1 Timothy 4:3

Sensuality leads to false spiritualism. Their own inward impurity is reflected in their eyes in the world without them, and hence their asceticism (Tit 1:14-15) [WIESINGER]. By a spurious spiritualism (Ti2 2:18), which made moral perfection consist in abstinence from outward things, they pretended to attain to a higher perfection. Mat 19:10-12 (compare Co1 7:8, Co1 7:26, Co1 7:38) gave a seeming handle to their "forbidding marriage" (contrast Ti1 5:14); and the Old Testament distinction as to clean and unclean, gave a pretext for teaching to "abstain from meats" (compare Col 2:16-17, Col 2:20-23). As these Judaizing Gnostics combined the harlot or apostate Old Testament Church with the beast (Rev 17:3), or Gnostic spiritualizing anti-Christianity, so Rome's Judaizing elements (Ti1 4:3) shall ultimately be combined with the open worldly-wise anti-Christianity of the false prophet or beast (Ti1 6:20-21; Col 2:8; Jo1 4:1-3; Rev 13:12-15). Austerity gained for them a show of sanctity while preaching false doctrine (Col 2:23). EUSEBIUS [Ecclesiastical History, 4.29] quotes from IRENÆUS [1.28] a statement that Saturninus, Marcion, and the Encratites preached abstinence from marriage and animal meats. Paul prophetically warns against such notions, the seeds of which already were being sown (Ti1 6:20; Ti2 2:17-18).

to be received--Greek, "to be partaken of."

of them--literally, (created and designed) "for them," Though all (even the unbelieving, Psa 104:14; Mat 5:45) are partakers in these foods created by God, "they which believe" alone fulfil God's design in creation by partaking of them with thanksgiving; as opposed to those who abstain from them, or in partaking of them, do not do so with thanksgiving. The unbelieving have not the designed use of such foods by reason of their "conscience being defiled" (Tit 1:15). The children of God alone "inherit the earth"; for obedience is the necessary qualification (as it was in the original grant of the earth to Adam), which they alone possess.

and know the truth--explanatory and defining who are "they which believe." Translate as Greek, "and have full knowledge of the truth" (see on Phi 1:9). Thus he contradicts the assumption of superior knowledge and higher moral perfection, put forward by the heretics, on the ground of their abstinence from marriage and meats. "The truth" stands in opposition to their "lies" (Ti1 4:2).

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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 man’s food; is good — Lawful to be used, and nothing to be refused — Αποβλητον, 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?”

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Ti 4:3. Κωλυόντων γαμεῖν, ἀπέχεσθαι βρωμάτων, 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. Κωλύω 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. Pricæus has pointed out examples of this Zeugma, of which examples that of Chrysostom corresponds most nearly to the present instance: Ταῦτα λέγω, οὐ κηδωύειν κωλύων, ἀλλὰ μετὰ συμμετρίας τοῦτο ποιεῖν, “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 ἅ, which, that follows, is to be referred to this also), and he refutes it also below, ch. 1Ti 5:14.—βρωμάτων, 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.—τοῖς) the Dative, as the Hebrew ì, 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.—πιστοῖς καὶ ἐπεγνωκόσι, to them who believe and have known) The words are synonymous. The second synonym, knowing the truth, gives occasion for presently declaring the truth, ὅτι πᾶν, κ.τ.λ., and forms a more express antithesis to lying, ψωῦδος, which is contained in ψευδολόγων, 1Ti 4:2.—τὴν ἀλήθειαν, the truth) This is explained in the following verse.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Ti_4:3. Further description of the heretics.

Κωλυόντων γαμεῖν] 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).

ἀπέχεσθαι βρωμάτων] similar construction in 1Ti_2:12; 1Co_14:34; the infinitive is dependent on the κελευόντων implied in κωλυόντων (= κελευόντων μή); see Winer, p. 578 [E. T. p. 777]; Buttmann, p. 343. Isidor of Pelusium unnecessarily corrects ἀπέχεσθαι into ἀντέχεσθαι. In the Epistle to the Romans (chap. 14) the apostle speaks of weak brethrens 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 improbableif we follow the analogy of later gnosticsthat animal food, and perhaps also wine (Col_2:6 : ἐν βρώσει ἢ ἐν πόσει), 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.

