How do we understand 1 Timothy 4:1-5?

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: How do we understand 1 Timothy 4:1-5?

Post by Homer » Mon Aug 29, 2022 10:36 pm

Dwight,

How do you understand Romans 14? Doesn't it apply directly to foods that a Jew of the time would consider unclean?


Thanks, Homer

User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: How do we understand 1 Timothy 4:1-5?

Post by dwight92070 » Wed Aug 31, 2022 3:21 pm

In context, in verse 2, I think Paul's words "One person has faith that he may eat all things (that is, all things edible)" are referring to all clean animal MEATS, because he contrasts that with someone who only eats vegetables, i.e. he abstains from meat, even clean animal meat. Then Paul seems to be on the same topic in verse 14, where he says "I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing (that is, nothing edible) is unclean in itself" compared to those who think that even MEAT from clean animals is unclean - which is why they are vegetarians.

User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: How do we understand 1 Timothy 4:1-5?

Post by dwight92070 » Sat Sep 03, 2022 3:08 pm

Homer wrote:
Sat Aug 27, 2022 2:48 pm


Consider the passage in Acts 10. If some foods are considered unclean then how are the gentiles (us) not also unclean?

Dwight, going by that reasoning, then when Mark said that "Thus He declared all foods clean." in Mark 7:19, then the Gentiles would also have to be considered clean at that time. But they weren't. Mark 7 has to be years before Acts 10, when the Lord showed Peter that He had cleansed the Gentiles. There had to be many years, maybe even decades between Mark 7 and Acts 10.

Paul uses several scriptures from the Law to make his points, many of which are to show that we are not under the Law. But there are some where He is acknowledging God's wisdom in the Law, that we can use even today. That's how I view the list of clean and unclean animals today - God's wisdom about what we should eat and what we should not eat. It has nothing to do with our salvation or our sanctification. In my case, I view it as good for my health.

A similar issue, at least to me, would be tattoos. The Lord told Israel to not cut their bodies or get tattoos. I believe that is still not good for me or anybody, but I'm not going to condemn you if you have one or more. I just read an article where this pastor condemns tattoos that are satanic or immoral, etc. but he had no problem with tattoos that quote scripture or "honor God". He said God probably appreciates the publicity. I can't see where ANY tattoo glorifies God. How could He be glorified by something that he told the Jews not to do? Also, He created us in His image - why would we deface or put "graffiti" on His image, whether it's scripture or satanic? Obviously, many have become Christians who already have tattoos. In my opinion, if they could remove them, great - if not, then His grace is sufficient.

Does this mean that I live under the Law? Not at all, I just recognize the wisdom of God and try to benefit from it, but I live under the law of Christ. He alone is my salvation and the Savior of the world.

Colossians 2:16 is helpful in this regard: "Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day - things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.

dizerner

Re: How do we understand 1 Timothy 4:1-5?

Post by dizerner » Sat Sep 03, 2022 3:33 pm

Tattoos and pork are not somehow bad, these things were symbolic shadows, it clearly says this.

User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: How do we understand 1 Timothy 4:1-5?

Post by dwight92070 » Sat Sep 03, 2022 9:35 pm

You are entitled to your opinion and me to mine - Colossians 2:16

User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: How do we understand 1 Timothy 4:1-5?

Post by dwight92070 » Fri Mar 31, 2023 1:02 pm

dizerner wrote:
Sun Aug 28, 2022 4:21 am
You're building way too much from Jesus calling a scorpion and snake bad food. He wasn't talking about their meat.

Both those animals are venomous animals. Christ did not say "Don't give your child a dead, cooked snake with spices and a side dish."

Christ is talking about giving them animals that will hurt them.

I would recommend prayer to expose a legalistic spirit, as long as this thing is influencing you, you will always interpret passages of grace in a legalistic way.
How can anyone "build too much" from what Jesus said? I hang on to His every word, as I believe we are all called to do. That's not legalistic, that's reverence for the words of Jesus. Of course he was talking about their meat! The context is a father giving food to his son. If God has cleansed ALL animals, then why would there be ANY venomous animals now that "will hurt" us? We're not stupid. There are still MANY poisonous, venomous, deadly and dangerous animals, insects, fish, and birds, that would be foolish and, in some cases even suicidal, for us to eat. So why would anybody think that God has literally cleansed them, so that it is now safe for us to eat them? God cleansed the Gentiles, not all animals. Peter's vision was symbolic, not literal. Peter himself told us that. He did not take it literally. Jesus declared all FOODS clean, He did not declare all NON-FOODS clean. It does not say that He declared all animals clean. Peter's vision only implies that, but Peter knew exactly what God was telling him - that the gospel could be given to Gentiles also, not just the Jews. There was no secondary message there about how we can now eat ANY animal. If there was, then Peter missed it.

