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 Apr 17, 2023 9:58 pm

Seems to me that if pork was still forbidden to eat then there is no point to the vision in regard to the gentiles.

That doesn't mean that all foods are healthy. Long ago I read where experts in nutrition were polled regarding the most unhealthy food you could eat and they picked bacon. Can't remember the last time I ate any.

User avatar
mikew
Posts: 481
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 10:10 pm

dwight92070 wrote:
Mon Apr 17, 2023 9:23 pm
. . .
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.
The problem with Peter just seeing gentiles are "clean" is that it would be maintaining the wall of separation for Peter to refuse the food that they served him when he was with them.

Probably a bit toward what you said about food and the tabernacle could be that the people in OT consecration to God were not to eat animals that fed on the dead carcasses of others. Yet it would be odd for Mark to have a comment that Jesus is just saying what the Law said anyhow. Now, the Law ended with the destruction of the Temple such that its role is greatly reduced now -- as advisory to those who really mess up in life. We find further confirmation of that need to continue the Law within the letter of Acts 15 which only had minimal limitations to apply to gentiles. That letter also seems to be given in order to make the Jewish Christians more comfortable with the gentile outreach.
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 » Tue Apr 18, 2023 12:15 pm

Homer wrote:
Mon Apr 17, 2023 9:58 pm
Seems to me that if pork was still forbidden to eat then there is no point to the vision in regard to the gentiles.

Dwight -Under the Law, pork was forbidden, and the Israelite would be unclean if they ate pork. They could not worship in the tabernacle or later the temple for a certain length of time and certain washings were required etc. to restore their "cleanness". But the Law ended when Jesus was crucified, so nobody today is forbidden to eat anything, with maybe one exception. We're under the New Covenant now, if we are followers of Jesus, and in Acts 15, we are told to abstain from eating blood, just like the Law says, and even Noah was told that long before the Law was given.

Dwight -Even though I am not forbidden to eat anything now, and I am no longer under the Mosaic Law, I feel that God's list of clean and unclean animals is still a good rule of thumb for me to maintain good health.
Romans 14:5-6 applies here: "One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God."

Dwight - Again, Peter tells us what he discerned the meaning of the vision to be. Acts 10:19 Immediately after the vision, the Holy Spirit told him to go with the three Gentile men sent by Cornelius, without any doubting. He even gave these Gentile men lodging that night, which was also forbidden for a Jew. The next morning, he got up and went away with them and even had some of the Christian Jews accompany them, which was forbidden for all of them. When he arrived he was welcomed by Cornelius, his relatives, and close friends. He told them: "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any animal unholy or unclean -- oops, that's any MAN unholy or unclean. Then in Acts 10:34 he says: " ... I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him." Peter never mentions that God has cleansed all animals, either at this time, or later.

Dwight - By the way, in Peter's vision, did you notice there were no fish or ocean creatures mentioned in the sheet lowered to the ground? So if anyone is inclined to take the vision literally, then they would have to conclude that any unclean fish or ocean creatures would STILL BE UNCLEAN. It was not meant to be taken literally. Peter took it the way God wanted him to.

That doesn't mean that all foods are healthy. Long ago I read where experts in nutrition were polled regarding the most unhealthy food you could eat and they picked bacon. Can't remember the last time I ate any.

Dwight - My personal conviction is that unclean animals are not food, that only clean animals are food, which is confirmed to me by Leviticus 11:47: "to make a distinction between the unclean and the clean, and between the EDIBLE CREATURE and the creature WHICH IS NOT TO BE EATEN." I believe ALL foods (clean animals) are healthy if taken in moderation. I believe that all non-foods, such as unclean animals, were never meant to be eaten, and therefore can be detrimental to my health.

I am not under the Law. Really no one is under the Law of Moses which was made obsolete at the crucifixion of Jesus. I don't believe it would be a sin for me to eat anything, except blood (which is now apparently part of the New Covenant -Acts 15:19-20), but according to Romans 14:5-6, I have the freedom in Christ to abstain from unclean animals.

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 » Tue Apr 18, 2023 1:35 pm

Mikew wrote:
The problem with Peter just seeing gentiles are "clean" is that it would be maintaining the wall of separation for Peter to refuse the food that they served him when he was with them.