ἃ ὁ Θεὸς ἔκτισεν εἰς μετάληψιν κ.τ.λ.] 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 μετάληψις occurs only here, though in Act_27:33 we find μεταλαβεῖν τροφῆς.

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.: μετὰ εὐχαριστίας (comp. on this 1Co_10:31). He then limits the general thought by a special reference to believers: τοῖς πιστοῖς καὶ ἐπεγνωκόσι τὴν ἀλήθειαν, 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 apostles thought is distorted by adding also before τοῖς πιστοῖς, as is done by some expositors.

Heydenreich rightly says that the words are equivalent to ἵνα οἱ πιστοὶ καὶ οἱ ἐπεγνωκότες τὴν ἀληθ. μεταλαβῶσιν αὐτῶν μετὰ εὐχαριστίας. Hofmann unjustifiably takes exception to this, andin spite of ὅτι beginning a new sentenceseeks to connect τοῖς πιστοῖς not with what goes before, but with what follows (!). The added words: τοῖς πιστοῖς κ.τ.λ., show most clearly the perverse conduct of the heretics in forbidding the enjoyment, and to believers of all people. Πιστοί are believers, and not those convinced that enjoyment is permitted to them; ἐπεγν. τ. ἀλήθ. also does not denote a special class of the πιστῶν: the Christians who have come to the true gnosis (as Heydenreich thinks probable), but the πιστοί themselves, as those who, in contrast to the heretics, have recognised the truth, i.e. the divine truth. Καί 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.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Ti 4:3 . κωλυόντων γαμεῖν : 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, ὁ μὴ γαμίζων κρεῖσσον ποιήσει ; 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.

ἀπέχεσθαι : The positive κελευόντων , commanding , must be supplied from the negative κελευόντων μή , commanding not = κωλυόντων .

[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 παραγγέλλουσιν after βρωμ ., and Isidore inserts καὶ κελευόντων before ἀπεχ ., which was also suggested by Bentley. Theophylact inserts similarly συμβουλευόντων . Hort conjectures that ἀπέχεσθαι is a primitive corruption for ἢ ἅπτεσθαι or καὶ γεύεσθαι . 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 κωλυόντων ; 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 κωλύσει ἐνεργεῖν καὶ [ sc . ποιήσει ] ζημιοῦν from Lucian, Charon , § 2. Another instance of zeugma, though not so startling as this, is in 1Ti 2:12 , οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω … εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ . See also 1Co 10:24 ; 1Co 14:34 (T.R.). For ἀπέχεσθαι , as used in this connexion, see reff.

[265] The Latin text of Codex Claromontanus (sæc. vi.), a Græco-Latin MS. at Paris, edited by Tischendorf in 1852.

[266] The Latin version of Codex Augiensis (sæc. ix.), a Græco-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 (sæc. ix.), a Græco-Latin MS., at Dresden, edited by Matthæi in 1791. Written by an Irish scribe, it once formed part of the same volume as Codex Sangallensis ( δ ) of the Gospels.

ἃ ὁ θεὸς ἔκτισεν , κ . τ . λ .: 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.

μετάλημψιν μετὰ εὐχαριστίας is one complex conception. This expresses the ideal use, truly dignified and human, of food. See Rom 14:6 , ὁ ἐσθίων κυρίῳ ἐσθίει , εὐχαριστεῖ γὰρ τῷ θεῷ ; and 1Co 10:30 , εἰ ἐγὼ χάριτι μετέχω , τί βλασφημοῦμαι ὑπὲρ οὗ ἐγὼ εὐχαριστῶ ; St. Paul of course does not mean that believers only are intended by God to partake of food. His argument is an à 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,” καλὰ λίαν (Gen 1:31 ).

