Leadership | Dealing With the Devil (Part 5)

Introduction

This is a continuation of a study I'm doing on "Dealing with the Devil," based on a 30 day scripture plan I found by The Ruffled Mango.[1] In this post, I'm covering days 19 and 20—we're going to look at:

• 1 Timothy 3:1-3
• 1 Timothy 3:4-7

³This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. ²A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; ³Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 1 Timothy 3:1-3 KJV

1 Timothy 3:1-3: Characteristics of a Leader

This passage defines the traits of a "bishop" (KJV) or "overseerer" (NASB), which is simply put, a leader. These traits are echoed in Titus 1:7-9.

Though this passage is likely referring to leadership within the church, it is fitting for all areas of our life. We should be exemplifying this definition of leadership in every aspect of our lives. Remember, just because you are not officially a leader, it doesn't mean soemone isn't looking up to you as a leader!

Good Traits to Have

• Blameless
• Monogamous
• Vigilant
• Sober (Sober-Minded)
• Hospitable
• Good Behavior
• Teacher
• Patient

Bad Traits to Have

• Drunken
• Quarrelsome
• Violent
• Greedy
• Covetous

⁴One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; ⁵(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) ⁶Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. ⁷Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. 1 Timothy 3:4-7 KJV

1 Timothy 3:4-7: Pride & Rapport

In the next part of the passage, 2 major things are called out as being behind the fall of a good leader: pride and ill rapport with the poor.

One thing I'd like to call attention to is the statement that a leader should not be a novice. In most organizations I've been in, the president of the organization is required to have been in the organization for some period of time and to have held a position within the executive board (e.g., Vice-President, Treasurer, or Secretary) prior to becoming president. It is unwise to have someone who doesn't understand the process, the history, or the mission, in a position of power.

Knowing this, it also makes sense that the fist test of leadership is your own life and family. Note, that is not to say that if your family does not fit the perfect image that you are a bad person or even that you are a bad leader, however it does mean that perhaps you time should be spent with your family instead. I've often wondered if the reason peacher's children have a reputation for actting out is because they are seeking attention from a parent who gives all their attention to the church. Sometimes we are capable of providing the necessary attention and dedication to both, but sometimes we are not. In the latter case, it's ok to take a break or to step down to focus on family.

Conclusion

This passage teaches us about the importance of leadership. The reason it is important to follow God's outline of leadership and to elect Godly leaders is because this is the easiest way for the devil to "take over." If Satan can cause one leader to fall, he can wrestle many souls from God. A perfect example of this is all the heinous crimes committed by so-called leaders of the church, such as the phedophila scandal in Catholicism, that turns people away from God.

We each have a responsibility to hold our leaders to this definition of leadership and to be leaders by this definition.

References

1. "June Scripture Writing Plan". The Ruffled Mango; visited October 4, 2020
2. "Strong's G1985. ἐπίσκοπος". Blue Letter Bible; visited November 7, 2020
3. "Strong's G4131. πλήκτης". Blue Letter Bible; visited November 7, 2020

Is Wearing Jewelry a Sin?

A common view point of some churches is that we are not supposed to wear jewelry. Some members are extremely conservative, casting off all jewelry; some members are extremely liberal, wearing any jewelry they choose; and other are moderate, deeming certain jewelry functional and therefore acceptable (i.e., wedding rings, watches, etc.). I ended up discussing this with a pastor who believes we should not wear jewelry. Since I already have posts that touch on this question, I wanted to share my thoughts from that conversation.

The Condemnation of Jewelry

Photocredit: Unsplash.com/Artem Bali

The verses most commonly cited to condemn the wearing of jewelry are 1 Timothy 2:9-10 and 1 Peter 3:3. We could spend days talking about these verses, but I'll try to keep it brief.

1 Timothy 2:9-10

For context, this letter in 1 Timothy is written by Paul to Timothy, who is at the church of Ephesus. Ephesus was located in western Turkey, near the modern city of Selƈuk. The city of Ephesus was home to the Temple of Artemis/Diana,[3] the Greek/Roman goddess of wild animals and hunting. They were also associated with chastity and childbirth.[1][2] In both Greek and Roman mythology, these goddesses were looked to by women for issues surrounding fertility. This background is important in knowing the culture of the people there, whom Timothy was converting to Christianity. Their previous religious practices would have been heavily geared toward worshipping this pagan goddess. Many of the issues in the New Testament letters speak to specific issues converts had in adjusting to their new life in Christ, and while similar issues arise with us today, it's also important to keep in mind the original problem so as not to distort the Word.

