1 Timothy 4:1–5 (NKJV): Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, 3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; 5 for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
As you know, recently I’ve been working my way through 1 Timothy. And along the way, as one does, I’ve been looking at a commentary here and there out of interest and, the occasional morbid curiosity. And what I came across, whether with or without good reason, shocked me. Nearly every single Evangelical/Reformed commentary that I cracked open (mainly out of a morbid curiosity), fell into the common theme of applying 1 Timothy 4:1-5 to the Church’s ancient teachings on Fasting and on Celibacy, specifically, vows of celibacy. Of course Rome got the brunt of this flak, but was by no means alone here. One author (Bryan Chapell) repeatedly, again and again referred to the asceticism of the ancient church, in regard to fasting, in regard to abstinence, and in regard to celibacy ad demonic, as blasphemous, as heretical, and as damning. And to my shock and horror he was by no means alone.
So, inevitably, the text is before us, and so is the question. Does 1 Timothy 4:1-5 forbid fasting and celibacy?
No. Obviously not. And I don’t only mean to say that it doesn’t forbid them so long as “Christian freedom” is protected, as you see just one chapter later in 1 Timothy 5, Paul BINDS widows to a literal VOW of celibacy and calls the breaking of that vow an alienation from Christ, an abandonment of their faith, and a turning aside to Satan (more on that when we arrive at that text in the next few days).
So quite obviously, no, this is not about forbidding voluntary celibacy, it’s not about forbidding special vows of celibacy, such as Rome has for its priests, monks, and nuns. As seen in Paul’s own institution of celibacy vows for the official “widows” of the church. And if that clearly isn’t the application, so also neither are times of fasting. For even the Jews had specific times of fasting. Though yes, the evangelicals attempt to textually condemn those too.
But focusing just on this text, if we aren’t to read 1 Tim 4:1-5 as a condemnation of fasting and celibacy, and not even as a condemnation of instituted vows of fasting or celibacy, then WHAT is it about? Well there are here basically 2 options, and only one of them actually fits into the realm of any reasonable possibility
Firstly, we have the option of claiming that this text is about Judaism. Surprisingly this not an UNCOMMON reading of the text. This reading goes like this, just as it was common for Paul to condemn the forbidding of “unclean meats” in his other epistles so also he does it here. A short argument, isn’t it, but one with a lot of weight behind it, due to the strength of this theme not only in the Pauline corpus but in the whole of the N.T. and the relevance of the issue with the “New Testament” era church as it learned to live and grow and be as one community made up of both Jews and Gentiles. However the main problem with this is of course that the Jews never forbad anyone the right to marry. WHen this is the reading taken the marriage portion of this text is often taken along the lines of a general legalism – i.e. forbidding remarriage, or forbidding gay marriage, etc. – enter all of the most eccentric readings you never thought you’d see. And all of that serves to form what the evangelicals call a “pro-creation ethic” in this text of 1 Tim 4. That is to say that together they see not really individual verses or issues so much as a general air of positivity towards created things and their enjoyment. Food, sex, marriage, albeit understood within the parameters of goldiness. And as that evangelical hermenetic flows outward what is seen in the final outcome is a rejection that abstaining from what is good can ever BE good. Of course, this runs contrary to biblical fasting and celibacy. Which, as you may know, the Scriptures are full of.
we have Christ’s 40 days of fasting in the desert where He was tempted by Satan, (Matt 4:2), we have John the Baptist Fasting (John 7:33), both of whom were celibate their whole lives, we have “the Daniel Fast” (Dan 10:3), we have the assumption that Christitians will fast in Mat 6, and instructions for when we do it, we have commands to fast in Joel 2:12, descriptions of whole churches fasting (Acts 14:23), and prescriptions of it as the only way to rid victims of particular demons (Mark 9:29), etc etc, and this is by no means exhaustive.
In regard to celibacy, why, Paul utterly extols the practice in 1 Corinthians 7 for practical reasons, though he realizes not all can head the call. Jesus Himself has similar words in Matt 19:12, Mary herself is a paragon of perpetual virginity, and such is the trajectory of our eternity in the new creation when sex and marriage is fulfilled in our oneness with Christ, our heavenly bridegroom (Matt 22:30). Along with of course, the most obvious and most relevant of the celibacy texts, is that of Paul’s binding the official church widows consciences to a vow of celibacy for the sake of their “office,” in 1 Tim 5.
And yet again and again and again these evangelicals books, authors, and preachers have degraded and insulted both fasting and celibacy along wiht every other form and function of Aesceticism. Denying with all fervency and zeal that celibacy IS better than marriage (though it is, even if not possible for everyone), and that fasting is not only something we SHOULD do but something God literally commands in His scriptures (albeit, O.T. Scriptures).