For the association of μετάλημψις compare the phrase μεταλαμβάνειν τροφῆς , Act 2:46 , and reff. on 2Ti 2:6 .

τοῖς πιστοῖς : dat. commodi , as in Tit 1:15 , where see note.

τὴν ἀλήθειαν means, as elsewhere in these epistles, the Gospel truth in general, not the truth of the following statement, πᾶν κτίσμα , κ . τ . λ .

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Forbidding to marry and commanding to abstain from meats [κωλυοντων γαμειν, απεχεσθαι βρωματων] . 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 [εκτισεν] . A common Pauline word. Only here in the Pastorals.

To be received [εις μεταλημψιν] . Lit. for participation. N. T.. o LXX lt occurs in Plato and Aristotle.

Of them which believe and know the truth [τοις πιστοις και επεγνωκοσι την αληθειαν] . 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.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Thirdly, for that by this means they rob God of his glory, who will be honored in the use of them. And herewithal the Apostle declareth that we must use the liberality of God soberly, and with a good conscience.

He setteth down two kinds of this false doctrine, to wit, the Law of sole life, and difference of meats.

He proveth 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?

Secondly, because they overthrow with their decrees, the end wherefore they were created of God, to wit, that we should use them.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

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.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

3 Forbidding to marry. Having described the class, he next mentions two instances, 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, 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? (Matthew 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,” (Psalm 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.” (Titus 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.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(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 Therapeutæ 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 Therapeutæ), 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 celibate’s 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 men’s ordinary common sense would soon relegate any such strange teaching to obscurity; but with the question of abstaining from meats—that 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 God’s 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 Maker—nothing, 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.—God’s primeval intention is thus sharply contrasted with men’s 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. Paul’s 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.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 - βρῶμα brōma - 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. Butler’s 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.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, &c. Here says St. John Chrysostom[1] are foretold and denoted the heretics called Encratites, the Marcionites, Manicheans, &c. who condemned all marriages as evil, as may be seen in St. Irenæus, Epiphanius, St. Augustine, Theodoret, &c. These heretics held a god who was the author of good things, and another god who was the author or cause of all evils; among the latter they reckoned, marriages, fleshmeats, wine, &c. The doctrine of Catholics is quite different, when they condemn the marriages of priests and of such as have made a vow to God to lead always a single life; or when the Church forbids persons to eat flesh in Lent, or on fasting-days, unless their health require it. We hold that marriage in itself is not only honourable, but a sacrament of divine institution. We believe and profess that the same only true God is the author of all creatures which are good of themselves; that all eatables are to be eaten with thanksgiving, and none of them to be rejected, as coming from the author of evil. When we condemn priests for marrying, it is for breaking their vows and promises made to God of living unmarried, and of leading a more perfect life; we condemn them with the Scripture, which teaches us that vows made are to be kept; with St. Paul, who in the next chap. (ver. 12) teaches us, that they who break such vows incur their damnation. When the Church, which we are commanded to obey, enjoins abstinence from flesh, or puts a restraint as to the times of eating on days of humiliation and fasting, it is by way of self-denial and mortification: so that it is not the meats, but the transgression of the precept, that on such occasions defiles the consciences of the transgressors. "You will object, (says St. John Chrysostom) that we hinder persons from marrying; God forbid," &c. St. Augustine, (lib. 30. cont. Faustum. chap. vi.) "You see (says he) the great difference in abstaining from meats for mortification sake, and as if God was not the author of them." We may observe that God, in the law of Moses, prohibited swine’s flesh and many other eatables; and that even the apostles, in the Council of Jerusalem, forbad the Christians, (at least about Antioch) to eat at that time blood and things strangled; not that they were bad of themselves, as the Manicheans pretended. (Witham) --- St. Paul here speaks of the Gnostics and other ancient heretics, who absolutely condemned marriage and the use of all kind of meat, because they pretended that all flesh was from an evil principle: whereas the Church of God so far from condemning marriage, holds it to be a holy sacrament, and forbids it to none but such as by vow have chosen the better part: and prohibits not the use of any meats whatsoever, in proper times and seasons, though she does not judge all kinds of diet proper for days of fasting and penance. (Challoner) --- We may see in the earliest ages [centuries] of Christianity, that some of the most infamous and impure heretics that ever went out of the Church, condemned all marriage as unlawful, at the same time allowing the most unheard of abominations: men without religion, without faith, without modesty, without honour. See St. Clement, lib. 3. Strom.