In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. 1 Timothy 2:9-10 KJV

Now, let's get into what Paul is telling Timothy. Paul's instructions to the women at Ephesus follow his message to men—"in like manner," tells us that whatever he instructs parallels what he instructed for men just before these verses. In 1 Timothy 2:8, Paul says men are to pray everywhere and lift up holy hands; both of these things are to be done without anger or doubt. So the heart of this matter is about worshipping and praising God. Essentially, everywhere men of God go, they should be in connection (praying) with God and worshipping Him. So the like manner for women refers to how we should be in connection with and worship God, as well. This is when Paul gets into the adornment of women... Paul says we are to "adorn [our]selves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array."

We'll talk about all the points in the verse when we get to 1 Timothy in the Bible Study section, but for now, we're going to focus on gold and pearls. Because we're talking a out modest apparel, the assumption is that gold and pearls refers to jewelry, though one might be able to argue this applies to broaches and embroidery on garments (yes, I've seen gold and pearls embedded in shoes, purses, etc.). The pastor highlighted that when looking at the structure of the sentence, it's clear that Paul is saying these things are not included in modest apparel.

1 Peter 3:3

The letter in 1 Peter echoes Paul's sentiment that beauty should come from within, not from fancy hair or gold jewelry. The context of 1 Peter is that Peter wrote to the believers who were living as exiles in various cities. These people were those who stood for Christ and were now banished from society for their courage and faith.

Is It Really a Condemnation, Though?

When it comes to earrings, Paul's got me. If you've read my previous posts on jewelry, you know that I have an allergy to "fake" jewelry (so probably to nickel) that presents itself only when I wear earrings. So, while all of my earrings have fake pearls and cubic zirconia instead of diamonds, the post that goes into the ear are always either real gold or sterling silver—but Paul didn't say anything about silver, or nickel, or steel. Come to think of it he didn't mention diamonds, rubies, emeralds, sapphires, or any other precious stones.

I've heard many sermons that caution against "walking the line." What they're referring to is trying to figure out where the boundary is and getting as close to the edge as you can without crossing that line. They often summarize this point to the fact that we should not want anything to do with something that displeases God. So many of them would ignore the fact that Paul doesn't mention all of these other common metals and gems used for jewelry and the fact that today most of us wear inexpensive fake jewelry, not real gold or pearls. They would hold fast to God doesn't like jewelry, so it doesn't matter if it's real gold or fake gold.

Verses I Brought Up in the Discussion

That stance would be perfectly acceptable to me, except, going into the meeting, I felt like there were many verses that suggested God was OK with jewelry. Many of the verses I had prepared when I went to talk to the pastor were written off as neither endorsing nor condemning (Genesis 24:22,30,53 and Exodus 3:22) or not about wearing jewelry (Exodus 25-26).

Abraham

I brought up the fact that Abraham gave his servant jewelry to give the woman who would become Isaac's wife, Rebekah (Genesis 24). The pastor countered that just because it wasn't condemned, it doesn't mean it was OK. He went on to reason that Abraham was sent out, away from his family to be righteous—suggesting that this was a holdover from lingering traditions or an attempt to avoid offense. However, the pastor also reasoned that the reason Abraham had to send his servant back to his family to find a wife for Isaac is because the Canaanites he was living amongst were pagan.

That seems like circular reasoning to me. If both Abraham's family and the Canaanites were doing things God didn't like, what difference did it make? If Abraham's family is simply the lesser of two evils, then why God did send him away from his family into more—or worse—unrighteousness?

Judah and Joseph

I didn't bring up Genesis 38:18 or Genesis 41:42, but it falls in a similar vein as Genesis 24. Both see two sons of Jacob (re: two patriarchs of the 12 Tribes of Israel), Judah and Joseph, wearing some type of ring. In these cases I could see a better arguement for them not being a standard to measure ourselves after. Judah is giving up his ring after soliciting sex from a woman he perceives to be a prostitute (it's actually his daughter-in-law), which says a lot about him. Joseph receives his ring in Egypt from pharaoh, both of whom are known enemies of God.

Building the Tabernacle

I mentioned building the tabernacle because it's the jewelry the Israelites take from the Egyptians in Exodus 3:22 that they use to melt into gold and silver for the tabernacle. Those who condemn jewelry are quick to point out that the Israelites used jewelry to create the golden calf, but never get to the part where they create the tabernacle with jewelry, too (Exodus 35:22). The jewelry comes from the same place. If God despised the jewelry, why would he allow it to be used for the tabernacle? For building the ark of the covenant (Exodus 36-37)?

The pastor is convinced that it is that God doesn't have a problem with jewels and jewelry, but with the wearing of jewelry. It seemed plausible, but the more I dig, the more I question that. I'll talk about that in the next section about the verses I found later.