So what then is this text speaking of? The only possible (and over-aboundingly likely) thing that Paul is directly referencing here is one amorphous blob of errors including Judaism and Gnosticism and a handful of other misunderstandings, “wives tales,” and other such nonsensical things. and in this way the evangelicals are “almost” right. This is indeed a pro-creation argument that Paul’s making but it’s not the kind they think that it is. It’s not a “never abstain from what is good because it’s good and good things are good and so to not have them is bad” kind of argument. Rather this is an argument against people who forbade certain kinds of food on the basis that they were inherently wrong to eat them. Most commonly in this context, Paul and Timothy would be dealing with Jewish food laws but there were at this time also sects of Jews and early Pseudo-Christian heretics who wanted to ban meat all-together. in regard to celibacy as an absolute mandate for everyone was by no means uncommon among a number of heretical Pseudo-Christian sects.
Pauls argument is that CERTAIN FOODS are not the problem, and this can be applied also to the modern Roman and Orthodox practices of fasting. Meat is not the problem (for the Romans). Meat, Dairy, Eggs, Fish, olive oil and wine are not the problem (for the orthodox). Not even seasonings are the problem. But of course, I didn’t think for a second that our Roman or Eastern Bretrhen thought that they were. The problem is us, our passions and lusts and desires. Our lack of self control and our easiness to dive headlong into the nearest temptation. It’s not that food is NOT good. It is. it’s that we’re bad. And as the church fathers continuously and unanimously taught, unlike sex, or greed for money or power, to rancor, etc, it is our insatiable hunger and our gluttony that is the most “catholic” of sins, affecting all human being of every race, age, gender, and position in society. For that reason it is the most fundamental of sins, and therefore it is the bread and butter of our “asceticism” (our spiritual exercise, or athleticism). It is the treadmill at the spiritual gym. Fasting, just as it was for Jesus when He did it, was a challenge to Satan. To welcome in the temptation of hunger that we might fight it and practice, and win against our most basic of bodily desires. If that is wrong, then the apostles, the prophets, God’s own commands, and God’s own incarnate Son are wrong. Well, it’s either that, or, it’s that the evangelicals are wrong.
In regard to celibacy. This was never the forbidding of marriage. For the forbidding of marriage is the universal enforcing of celibacy upon everyone. And this is what the Gnostics (and a select few other heretical sects) actually taught. That sex was universally wrong. That NOBODY should marry because sex is inherently wrong and evil. And yet for some reason, the evangelicals, in their condemning of THAT gnostic heresy, have condemned also the Biblical teaching that virginity is preferable “if it is given to them to accept it.” Yet as our Lord says, “if one can accept it, they should accept it.” (Matt 19:12).
All that is to say, that Paul’s argument in 1 Tim 4:1-5 needs to understood in light of the broader canon of Scripture. And if you refuse to do that, then at least the context of the very next chapter. Paul is not flatly forbidding fasting. He is not flatly forbidding a kind of fasting. Paul is not forbidding Celibacy. Paul is not forbidding enforced vows of celibacy for specific vocations. Paul is speaking here of Judaic food distinctions, and gnosticism, and attacks against the goodness of specific foods and the goodness of marriage and sex itself.
These things are good. Any Roman Catholic or Eastern (or Oriental) Orthodox Christian can and will tell you so. So in what way and with what right can anybody accuse them of falling under Paul’s condemnation as those who teach the doctrine of demons, without Paul also falling under it. and not only Paul, but all the prophets, all the apostles, and even Christ our God.
In conclusion, we shall ask once more; are vows of fasting, celibacy, or other forms of asceticism demonic?
And we shall answer; firmly, no. But those who think they are might be.
P.S. to the amateur “symboligists” reading this;
No, the BoC does not forbid fasting, or eve vows of fasting per se, except in regard to vows of fasting for the sake of meriting the forgiveness of sins already had in Christ and the binding of all Christians in conscience to something God did not specifically command (that is, not fasting in general, but as Melancthon explains, it is the particulars of fasting in reference,e the when, the how, and the what). And of celibacy, it is in particular again the mention to vows for the sake of meriting the forgiveness of sins, AND OR the forcing people to take such vows.
AC XXV1 (33): it is also taught that all are obliged to conduct themselves regarding bodily discipline, such as fasting and other work, in such a way as not to give occasion to sin, but not as if they earned grace by such works
AP XXIII In the Confutation, our opponents shriek that celibacy has been commanded by the councils. We do not find fault with the conciliar decrees, for they permit marriage in certain circumstances; but we do find fault with the regulations that the Roman pontiffs have set up long after the ancient synods and contrary to their authority
AP XXIII (40) Neither Christ nor Paul praises virginity because it justifies but because it provides more time for praying, teaching, and serving and is less distracted by domestic activities
AP XXVII (21) Second, obedience, poverty, and celibacy, provided they are not impure, are nonobligatory forms of discipline. Hence the saints can use them without sinning, as did Bernard, Francis, and other holy men.551 They used them for their physical benefit, to have more leisure for teaching and other pious duties, not because the works themselves are services that justify or merit eternal life
Etc, etc, etc,