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

St. John Chrysostom, Greek: om. ib. ou koluomen, me genoioto. St. Jerome, (lib. 1. cont. Jovinian. tom. 4. p. 156) Si nupserit Virgo, non peccavit....non illa Virgo, quæ se semel Dei cultui dedicavit; harum enim si qua nupserit, habebit damnationem. See St. Augustine (lib. 30. cont. Faust. chap. vi.) both as to marriage and meats.

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

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 Saviour’s 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.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Created for hath created, A.V; by for of, A.V; that for which, A.V Forbidding to marry. This is mentioned as showing itself first among the Essenes and Therapeutic by Josephus ("Bell. Jud.," it. 8:2, and Ant. Jud:," 18:, 1:5). It became later a special tenet of the Gnostics, as stated by Clem. Alex., "Strom.," 3:6; Irenaeus, Haer.," 1:22, etc. (quoted by Ellicott). See other quotations in Pole"s Synopsis. Commanding to abstain from meats; brwmatwn. (1Co_8:8; sei Heb_9:10; comp. brw Col_2:16; Rom_14:17) The word "commanding" has to be supplied from the preceding kwluontwn, "commanding not." Some of the sects prohibited the use of animal food. A trace of this asceticism in regard to food is found in Col_2:16, Col_2:21, Col_2:23. (For a full list of authorities on the asceticism of the Jewish sects, see Bishop Lightfoot, "Introduction to the Epistle to the Coloss.," pp. 83, 84.) The chief passages relating to it are those referred to above from Josephus: Gamou uJperoyia par aujtoiv, "They despise marriage;" jEssaiwn oujdeiv agetai gunaika, None of the Essenes marry" (Philo, "Fragm.," p. 633); "Gens sine ulla femina, venere abdicata people without a single woman, for they renounce marriage" (Plin., "Nat. Hist.," 5:15). As regards their food, Bishop Lightfoot says, "The Essene drank no wine; he did not touch animal food. His meal consisted of a piece of bread, and a single mess of vegetables" ("Introd.," p. 86). Professor Burton (in Kitto"s "Cyclopaedia," art. Gnosticism") says of the later Gnostics that, from their principle of the utter malignity of matter, and the elevating nature of gnwsiv, two very opposite results ensued one that many Gnostics led very profligate lives; the other that many practiced great austerities in order to mortify the body and its sensual appetites (p. 770). Some of our modern Eneratites, in their language concerning the use of wine and beer, approach Gnosticism very closely. To be received (eijv metalhyin); a classical word, but only found here in the New Testament, not used by the LXX With thanksgiving. Observe the identity of thought Rom_14:6. These passages, together with our Lord"s action at the last Supper, (Luk_22:17, Luk_22:19) at the multiplication of the loaves and fishes, (Luk_9:16) and St. Paul"s on board ship, (Act_27:35) are conclusive as to the Christian duty of giving thanks, commonly called "saying grace" at meals. The truth. (see 1Ti_3:15; John. Eph_4:21, etc.)

Vers. 3-5.

The practical features of the apostasy.

The apostle does not enumerate the doctrinal errors of the apostates, but touches upon two practical characteristics which would fall under general observation.

I THERE WAS A PROHIBITION OR RESTRAINT UPON MARRIAGE. "Forbidding to marry.

1. This was an ascetic tendency already manifested in the East, especially among the Essenes of Palestine and the Therapeutae of Egypt.