More Questions

Photocredit: Unsplash.com/Charisse Kenion

Solely off of the discussion with the pastor, I basically had the question: why didn't God condemn rings if they were such a big deal? If we look back at Joseph, comparing him to say Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. They stood for God in a foreign land and were still raised to high places. Their story clearly shows the importance of resisting the urge to pollute our bodies with unclean foods (Daniel 1) or worship (even appear to worship) idols (Daniel 3). Nothing about Joseph's story suggests we should refuse jewelry given to us as gifts. When God commands the Israelites to take the jewelry from Egypt, He doesn't give any instruction about not wearing it.

Now, clearly there are times when a law isn't explicitly told to us at the time of event. "Thou shalt not kill" comes significantly later in chronological time than when Cain kills Abel. However, God makes it very clear that killing is wrong right in that example and we can assume this law was known by everyone if not solely by the example made of Cain. God took a stance and said "this is not ok, do not do this." The only place jewelry seems to be condemned is out of the mouth of Paul and Peter, neither of whom can make a law...

Verses That Support The Condemnation of Jewelry

Genesis 35

In Genesis 35:4, Jacob buries earrings that belong to his family before approaching God. This is of course, one of the passages many pastors bring up to say jewelry is bad. However, I noticed a few interesting things about this that make me question that interpretation.

First, the command is given to purify themselves because they have been worshipping foreign gods. When the earrings are surrendered, they are surrendered with the foreign gods. I was not alive during Jacob's time, and I do not know what these earrings looked like, but today there are earrings bearing the resemblance of the eye of horus, an ankh, occult symbolism, animals, words, etc. Is it possible that these earrings were part of the idol worship not because they were earrings but because of their symbolism?

Second, I ask this question because it doesn't say they handed over bracelets or necklaces. Did they not have any of these items? We know that Jacob's mother (Rebekah) was given bracelets by Abraham's servant, so it wasn't a foreign concept to them. I don't know any women today who have earrings but don't have bracelets or necklaces, as well. I speak as someone who doesn't wear jewelry often, yet in my possession are necklaces, earrings, bracelets/watches, and rings; I may have more necklaces than rings or bracelets, but I have at least one. So if I was called to cast out my earrings because God didn't like jewelry, wouldn't He ask me to surrender the bracelets, necklaces, and rings too? I digress, though, maybe they really only had earrings...

My third concern is that this takes place right after 2 of Jacob's sons slaughter a whole town of men and take people from the town as hostage. They have taken possessions (possibly jewelry) from the people of Shechem (Genesis 34:24-29). I suspect part of the purification was to atone for the blood they had spilt. As is a theme in many of the verses that seem to support not wearing jewelry, the people being stripped of their jewelry are doing something God doesn't approve of that has seemingly nothing to do with their jewelry.

Hosea 2:13 and Jeremiah 2:32

In both of these verses, God complains that the people have put on their jewelry but forgotten Him. The issue is not that they are wearing jewelry. It takes time to put on make up and jewelry, to pick out a stylish outfit, and to adorn yourself such that society deems you "beautiful." However, in the grand scheme of things its of no importance. I don't need earrings in my ears to be considered fully dressed in the world. Thus, if I wake up and spend my whole morning preparing my outward dress but never stop to pray, speak to God, thank Him for waking me up, read His Word, etc., I've proiritized something trivial over someone very important. God is upset that His people a committed to little trinkets like jewelry over their covenant with Him.

Isaiah 3:16-26

In Isaiah 3, God is punishing "the daughters of Jerusalem," which is basically a way of saying His people. As part of the punishment, He will take away all their jewelry. As I spoke to the pastor about the verses used to support the argument of not wearing jewelry, this verse didn't come up but it's in the vein of what people usually bring up. Like the verses above, the people are in a state in which they need to be humbled and repent. They are boastful and proud; they have turned against God. God is taking back the things they love (not just jewelry) because they are unworthy. God is also going to shave their head, does that make hair bad? Clearly the point of this passage is that these are the things that make them feel great about themselves, they are all outward, physical things that establish wealth and beauty. Again this passage is about punishment for sin, not sins themselves.

More Verses I Found

The High Priest's Garments

in Exodus 28, when God tells them to make the breastplate for the high priest, not only is gold used, but many other precious stones...