How about if we were to do an experiment? All of you who believe that God has now cleansed all animals - would you please demonstrate that by eating toxic, poisonous, venomous and deadly animals, insects, fish, and birds? No? I didn't think so. In fact, I'm sure there are many creatures that are NOT POISONOUS or TOXIC, but you still wouldn't eat them, because they would make you sick. God never intended for you to eat them! They're called UNCLEAN animals. It's telling that those who believe that God cleansed all animals, are only willing to experiment with certain unclean creatures, such as lobsters, crabs, oysters, shrimp, and the like. But if you serve them a plate of cobras, pythons, rattlesnakes, ladybugs, caterpillars, worms, mosquitoes, flys, moths, larvae,etc., all of a sudden they're not so sure that they should take the experiment that far. Why not? Didn't God cleanse those creatures too? So if I avoid eating all of those creatures, does that mean I'm attempting to be justified by keeping the Mosaic Law? No, it means that I recognize the wisdom of God expressed in the Law. It means that I don't want to get sick and die prematurely because I foolishly ate deadly or unhealthy creatures. If God has cleansed ALL animals, then it appears that He forgot a HUGE portion of them.

Living under the New Covenant, being saved and forgiven because of the blood of Jesus, following Him as my Lord and Master, does not mean that I cannot glean wisdom from many things said in the Law. Paul said, "For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, so that through perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope." Romans 15:4 If we cannot receive instruction and wise counsel from the Mosaic Law, without living under it, then we might as well remove that section from our Bibles. There would be no need for it. It is not sin to heed instruction and warnings, etc. from the Old Testament, even though we know that we cannot be saved through the Law. Salvation only comes through Jesus.

dizerner

Re: How do we understand 1 Timothy 4:1-5?

Post by dizerner » Fri Mar 31, 2023 2:45 pm

dwight92070 wrote:
Sat Sep 03, 2022 9:35 pm
You are entitled to your opinion and me to mine - Colossians 2:16
I hope you don't think I'm "judging" you by merely strongly disagreeing with you.

That would be a logical error.

I hope you can understand that by rejecting a legalistic version of some animals being "unclean" we are not thereby saying some meat has not better health benefits than others. Many "clean" meats can still be unhealthy for various reasons. And because Scripture specifically tells us these rituals and laws were shadows of the substance of Christ, of course we can and should still glean metaphorical and allegorical truths from them.

You have my prayers because you cannot debate and convince with logic a supernatural influence.

Because, every creature of God, is good, and nothing to be cast away, if, with thanksgiving, it be received,-- (1 Tim. 4:4 ROT)

User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: How do we understand 1 Timothy 4:1-5?

Post by dwight92070 » Fri Mar 31, 2023 4:40 pm

1 Timothy 4:4 in the NASB: "For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected, if it is received with gratitude; for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer."

Since Paul's topics were " 'forbidding to marry' (and commanding) 'to abstain from foods' (both of) which God created to be received with thanksgiving", then to call marriage a "creature of God" does not seem to fit here, so I thing the NASB is closer to Paul's meaning here. Both marriage and foods are created by God, but marriage is not a "creature", so I don't believe your version captures the true meaning.

User avatar
mikew
Posts: 480
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: so. calif
Contact:

Re: How do we understand 1 Timothy 4:1-5?

Post by mikew » Mon Apr 17, 2023 2:46 pm

dwight92070 wrote:
Wed Aug 31, 2022 3:21 pm
In context, in verse 2, I think Paul's words "One person has faith that he may eat all things (that is, all things edible)" are referring to all clean animal MEATS, because he contrasts that with someone who only eats vegetables, i.e. he abstains from meat, even clean animal meat. Then Paul seems to be on the same topic in verse 14, where he says "I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing (that is, nothing edible) is unclean in itself" compared to those who think that even MEAT from clean animals is unclean - which is why they are vegetarians.
The problem in Rome about eating meeting would have to do with animals sacrificed to the false gods and then sold in the marketplace. Some of the gentile Christians were legalistic -- keeping Jewish practices of the law from the earlier gentile experience in the synagogue, as Christians. That is why they avoided such sacrificed meat and just sticking to vegetables.
Others were just fine eating whatever meat they got but these gentiles were also doing this in a way to shame the "weak." I think eventually a compromise was attained by eating imported freshwater fish.