2. It may have already influenced Christian opinion in the Corinthian Church; for the apostle is obliged to solve spiritualistic doubts regarding marriage. (1Co 7)

3. The tendency developed in less than a century into a Gnostic contempt for marriage.

4. It entered patristic theology in the form of an exaggerated admiration for virginity, to the disparagement of married life.

5. It developed inside the Latin and Greek Churches into the celibacy of the clergy and the religious orders.

6. It was a tendency wholly opposed to Scripture teaching.

(1) It forbade what Scripture allowed: "Marriage is honorable in all". (Heb_13:2)

(2) It forbade the marriage of ministers, while Old Testament priests and New Testament ministers were to be "husbands of one wife". (1Ti_3:2) "Have we not power to lead about a wife, a sister?". (1Co_9:5) Several of the apostles made use of this power: "As well as other apostles.... and Cephas.

(3) The reason why the apostle says so little here concerning the restriction on marriage, and so much on that respecting meats, is probably because the one was so manifestly opposed to the whole plan of creation, that the common sense of men would reject it as unnatural and wrong. Perhaps, also, the one tendency had not assumed so definite a form as the other. The very liberty allowed under the gospel to abstain from marriage was not grounded on the idea of the superior holiness of celibacy or virginity, but on its affording in special circumstances greater opportunities and freedom for spiritual work. (1Co_7:32-37)

II THERE WAS A PROHIBITION OR RESTRAINT UPON THE USE OF CERTAIN KINDS OF FOOD. "And commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving by them who believe and know the truth." Probably the restriction was as to the use of flesh. The Essenes and the Therapoutae abstained from particular kinds of food. The Gnostic schools developed the tendency still more, and in due time it was stereotyped into the penitential usages of Romanism. The apostle argues strenuously against this abuse.

1. It was contrary to Gods design in creation.

(1) All food was from the hand of the Maker; nothing was therefore to be accounted common or unclean under the gospel.

(2) All food was good. "For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused." It was not, therefore, for man to place restrictions upon what God had given with such a liberal hand for his use. "The earth is the Lord"s, and the fullness thereof.

2. The conditions under which the true design of God in creation is fulfilled.

(1) The food was for all creatures; but "believers and those who have known the truth" had a covenant right to it, and the true end of creation was only fully satisfied in them.

(2) The right manner of receiving the food provided. "If it be received with thanksgiving;" for it is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer. This implies

(a) that food is to be gratefully received as God"s gift;

(b) that our thanksgiving is presented on the objective side by the Word of God, and on the subjective side by prayer. Thus the custom of grace before and after meat is grounded in a Divine command. T.C.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Forbidding priests, monks, and nuns to marry, and commanding all men to abstain from such and such meats at such and such times. Which God hath created to be received by them that know the truth - That all meats are now clean. With thanksgiving - Which supposes a pure conscience.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

