wasn't drinking grape juice if they accused Christ of being a drunkard.

That's way out of context.

This was taught in an attempt to keep folks from taking up liquor. Especially the youth. Not biblical but the intention was good. It likely turned some folks away for not speaking the truth. We've all heard that the road to (This word is unacceptable on Trapperman) was paved with good intentions. This may fall into that category. This wasn't only taught in the Baptist church.
On the other hand I had a good friend in high school who was Catholic. His church threw a keg party every Super Bowl Sunday.

And don't forget Friday night Bingo.

Jim

I grew up Methodist and while I don't remember the preacher ever preaching about alcohol it seemed to just be "known" that you shouldn't drink. But of course everyone still did, lol.

And yeah, in our area every year the Catholics hosted a carnival with a beer tent with at least half a dozen cops patrolling it for all the drunken brawls that broke out. And there were always posters hanging up places inviting people to the Catholics "beer bashes"... that's what they even called them LOL.

The reading of Scripture in a hermeneutical (methodology of interpreting biblical text) sense is "observation," while the interpretation of Scripture is deemed philosophy.
I think I see (that would be my observational and philosophical statement) both methods in action on this site.

Put your claim in context.

Jim,

I like your nit-picking.

Iron sharpens iron.

I also like thick skin; it really is to be admired.

Haven't read all the responses, but in context these are things that were being taught at the time that were not correct or right.

Read the whole Proverb, not half of it.

Do not be among winebibbers, or among gluttonous eaters of meat; for the drunkard and the glutton will come to poverty, and drowsiness will clothe them with rags.
Proverbs 23:20-21

You're taking it way out of context if you think this is telling you to completely abstain. Do you also abstain from all meat?

Some of the most enduring Scripture comes from the time while Paul was imprisoned in Nero's Mamertine Prison in Rome. It was brutal. Dropped you in from a hole in the ceiling and you get your water as best you can as a prisoner from condensation. At one recorded time, 47 believers were held in this tiny space.
We can only imagine how horrible it must have been.

Paul's divinely inspired writings to Timothy were letters of encouragement and exhortation to a young man, lured by the worldly pleasures in Ephesus including the immorality at the great wonder of the world, the Temple of Artemus.
Paul minced no words with the false teachers, who were aligned as antagonists against the Christian faithful.

The false teachers include;
the world
the flesh
satan

I don't mean to pick at nits. To me, it's not a nit.

In fact the Bible is subject to a lot of interpretation, and that's why there are so many different sects, like Baptists, Catholics, Methodists, JWs, Mormons, Lutherans,Greek Orthodox believers, and so on, each believing the others are wrong, if not heretical.

When I was a kid some Baptist kids weren't allowed to play with me because I was Catholic. So much for love thy neighbor.

Jim

That prison does look rough.

You read more into it than my intent. I abstain as a personal choice, not because it's forbidden.

Fair enough. It's too often that people try to justify their actions based on a single line in the bible. I got frustrated at our last church when we would study books in our Sunday school class. They would spend a month or two going over a book someone wrote based on a single verse. Most of the time it was overanalyzing and drawing outrageous conclusions and way out of context.

The Bible is called a narrative Book made up of genres of literature (wisdom, epistle; letters, historical, etc).
The overemphasis by the Western Church, and especially the American church denominations (splinter groups) these last few centuries is they reduce the narrative about God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), inspired through human authorship and given (revealed) to people so that they might know about God....

to a book about application.. Many American churches take God's story of Him and turn it into 90% application, which is what does it mean for "ME."

The Bible hermeneutics most used is; observation (reading), interpretation (what does it say), and application (what does it mean for me) and they supposed to be kept in balance and American theologians like Jonathan Edwards wrote extensively about the error one makes when we stick "me" in every sentence. The self-righteous of any era love to turn the spot light from God to them. They are the ones who know more Bible verses, and do not interpret with anyone else because they alone know it all, and on an on. Edwards wrote one of the most respected treatises in Evangelical history with his "Religious Affections" in 1746. It is more relevant today than in his time I believe.

The summary for Edwards was that someone can't love God when they take the story about God (the Bible) and make it about themselves, because you can't love someone you don't know. You just become a rule maker, just like the Israelites given 10 commands through the 1st prophet Moses from God. The Law was meant to show.... these instructions are impossible, we need to repent and obey God, but in human wisdom fashion.... the Israelites took the 10 commands and by the time Jesus had come as God-man, the religious had made them into 613 Laws. Oh, and had not looked to God for any of it. Just kept on sacrificing innocent animals to make themselves appear righteous. Jesus rebuked the whole lot of them.

Read the narrative story of God as it was intended, start at page one like ANY book you read, and read along, not to APPLY every dot and tittle, but to simply discover the wonder of the God who made us from the dust. THAT Edwards maintained, is God's purpose of the Bible. It's about Him... for us. It's NOT about us.

From Edwards treatise about the RULE MAKERS then, who are still with us now. They RUN a lot of churches sadly.
They would deny that much of true religion lies in the affections, and maintain the contrary, must throw away what we have been wont to own for our Bible, and get some other rule, by which to judge of the nature of religion (106).



Edwards was a brilliant theologian who saw through the facade of false teachers and false teaching as well as the antagonists of the Church in general.

Blessings,
Mark

It was a dungeon and you didn't stay (or live long). Long incarceration wasn't done until 1400 years later.
According to early church tradition, Peter and Paul were incarcerated in the Mamertine jail by the Emperor Nero prior to their execution. It is thought to be this prison that Paul makes reference to in the Bible (Timothy 4:21), when he urged Timothy to come visit him (and bring Paul's cloak) as he did not expect to get out until the following winter.

Paul also mentions imprisonment in other letters, such as in Philippians 1:13: " It has become known throughout the whole praetorian guard and to all the rest that my imprisonment is for Christ .”

Paul's suffering for the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the reason many of us know about God, the Bible, and Jesus Christ today.

Yes but if a non believer sees someone who claims to be a Christian drinking alcohol in any amount they most likely would say oh well they are no better than anyone else I don’t need that religion. Or think that Christians are hypocrites.

Depends on where your at Artrapper. There is a big difference in denominations and what sin is. In rural Utah a man 50 years old marrying a 15 year old girl for his 5th wife is not sinful but a cup of coffee is.