Dwight - I think not. Cornelius and his family were so respectful of Peter, that they would not be offended if he chose to abstain from any food. There are many people even today who dislike certain foods and yet like others. If someone is offended because I choose to not eat pork, or potato salad, or Doritos, or whatever, that's there problem, not mine. Yes, I understand that we should not deliberately offend people, but if we politely say "No thank you, I don't really care for such and such, but I would love to try your apple salad (or whatever)", then we have at least made an attempt to not offend people. The Bible says, "So far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men." Romans 14:5-6 gives us the freedom to eat or not eat. If we choose to not eat, we should be polite and respectful.

Probably a bit toward what you said about food and the tabernacle could be that the people in OT consecration to God were not to eat animals that fed on the dead carcasses of others. Yet it would be odd for Mark to have a comment that Jesus is just saying what the Law said anyhow.

Dwight - I don't think it would be odd at all. Jesus was changing a lot of things. It would be expected that someone would wonder if He was changing the dietary laws as well. Mark answers that question - He was not changing what was clean or unclean, except that now the dietary laws are not commanded, as they were under the Law, and nobody today is considered unclean is they eat pork or lobster, etc. The very fact that Mark says: "Thus, He declared all foods clean.", tells us that the clean and unclean categories STILL EXIST IN THE NEW COVENANT.

Now, the Law ended with the destruction of the Temple such that its role is greatly reduced now -- as advisory to those who really mess up in life.

Dwight - The question of when the Law ended is somewhat debatable, in my opinion. The scripture says that Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness, etc. Just His appearing, in my mind, was the beginning of the end of the Law. Just His appearing also was, in my opinion, the beginning of the New Covenant, or maybe more precisely, the beginning of His ministry. Remember, on the cross He said, "It is finished!". What was finished? His ministry on earth. His atonement of all of our sins. Possibly the Law could be referred to as well. Remember the curtain in the temple was ripped from top to bottom, so what a strong message to the priests that the temple and the Law were no longer needed. But apparently they mended the curtain and went right back to their bondage, thinking that the Law was still in effect, as they even do today, even without a temple. They didn't realize that God's presence was no longer in the temple, so they continued on until 70 A.D., when Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed.

We find further confirmation of that need to continue the Law within the letter of Acts 15 which only had minimal limitations to apply to gentiles.

Dwight - Technically, the council instructions were not a continuance of the Law. IMO, they were, and still are, New Testament commands, having been agreed upon by the apostles. If they were a continuance of the Law, then if anyone violated them, they would have to receive the penalty commanded by the Law. Under the Old Covenant, if anyone committed idolatry or fornication, their punishment could be death. Not under the New Covenant. If they ate an animal that was strangled or blood (which is the same thing, because a strangled animal retained it's blood), under the Old Covenant, they would be unclean and couldn't enter the temple until they completed the process and becoming clean again. Not so under the New Covenant. So these four instructions must fall under the category of New Testament commands, IMO, from the mouth of James and the other apostles.

That letter also seems to be given in order to make the Jewish Christians more comfortable with the gentile outreach.

Dwight - That could be true. Also, it could be that some Gentiles were so used to living such an immoral and idolatrous lifestyle, that they needed to hear these essential commands directly from the apostles, to "wake them up" to the realization that that kind of behavior isn't going to fly as a new Christian.

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 » Tue Apr 18, 2023 3:11 pm

Mark 7:19 - Mark says that Jesus declared all foods clean. If that means that Jesus opened up the door for His disciples to eat anything, including unclean animals, then later, in the book of Acts, why would Peter object to eating unclean animals? Surely Peter knew what Mark said. Was he just being stubborn in accepting that? I don't think so. I don't thing Jesus declaring all foods clean, means that there were no longer any unclean animals. I think that the word "foods" here refers to just what the Jews call "foods" - clean animals.
Jesus was changing a lot of things. It would not be surprising if some thought that He would be changing the dietary laws and more specifically, what animals were clean and what animals were not. He was talking about things entering into the mouth, so Mark thought that this would be a good time to tell the reader that all foods (clean animals) are still considered clean, which also means that all non-foods (unclean animals) are still considered unclean. The very fact that he uses the word "clean", indicates that clean and unclean were still categories used in the New Testament.