¹⁷And thou shalt set in it settings of stones, even four rows of stones: the first row shall be a sardius, a topaz, and a carbuncle: this shall be the first row. ¹⁸And the second row shall be an emerald, a sapphire, and a diamond. ¹⁹And the third row a ligure, an agate, and an amethyst. ²⁰And the fourth row a beryl, and an onyx, and a jasper: they shall be set in gold in their inclosings. ²¹And the stones shall be with the names of the children of Israel, twelve, according to their names, like the engravings of a signet; every one with his name shall they be according to the twelve tribes. ²²And thou shalt make upon the breastplate chains at the ends of wreathen work of pure gold. ²³And thou shalt make upon the breastplate two rings of gold, and shalt put the two rings on the two ends of the breastplate. Exodus 28:17-23 KJV

So many questions come to mind about this passage when trying to reconcile it with 1 Timothy and 2 Peter. Is it that men are allowed to wear jewels/jewelry but women are not? Is is that only the high priest can wear jewels? Or is it that Paul was referencing a specific issue at Ephesus?

Exodus 33:3-5

When the Israelites fail to stand for God, and He becomes angry at them, they take off their jewelry as a sign of mourning. God also strips them of the jewelry. Why is it that before they committed evil, God did not strip them of the jewelry if the jewelry was the problem? If you look at some of the verses in the Bible and research history, one form of jewelry that appears often is a signet ring. This ring was used as a seal or stamp. This was how signatures were verified, because only a person possessing the ring could make the seal. Such rings were given to heirs who were to inherit the authority of that signature. Similarly, the jewelry Israel had (and the jewelry we have) is something God gave us because we are His. When the Israelites turned against Him, they gave up the right to wear His signet.

Luke 15:22

In the parable of the prodigal son, the father welcomes his son back with a robe and a ring. Yes, Jesus could have been speaking in terms his listeners would understand, just as I might refer to the weeks in December that contain Hannukah, Christmas, and Kwanzaa, as "the holidays" without meaning to imply an endorsement of those holidays. Except, Jesus spent much of His time correcting man made traditions and getting people to truly follow God. No where else does He clarify this message to show us that He doesn't want us to wear rings. In fact, the father who is giving the ring is symbolic of God giving us a proper welcome when we return to Him.

James 2:1-4

In this passage once again we see a person wearing jewelry and the condemnation is not about his apparel but about favoritism. The message is, just because someone does not have nice clothes or jewelry does not give you the right to treat them differently. That's very different from saying the man who was not poor should not be dressed the way he is...

Ezekiel 16:11-13

Once again, straight from the mouth of God (per Ezekiel 16:1), in a parable about God's people, God says He adorns us with bracelets and jewels. Why is this the metaphor if God doesn't like or want us to wear jewelry?

Proverbs 25:12

Proverbs 25:12 compares a gold ring to receiving correction. Essentially the verse is saying that being able to give wisdom and correct people when they're wrong, in conjunction with the person who is wrong being able to receive that criticism, is valuable. You could argue that it is beautiful, necessary, even. So why is it compared to a gold ring if they are things we shouldn't have? That would be like saying "A wise correction to a receptive ear is like the satisfying crunch of bacon in the morning"...oh that's right, bacon isn't supposed to be satisfying even if we live in a society that loves bacon. That's why God nor His messengers ever create metaphors in which something they are proclaiming to be good or holy is placed on the same level as something He declared unclean or unholy.

More Verses to Read

• Esther 8:2
• Isaiah 6:10

If You Don't Stand Against It, You're For It

If you ever dip your feet into the conversation about racism, you'll quickly run into the concept of "if you don't stand against it, you're for it." By not taking a stance against racism, you tolerate it, which means it doesn't bother you. This allows it to flourish and grow. Similarly, weeds keep popping up in my flower bed. If I do not pluck them out, they will grow. I have to do something, say something in these situations if I'm truly against what is happening.

In all other cases, we see God take a stance. It is very clear where God stands on adultery, murder, stealing, idolatry, witchcraft, coveting, homosexuality, etc. The pastor brought up the issue of polygamy, but when you include the fact that God instructed the nation to have a king with not too many wives (Deuteronomy 17:17) and Jesus said that a man marrying a woman without a proper divorce commits adultery (Matthew 19:9). If a divorce is not proper, they are still married, therefore by taking another wife he is both engaged in polygamy and adultery. It sounds like a stance, straight from the mouth of God.

If God thought it an issue whether or not we wore jewelry, wouldn't He speak on it?