Ver. 3. Here the apostle descends to particulars, indicating in one or two leading points the directions this false pietism was going to assume: forbidding to marry, [bidding (Construction by zeugma, requiring κελευόντων to be supplied to make out the sense (Winer, § 66, 1, e).)] to abstain from meats (or kinds of food) which God made for being received with thanksgiving by the faithful, and those who have the full knowledge of the truth. The prohibition of marriage, and of the use of certain kinds of food, by which more especially animal food must be understood, was among the commoner forms of that ascetic tendency which had already taken root in the East, and, the apostle foresaw, was presently going to win for itself a place within the pale of the Christian church. The Therapeutae of Egypt, and the Essenes in the south of Palestine, were examples of the tendency in question; since not only at the gospel era, but for generations before it, they had in considerable numbers been systematically carrying out their ascetic principles in the manner indicated by the apostle. They confined themselves to the simplest diet, altogether abstaining from flesh and wine; and, without absolutely forbidding marriage, they still practically condemned and eschewed it, as inconsistent with the higher degrees of excellence in the spiritual life. If the prevalence of the Gnostic spirit had led to such ascetic developments even under Judaism (for that the parties in question were mainly, if not quite exclusively Jews, admits of no doubt), it was to be expected that the immense impulse given to spiritual thought and contemplation by the great facts of Christianity, would yet more become to many the occasion of aspiring after perfection by the same mistaken course. How far this tendency made way in the church before the rise of the more formally developed Gnostic systems, we have not the means of definitely ascertaining; but shortly after the commencement of the second century, and as the result of Gnostic teaching (more especially under Saturninus, Marcion, Tatian), parties assuming the Christian name, but known by the distinctive appellation of Encratites or Purists, openly preached against marriage, and insisted on abstinence from animal food; thereby (as Irenaeus says, i. 28) “indirectly accusing God, who made male and female for the propagation of mankind, and proving themselves ungrateful to Him who made all things.” (See Dissertation on chap. iii. 2, App. B.) It is plain, therefore, that these early heresiarchs erred on the very points specified by the apostle; and as some of them—in particular, Marcion and Tatian—had been reared in the bosom of the church, and afterwards separated themselves from it by thus departing from the faith, it was a perfectly legitimate application of the passage to turn it, as many of the Fathers did, against their extreme positions. Yet not a few of those Fathers themselves fell in a measure under the same misguiding influence. For they so extolled virginity, as virtually to disparage the married state: the one was with them the ideally perfect, the other the relatively defective and impure form of the Christian life; and it was only by abstinence from marriage, and by frequent fastings, always attended by the disuse of animal food, and by other ascetic exercises, that it was thought possible to become pattern saints, or to be religious in the stricter sense. But if it be wrong to forbid marriage as unholy, and proscribe the use of food which God has ordained for man’s use; if this be virtually to impeach the wisdom of the Creator, and to impute a character of evil to the bounties of His providence, then assuredly to turn those kinds of abstinence into a ground of pre-eminent virtue, and assign to the persons who practised them a place of surpassing honour, was in a most real sense to depart from the faith of the gospel, since it assumed another rule and standard of worth than what is propounded there. It had, as the apostle elsewhere said, “a show of humility, and neglecting of the body, not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh” (Col 2:23); but was not the less calculated to feed the pride and self-sufficiency of nature, and mar the healthfulness and simplicity of a genuine faith.

Scripture, indeed, does not deny that a person may occasionally abstain from certain meats or from marriage, with advantage to his own spiritual life or the good of the kingdom of God (Mat 6:16-17, Mat 17:21, Mat 19:12; 1Co 7:32-37). But in such cases the alternative is not put as between a relatively pure and perfect state by the one course, and an impure or defective one by the other; but the one is presented merely as affording opportunities or helps for prosecuting more freely and unreservedly the work of faith than can well be done in the other. If temporary fasting should dispose and enable one to fight more successfully against the lusts of the flesh, or if by abstaining from marriage one could, in particular spheres of labour, or in certain conjunctures of the church’s history, more effectually serve the interests of the gospel than otherwise, then the higher principles of that gospel, the nobler ends of a Christian calling, will undoubtedly justify the restraint or the sacrifice. But to do this is only to subordinate a less to a greater good: it creates no factitious distinctions in respect to the allowable or forbidden, holy or unholy, in the ordinary relationships and circumstances of life; and calls for a rejection of the natural good in these only when it may be conducive as means to a definite spiritual end. This is an entirely different thing from that morbid and mawkish asceticism, which, in attempting to soar above the divinely appointed order and constitution of things, imputes a character of evil to what is in itself good, and hence withdraws men from those social environments which, as a rule, are necessary to the well-being of society, and to the full-orbed completeness of the Christian character.