For the general discussion,I tend to agree with Homer and dizerner...
You (dwight) assume that God is doing the food laws to Israel only for health reasons. The other assumption is that by making all foods clean that there is an implication that people should eat anything and everything. We do not need to guess that “food” (βρῶμα) includes anything and everything that one could put in his mouth, as if people then can eat animals and plants that are harmful. Note though that God did not list harmful plants to avoid and thus the health issue is not exactly in the forefront. People still have to exercise judgment what they eat. So the law likely has a different goal. Some people have noted that the food laws were given for separation from religious practices – as could be supposed by the need to drain the blood of animals instead of keeping that in the meat.
Peter's vision in Acts 10 would primarily convey food that gentiles would normally consume but his vision permits a bit more than just standard foods – but falls short of an endorsement of anything non-standard. But the choices no longer are a matter of potential violations of law anymore.
Image
Please visit my youtube channel -- http://youtube.com/@thebibledialogues
Also visit parablesofthemysteries.com

User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: How do we understand 1 Timothy 4:1-5?

Post by dwight92070 » Mon Apr 17, 2023 9:23 pm

mikew wrote:
Mon Apr 17, 2023 2:46 pm
dwight92070 wrote:
Wed Aug 31, 2022 3:21 pm
In context, in verse 2, I think Paul's words "One person has faith that he may eat all things (that is, all things edible)" are referring to all clean animal MEATS, because he contrasts that with someone who only eats vegetables, i.e. he abstains from meat, even clean animal meat. Then Paul seems to be on the same topic in verse 14, where he says "I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing (that is, nothing edible) is unclean in itself" compared to those who think that even MEAT from clean animals is unclean - which is why they are vegetarians.

The problem in Rome about eating meeting would have to do with animals sacrificed to the false gods and then sold in the marketplace. Some of the gentile Christians were legalistic -- keeping Jewish practices of the law from the earlier gentile experience in the synagogue, as Christians. That is why they avoided such sacrificed meat and just sticking to vegetables.
Others were just fine eating whatever meat they got but these gentiles were also doing this in a way to shame the "weak." I think eventually a compromise was attained by eating imported freshwater fish.

Dwight - Yes I did know that, except the part about the compromise.

For the general discussion,I tend to agree with Homer and dizerner...
You (dwight) assume that God is doing the food laws to Israel only for health reasons. The other assumption is that by making all foods clean that there is an implication that people should eat anything and everything. We do not need to guess that “food” (βρῶμα) includes anything and everything that one could put in his mouth, as if people then can eat animals and plants that are harmful. Note though that God did not list harmful plants to avoid and thus the health issue is not exactly in the forefront. People still have to exercise judgment what they eat. So the law likely has a different goal. Some people have noted that the food laws were given for separation from religious practices – as could be supposed by the need to drain the blood of animals instead of keeping that in the meat.
Peter's vision in Acts 10 would primarily convey food that gentiles would normally consume but his vision permits a bit more than just standard foods – but falls short of an endorsement of anything non-standard. But the choices no longer are a matter of potential violations of law anymore.
Dwight - Yes, I may have assumed that, but Steve told me that it was about them being "clean" so that they could enter the tabernacle, and later the temple. He did comment, however, that there could be a healthy/unhealthy component to it as well. I lean towards that being the case and personally, I avoid unclean animal meats for that reason. I'm not implying that just because Jesus declared all foods clean that people must eat anything and everything. I'm saying that many Christians claim that the meaning of Jesus' declaration is that He now is giving them His approval for them to eat anything and everything. I don't think that is what He is saying - I think He is simply reaffirming that all clean animals are still clean, (that is, that He did not come to change that, even though He changed many other things)including clean meats, and that they should not reject any meats in that category.
Dwight - Regarding Peter's vision, I take it the way Peter did, which had nothing to do with a change in his diet. He understood that God was telling him that the Gentiles could now also receive the gospel. We see that clearly in Acts 10:28, 34-35.

Post Reply

Return to “Miscellaneous”