Back to Peter and Paul

Remember how I stopped to give you some context for the letters written in 1 Timothy and 1 Peter, but they didn't seem to have anything to do with anything. Let's go back to context, and pull in the concept of not braiding hair. In that time, it was common for wealthy women to braid their hair into elaborate styles. This was a status symbol. In addition to the elaborate styles, women would have gold, pearls (imagine that!), and other jewels braided into their hair. Not only was this a time consuming effort just to exert status, but the way the hair was braided is said to have marked the women as priestesses of pagan deities or even prostitutes. Perhaps Paul and Peter were actually referring to hair jewelry and this tendency to braid such things into the hair?[4][5][6]

My Answer to the Question

I already talked about my struggle with earrings in "Plain Jane." I don't think you'll ever see me with fanciful or ornate earrings, but that's a me problem. I definitely think that discernment should be used, and I agree that jewelry can have negative affects on us. I fully agree with Paul that I want people to think I'm beautiful because of the character of God being reflected in my actions and thoughts. I do not want people to know me because everyone is talking about how great my jewelry game is; that's not what I want to be known for. However, despite praying over this matter and researching it for many years (I wrote a post about it in June of 2016), the Holy Spirit has never convicted me that jewelry is a sin. That means one of two things: 1) I don't have communication with the Holy Spirit/I can't hear His voice or 2) He's not convicting me because it's not a concern He has. Considering the fact that during this time I have been convicted to reassess what I listen to, what I watch on TV, how I communicate with people, what I let my mind dwell on, on often I read the Bible, etc. during that time, I'd say it's probably the latter of the two possibilities—but I'll be sure to let you guys know if He ever does convict me that jewelry is flat out wrong.

References

1. "Diana". Encylopædia Britannica. January 17, 2019
2. "Artemis". Encylopædia Britannica. January 11, 2019
3. "Ephesus". Encylopædia Britannica. March 30, 2017
4. Aída Besançon Spencer. "1 Timothy: A New Covenant Commentary, pg. 57. 2013
5. "Why does the Bible speak against braided hair?". GotQuestions.org; visited January 2019
6. Kyle Butt, M.Div. "Wearing Gold and Braided Hair?". Apologetics Press; visited January 2019

You Are What You Eat: 1 Timothy 4:1-7

Another famous passage people use to justify eating clean meats is 1 Timothy 4:1-7. At first glance it seems to do just that, but once you add context to is that interpretation falls apart. So, let's add some context.

Abstaining from Meats is False Doctrine?

¹Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; ²Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; ³Forbidding 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. ⁴For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: ⁵For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. ⁶If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained. ⁷But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness. 1 Timothy 4:1-7 KJV

Introduction

1 Timothy 4:1-7 is one—of two—of the only arguments for eating unclean foods that ever made the slightest bit of sense to me. It's a fairly convincing passage because, here, Paul is telling Timothy about some of the false doctrines that will appear in the end of days, and one such doctrine is abstaining from meats. Paul goes on to say that "every creature of God is good and not to be refused." Sounds not only like permission to eat whatever we want but a warning to be wary of those suggesting otherwise! However, as with all passages in the Bible, you have to put these words into context, and once you do, he's not giving us permission to eat unclean meat.

Putting the Passage into Context

The main difficulty of understanding what is written in the Bible stems from people assigning their interpretation based upon modern times and their own personal culture. However, the Bible was written thousands of years ago. Both the language and the culture of the people writing and reading the text was different from our own. To show how quickly phrases, words, and references can change, I have two examples:

When I was in middle school, I met a elderly lady from Alaska. After she described the scenery to me, I remarked that it sounded "cool." She immediately began to agree and explain the chilliness of the weather, but I meant "cool" as in hip, awesome, or interesting. Fast forward about 10 years and my younger cousin was going on about how much she loved the song "As Long As You Love Me." I agreed that I liked the song, but when she started singing it, she wasn't singing the song I was thinking of—she was referencing the more current hit by Justin Bieber and I was referencing the 90's hit by the Backstreet Boys.

My point: Biblical passages have to be put into the context of the people writing them and the time period in which they wrote. Since there's also a language change, studying the original text is helpful as well. At some point, I plan to take a class on Hebrew and Greek to help me when I study the word.

Biblical Context

Another important point of context for each passage is what other passages in the Bible say about the topic. Malachi 3:6 tells us that God does not change, which means if He didn't like it when Moses was writing it, He doesn't like it now. One example where God appears to change is when He grants Noah permission to eat flesh. Prior to this, everyone was vegetarian (or at least they were supposed to be vegetarian). Did God change His mind about killing animals for the purpose of food? No. In Isaiah 1:11 God says He hates the sacrifices and gets no pleasure from the blood. Remember, back then, people didn't go to the grocery store or the local burger place to get meat for their meals. The way they got meat was by first sacrificing an animal to God; it was the meat from this sacrifice that they ate (Exodus 12:1-10). If God didn't like needless sacrifices of the animals He created, do you think He delights in us killing the same animals in the name of gluttony? God simply allowed additional sources of nourishment because of the need that arose from flooding the planet. A secondary theory is that this a part of what he used to diminish the length of our life in punishment of the events preceding the flood.[12] We'll get into that in a different post.