When the apostle speaks, in the latter part of this verse, of the common articles of food as having been made by God,—for being received with thanksgiving by the faithful, and those who have the full knowledge of the truth (τοῖς πιστοῖς καὶ ἐπεγνωκόσι τὴν ἀλήθειαν),—the most natural meaning seems to be: received thus by such persons as well as others: their faith and knowledge in the things of God had no way interfered with their relation to the common bounties of God’s providence, and ought to be coupled with a thankful, not with a fearful or doubting, spirit. The expressions might, with Ellicott and others, be taken in the sense of the dative of interest—“for the faithful,” etc.; but it is more fitting to regard them as ablatives (the ablative of the agent, considered as the instrument whereby anything is done; Jelf, § 611). For it could not but appear somewhat strange, to say that God made the several kinds of food specifically for the possessors of true knowledge and faith in Christ. The teaching of Scripture on the subject rather is, that being natural gifts, they are made for the use of men simply as possessing the properties of human nature; and all that needs to be said of those who rise to a higher position in the divine kingdom is, that, as recipients of God’s grace, and heirs of His eternal glory, nothing is withdrawn from them as to the original appointments of God in things pertaining to men’s physical and social well-being. On the contrary, these now also rise into the religious sphere; they become associated with the work of grace in the experience of believers, and have a place—though only an inferior place—among the things which may be called theirs (1Co 3:21). This, indeed, is distinctly indicated in what follows.

Patrick Fairbairn — An Exposition of Ezekiel (1851), Jonah (1849), and The Pastoral Epistles (1874) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

ARGUMENT 10

EATING AND DRINKING

3. “Forbidding to marry.” Here is a prophetical allusion to popery and other prohibitions of Christian wedlock. Marriage is God’s 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 poisons—i.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.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

3. Forbidding to marry. Not long after Paul's time the superior holiness of the unmarried life began to be preached in the church, and this resulted at last in monasticism and a celibate clergy. Commanding to abstain from meats. The ascetic practices which began to grow up in the church a little later extended to foods. To eat the least palatable food which would sustain life was counted a virtue. These ascetics generally forbade animal food, and some lived only on bread and water. These practices are still found among certain orders of the Latin and Eastern churches. Which God hath created. The foods which God hath created are for use, to be eaten thankfully by those who know the truth, instead of having their minds darkened by delusions.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

They will

"These people will"

forbid to marry

It is implied that they will forbid believers to marry. AT: "forbid believers to marry" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)

to receive foods

It is implied that they will forbid only certain foods. AT: "they will require believers to abstain from certain foods" or "they will not allow people to eat certain foods" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)

everything created by God is good

This can be stated in active form. AT: "everything that God has created is good" (See: Active or Passive)

Nothing that we take with thanksgiving is to be rejected

This can be stated in active form. AT: "We should not refuse anything for which we give thanks to God" or "Everything that we eat with thanksgiving is acceptable" (See: Active or Passive)

it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer

Here "word of God" and "prayer" are used together to express one idea. The prayer is in agreement with the truth that God has revealed. AT: "it is dedicated for God's use by praying in agreement with his word" (See: Hendiadys)

it is sanctified

This can be stated in active form. AT: "we sanctify it" or "we have set it apart" (See: Active or Passive)

word of God

Here "word" refers to God's message or what he has revealed. (See: Metonymy)

translationWords

God

believe

true

reject

sanctify

word of God

pray

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

3. ἀπέχεσθαι. On account of the difficulty of construction, Dr Hort suggested that this word might have been a primitive corruption of ἢ ἅπτεσθαι or καὶ γεύεσθαι; but see note in loc. Bentley had previously conjectured that κελευόντων had dropped out before ἀπέχεσθαι.

μετάλημψιν. So אAD2*G; μετάληψιν, the received spelling, is found in CD2cKLP.

3. κωλυόντων γαμεῖν, ἀπέχεσθαι βρωμάτων. See critical note. If the text is not corrupt, the construction is a little awkward, although the sense is plain, and we must suppose some word like διδασκόντων or κελευόντων to precede ἀπέχεσθαι: forbidding to marry and commanding to abstain from meats. There is a similar ellipse in Lucian Charon § 2 κωλύσει ἐνεργεῖν καὶ [sc. ποιήσει] ζημιοῦν.