This is not legalism. We are no longer under the Law. That ended when Christ was crucified. We will not be considered unclean if we eat pork, lobster, etc., nor would it be a sin today. I consider the clean/unclean list in Leviticus 11 to be a list of foods and non-foods - something healthy and something unhealthy - animals that are edible and animals that are not edible. (Leviticus 11:47)

We are not under the Law, but we can certainly learn from the Law, without being in bondage to it. Romans 14:5-6 gives us freedom in Christ in eating or not eating.

User avatar
mikew
Posts: 481
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 » Tue Apr 18, 2023 5:22 pm

dwight92070 wrote:
Tue Apr 18, 2023 3:11 pm
Mark 7:19 - Mark says that Jesus declared all foods clean. If that means that Jesus opened up the door for His disciples to eat anything, including unclean animals, then later, in the book of Acts, why would Peter object to eating unclean animals? Surely Peter knew what Mark said. Was he just being stubborn in accepting that? I don't think so. I don't thing Jesus declaring all foods clean, means that there were no longer any unclean animals. I think that the word "foods" here refers to just what the Jews call "foods" - clean animals.
Jesus was changing a lot of things. It would not be surprising if some thought that He would be changing the dietary laws and more specifically, what animals were clean and what animals were not. He was talking about things entering into the mouth, so Mark thought that this would be a good time to tell the reader that all foods (clean animals) are still considered clean, which also means that all non-foods (unclean animals) are still considered unclean. The very fact that he uses the word "clean", indicates that clean and unclean were still categories used in the New Testament.

This is not legalism. We are no longer under the Law. That ended when Christ was crucified. We will not be considered unclean if we eat pork, lobster, etc., nor would it be a sin today. I consider the clean/unclean list in Leviticus 11 to be a list of foods and non-foods - something healthy and something unhealthy - animals that are edible and animals that are not edible. (Leviticus 11:47)

We are not under the Law, but we can certainly learn from the Law, without being in bondage to it. Romans 14:5-6 gives us freedom in Christ in eating or not eating.
The comment mark adds in 7:19 is not represented as Jesus' words and thus may simply be the commentary add-in for the gospel since the gospel was likely written later in the century -- and thus the writer would be aware also of Peter's vision.
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 » Fri Apr 21, 2023 6:19 am

For anyone out there who believes that, with the advent of the New Covenant, we now have God's blessing to eat any animal, consider this:
The evil World Economic Forum is pushing people to get used to eating bugs. Tucker Carlson has been reporting on this recently. This same evil WEF has been attempting (and succeeding to a large degree) to shut down, bankrupt - whatever word you want to use - farmers in Europe, who produce healthy, and yes, clean, food - beef, chicken, turkey, corn, grains, milk, eggs, etc. The same communists have bombed, burned, and destroyed a multitude of cattle, chickens, turkeys and food plants all across America. This is why we have a so-called shortage of eggs, and why they are so expensive. I believe they are also responsible for almost all of the train derailments. Their goal, just as it was with the poisonous COVID vaccine, is to reduce the world population - i.e. to kill people - creating famine and poisonous vaccines.
Do you not agree that the suggestion that we eat beetles, worms, lice, maggots, mosquitoes, rats, flies etc., is not a blessing from God, but a lie from Satan?

dizerner

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

Post by dizerner » Fri Apr 21, 2023 6:38 am

John the Baptist ate bugs.

Plus a lot of meat processing involves cruelty to animals and we should also promote awareness of that.

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 Apr 21, 2023 7:19 am

dizerner wrote:
Fri Apr 21, 2023 6:38 am
John the Baptist ate bugs.

Plus a lot of meat processing involves cruelty to animals and we should also promote awareness of that.
No Bible believer supports cruelty to animals, since the Bible condemns that. But to bring that up, in comparison with the cruelty and murder of humans is unbelievable.
John only ate locusts, which is on the clean animal list. To suggest that he ate other bugs is to add to the scripture.

So what's your point? That we should eat bugs, because John ate locusts?

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 Apr 21, 2023 7:24 am

Now the same evil people, Bill Gates, the World Health Organization, the World Economic Forum, etc. want to put the vaccine in our foods! Since too many people wisely refused the killer vaccine, they want to secretly slip it into our foods.

Eat Your Vaccines: mRNA Gene Therapy Is Coming to the Food Supply THIS MONTH
https://dailyclout.io/eat-your-vaccines ... his-month/

Post Reply

Return to “Miscellaneous”