In short, Paul's teachings cannot contradict the teachings of God; if they do, then Paul would be a false prophet.

What is Meat?

You may not think much of it, but I think it's important to define meat. Like the mix up I experienced with the lady from Alaska, words have a tendency to change, even if only in connotation, over time. Meat is one of those words. During the time the Bible was first translated to English, meat was used to describe any food substance. Even today, you can see the evidence of this if you look up "meat" in a dictionary. Merriam-Webster lists the top definition of meat as food or the edible part of something.[1]

We think of meat as the flesh of an animal: chicken, turkey, beef, pork, etc. Evidence of the Bible using "meat" to mean food as opposed to flesh can be seen in Genesis 1:29 and Leviticus 2:1. In these verses meat has nothing to do with flesh. This tells us that we need to be careful when interpreting the word "meat" in the Bible.

The word translated to "meat" in 1 Timothy 1:3 is βρωμάτων, which actually means "food of any kind."[3][4] So, the command Paul is referencing isn't specifically tied to flesh. Now, as we continue into verse 4, Paul references creatures (κτίσμα[5][6]), which indicates a focus on flesh. There are fewer restrictions on non-flesh foods so while the false doctrine might require unnecessary fasting of all foods, the real issue Paul is addressing is specific to the flesh.

Thanksgiving

Photocredit: Unsplash.com/Mantra Media

Once we establish that Paul is in fact addressing an issue related to flesh, it still seems like the passage is giving the OK to eat anything, right? Especially if that's what you've been taught your whole life and that's what you want it to mean. However, the clauses at the end of verse 3 and verse 4 add meaning that is often over looked. Notice that both verses reference "thanksgiving."

In 1 Timothy 1:3-4, Paul makes it clear that he isn't actually talking about any food, he's talking about the food that was created to be received with thanksgiving. What did God create to be received with thanksgiving? Herbs and fruit from plants bearing seeds (Genesis 1:29; 3:18) and clean meats (Leviticus 11).
Remember when I mentioned that the original Greek word is βρωμάτων? Strong's Exhaustive Concordance gives us the following definition of the word: "From the base of bibrosko; food (literally or figuratively), especially (ceremonially) articles allowed or forbidden by the Jewish law -- meat, victuals." In contrast, the word for unclean is ἀκάθαρτος[7]—though it does not ever seem to have been used in reference to food. ἀκάθαρτος is the word used in Acts 10:14,28, which we previously discussed.[7][8] The word in Timothy 4:3 is referring to ceremonial meat—that which was allowed by Jewish law (sacrifices to God, which are no longer necessary now that Jesus has given the ultimate sacrifice) and that which was forbidden by Jewish law (sacrifices to idols or things handled by pagans/Gentiles). The original is not specifying unclean meats.

Who is Speaking? Who is Being Spoken To?

Another thing we should consider is the point of view of the author and reader of the text. If you are speaking to an American and use the phrase "boot," he or she will assume you're talking about footwear. However, if you are talking to someone from Great Britain, he or she will assume you're referencing the trunk of your car.[10] Same language, different context.

The author of 1 Timothy is Paul, and although he is known for preaching Christ to the Gentiles, he was born a Jew. The recipient of the letter was Timothy, who was the son of a Greek man and a Jewish woman (Acts 16:1). Both men would have been well versed in the Jewish customs; specifically clean and unclean meat.

Assume I go out of town for a while and ask you to stay at my home to watch my cat. Before I leave, I tell you to make yourself at home and feel free to eat or drink anything you find in my home. Are you going to drink bleach or try to eat my cat's food? Of course not, you will know automatically that I'm giving you permission to eat the things we both agree are edible. Paul and Timothy would have the understanding that clean meats are food, but unclean meats would not have been considered βρωμάτων in their minds.

The Actual Command

From a modern perspective it seems really odd that someone would be forbidding us to eat clean meats. The debate within the church is on unclean meat, not clean meat; even among Seventh Day Adventists who promote vegetarian and vegan lifestyles it is clear that clean meats are still OK for us to eat.[9] So what is Paul talking about? As with most Biblical passages, there is a meaning that is specific to the time Paul was writing it, but there is also a meaning specific to today.

In Paul's Day

There was actually a few ways clean meat could become unclean according to Jewish tradition. The one I think bears the most relevance is that of meat sacrificed to idols.