The false asceticism is two-fold, (a) in respect of marriage, (b) in respect of food. It is viewed not as present, but as future, and as the practical consequence of the apostasy foretold in 1Ti 4:1. The germ of it, however, was already in being. Among the Essenes ὑπεροψία γάμου (Joseph. B. J. II. 8. 2) was not unknown, and the Therapeutae described by Philo (de vit. Cont. 4) practised abstinence from food. The former error, in itself foreign to Jewish ideas, does not receive here formal refutation from the Apostle, probably because it had not yet appeared in the Christian communities; but the latter had already been recognised in more directions than one. The Colossian heresy (Col 2:16) laid stress on precise regulations as to food; and Romans 14 shews that to such questions a quite undue importance was attached. This is not surprising, when the minuteness of the Levitical law on these points is borne in mind. But the refutation of the error is plain and decisive. These ‘meats’ are the creation of God (not of the Demiurge, as a later Gnosticism, with its dualistic view of the impurity of matter, taught), and were created that they might be received (εἰς μετάλημψιν) with thanksgiving.

μετάλημψις (not elsewhere in Greek Bible) is, of course, not to be confused with ἀπόλαυσις (1Ti 6:17); it is the use, not necessarily the enjoyment, of the Divine gifts which is the final purpose of creation.

μετὰ εὐχαριστίας. Thanksgiving is to accompany the use of the gifts of creation, as it is to accompany all requests for future benefit (Php 4:6). Cp. εἰ ἐγὼ χάριτι μετέχω, τί βλασφημοῦμαι ὑπὲρ οὖ ἐγὼ εὐχαριστῶ; (1Co 10:30).

τοῖς πιστοῖς καὶ ἐπεγνωκόσι τὴν ἀλήθειαν. By them that believe and know the truth, i.e. in contrast to the unbelieving Jews or to the ‘weak brethren’ (Rom 14:21), the half-instructed Christians, who had not yet arrived at ἐπίγνωσις ἀληθείας (see on ch. 1Ti 2:4 above). The absence of the article before ἐπεγνωκόσι shews that the πιστ. καὶ ἐπεγν. τὴν ἀλ. are to be taken as constituting a single class of persons, the ‘faithful.’

The word πιστός is here used in the active sense, common in later Greek but rare in the N.T. and nowhere found in the LXX., of believing. We have it again used thus 1Ti 4:10; 1Ti 4:12, 1Ti 5:16, 1Ti 6:2, and Tit 1:6; but the older sense ‘faithful’ or ‘trustworthy’ is more frequent. see on 1Ti 1:19 above.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

3. κωλύοντων γαμεῖν, ἀ πέχεσθαι] Forbidding to marry, bidding to abstain; cf. 2:12. Hort unnecessarily conjectures καὶ γεύεσθαι or ἢ ἄπτεσθαι, W.-H. note ad loc.

ἅ, i.e. probably βρώματα only: it might include marriage also; cf. Apost. Canon 51, εἴ τις ἐπίσκοπος ἤ πρεσβύτερος γάμου καὶ κρεῶν καὶ οἴνου οὐ διʼ ἄσκησιν ἀλλὰ διὰ βδελυρίαν ἀπέχεται, ἐπιλαθόμενος ὅτι πάντα καλὰ λίαν καὶ ὅτι ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἀλλὰ βλασφημῶν διαβάλλει τὴν δημιουργιὰν ἢ διορθούσθω ἢ καθαιρείσθω: so 53 of food only, καθαιρείσθε ὡς κεκαυτηριασμένος τὴν ἰδίαν συνείδησιν.

τοῖς πίστοις.] those who have accepted the gospel—so not for the Jews on whom the Levitical law was still binding: καὶ ἐπεγν τὴν ἀήθειαν—so not for weak Christians who have till late been used to idol worship or scruple about eating meat; cf. 1Co 8:7, Rom_14, esp. v. 14 οἶδα καὶ πέπεισμαι ἐν Χριστῶ Ἰησοῦ ὄτι οὐδὲν κοινόν, and 23.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.