In 1 Corinthians 8, another letter by Paul, the discussion of meat is around meat offered to an idol. In this passage, Paul is reminding believers that we know idols are not real. In Acts 15, once again we see a council of believers discussing the issue of eating meat offered to idols, and here, forbidding it. Paul and Timothy, as well as many other apostles, were teaching in societies that were not based on Godly worship. The people they were ministering to were not just Jews who trusted in Christ, but Greeks and Romans who had been worshiping pagan gods before. Their daily practices and marketplaces would have been abundant in meat sacrificed to idols because that is what was considered normal.

Back in South Carolina, where anything goes when it comes to food, it is very difficult to find Kosher food. Almost everything is cooked in fatback (pork) and since people do not care about the dietary laws, they don't think about mixing the utensils, surfaces, pots, etc. that come into contact with clean and unclean meats. This makes it hard for me to eat when I go home. I fully understand the plight of the people Timothy was ministering to. Their families and friends would likely continue to serve meat that had been sacrificed to idols and the marketplace would have contained meat to purchase that had been sacrificed to idols. Their question to Timothy would have been if it was OK to still eat that meat.

Today

Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats... 1 Timothy 1:3 KJV

Are you familiar with Lent? Many Denominations participate in this fast from Ash Wednesday until Easter, but it was started by the Catholic Church. When Lent first began it was actually a fast from flesh, though today people typically fast from anything they choose. Today, some Catholics still observe fasting from flesh on Fridays during the Lent season.[2][11] The Catholic Church also forbids their priests from marrying...

Up Next: Isaiah 66

We established earlier that each passage must fit within the context of the Bible. If our interpretation of a verse contradicts something else in the Bible, we have to go back and reassess our interpretation because something isn't right. If any of the verses I've been sharing with you actually mean you can eat unclean meats like pork, we have a problem with Isaiah 66. So next time, let's look at Isaiah 66.

Other Posts in the Series

References

1. "Meat". Merriam-Webster Dictionary; visited September 15, 2017
2. "US Bishops Pastoral Statement on Penance and Abstinence". United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. 1983
3. "Interlinear Bible 1 Timothy 4:3". Bible Hub; visited December 29, 2018
4. "1033. bróma". Strong's Concordance via BibleHub.com; visited December 29, 2018
5. "Interlinear Bible 1 Timothy 4:4". Bible Hub; visited December 29, 2018
6. "2938. ktisma". Strong's Concordance via BibleHub.com; visited December 29, 2018
7. 169. akathartos". Strong's Concordance via BibleHub.com; visited December 29, 2018
8. Ree Hughes. "You Are What You Eat: Acts 10". PSALMS to God. December 16, 2018
9. Dr. Mark A. McCleary. "Meat on Adventist Church Property". Adventist Today. October 20, 2015
10. "boot". English Oxford Living Dictionaries; visited December 29, 2018
11. "Lent". Encyclopædia Britannica. March 22, 2018
12. Bodie Hodge. "Why Did People Start to Have Shorter Lives After the Flood?". Answers in Genesis. July 16, 2010

Why <Insert Adjective> Women Are Still Single

People are always writing think pieces about what women are doing wrong. Whether you're Black, educated, Christian, or whatever, there's a think piece dedicated to telling you what you're doing wrong in dating. I've always been of the mind that being single isn't a bad thing. Paul confirms that some people are meant to spend their lives focused on God rather than on another human being. But for those who are meant to marry, and are following God it's important to remember that He's going to steer you away from the unnecessary.

Introduction

It feels like every other week there's a new think piece on why some group of women are still single... As though being single is the ultimate worst fate in life. People generalize and come up with a combination of valid points and utter nonsense, then it turns into a bashing contest in the comment section. As someone who is perpetually single (mostly by choice), I thought I'd add a little perspective: I'm going to tell you exactly why I'm single.
Top

Me First

I had only been in graduate school for about 2 weeks when a group of us began the talk about dating and graduate school. Would we seriously date anyone during our studies? Would we get married mid-program? For me, it was a resounding no. Call me selfish, but I'm not about to put in the work to get a PhD and then turn down my dream job because the Mr. (or Dr.) can't find a job in that location. You start your career with a two-body problem. Particularly if you both went to graduate school, and you're both looking to teach, you really have a two-body problem. I know countless couples where both people have a PhD and had trouble finding faculty positions. In some cases, school will concede to hire both people, but only one gets the coveted tenure-track position. You know which one it is? Usually the man... Industry isn't much better. One of the girls I went to school with delayed graduation (as in, she was finished with both classes and research, she just didn't defend her dissertation) so that she could graduate at the same time with her husband—he quit. She got hired by Google—Google, y'all!—but she wasn't sure if she would accept because, what about him?

Marriage and relationships are all about comprise. I have no problem following my future-husband around the world so he can pursue his dreams, but not before I get a chance to pursue my own. There's a big difference in leaving your dream job for the one you love, and never living your dream. This is baggage in a relationship. Every fight you get into, she's thinking "what if I had taken the job." The truth is, if I have all these dreams deferred because of you, I'm never going to be able to enjoy being with you. Sometimes, it's best to take time for yourself (don't think for a minute that this doesn't apply to the fellas too!).

A King and His Queen

I can't say I didn't go on any dates in graduate school. That little voice in your head, cultivated by Disney and the media, always has you wondering if this is the one. No one wants to miss out on the one, so every once in a while, a gentlemen comes along and you say, sure let's see what happens. What happened, was I realized I'm more of a feminist than I thought...

As a Christian, I'd say I have fairly traditional ideas about marriage. Except, when you change the equation... In the past few years, I realized there are a lot of men who want to be treated like a king, but don't act like one. I have news: the queen doesn't work a 9-5, the queen has servants, and the queen is pampered, she is not the king's personal servant. The first thing men want to know is if you're going to cook for them. Well sir, can you fix the A/C without calling the repair man? How about the car? Can you build anything? Are you a farmer, will you grow all our food? If you can call the repair man, the mechanic, a carpenter, and buy our food supply, why can't I call a chef? Better yet, can you cook? What happens when I get sick?

One guy had the audacity to tell me he had to follow his parents rules, then he had to listen to his boss, so when he got home he wanted to be the boss. Sir, how you think I feel? You think I didn't have parents? Do I wanna come home and get bossed around by my husband after being bossed around by my boss? Do you have boss money so that I don't have to work, therefore I don't have to put up with a work boss and you? Those think piece authors probably ready to call me a golddigger right about now. If you can't afford to give me the life style I'm used to without me having to go to work, too, we're partners. That means we both have to alternate between royal treatment and servant duties.

A Shallow Approach Begets A Shallow Response

I don't know why I didn't put this first, because this seems to be the reason I don't like majority of guys that approach me. We haven't had a single conversation, but I "seem cool" and "[you] wanna get to know [me]." I have had guys spend entire conversations on superficial things and then get mad when they get rejected for a superficial reason. If all I know about you is what you look like and you ask me out, I can only decide based on what you look like. If you spent the conversation talking about your favorite football teams after I told you I really only watch basketball, why would I want to talk to you again? If you spent the entire conversation telling me I'm beautiful/cute/pretty/whatever, what I am to think except that you are interested in me as a object to look at and have no interest in me as a person (or that you've made the assumption I have low self-esteem—I don't)?

I would much rather hear you talk about how much you want to save the whales, or some major project you've been working on. Tell me about your favorite book. Tell me about your dreams and your hobbies. Go ahead and hit the controversial subjects, tell me why Bill No. Whatever grinds your gears! I want to hear something real. If you didn't tell me something real, I forgot our conversation. Therefore, if you weren't Idris Elba or Morris Chestnut fine, I probably forgot about you... #SorryNotSorry

Do You Know Jesus?

So the only thing that makes dating harder than being an independent woman, is being a Christian woman. I'm not talking about the girl who goes to church every week, but never spends time with God. I'm talking about the type of Christian woman who's actively trying to make sure God is 1st in all areas of her life. I'm talking about the type of Christian woman who studies the Word the same way I studied for my dissertation. I'm not losing my place in the Book of Life over a nice smile and some abs.

*Cue all the think pieces about independent women not being submissive and all the twisting of Biblical verses to remind us that we're supposed to submit to our husbands.*

People are quick to quote "wives submit to your husband," but they aren't so quick to point out the myriad of other verses on marriage needed to get an accurate picture. There are several verses that explain Eve was made for Adam, not the other way around. Adam was unhappy without a companion, so God made Eve. Almost every verse that commands women to submit to their husbands is followed by a verse instructing men to love their wives. Do you know what love means? It means placing their needs about your own. It means wanting to see them happy. For Adam it meant eating a forbidden fruit and risking death (1 Timothy 2:14). Loving someone is not ruling over them with an iron fist and dictating every minute detail of their life. Paul actually says it's better for both male and female to remain unmarried. He reminds us that a married woman's desire is for her husband, but a single woman's desire is for God...

The only way I can submit to you is if I know you're following God. No, you can't just go to church to appease me, or pray over the food because that's what you've been taught. I need you to be on fire for God; I need to trust that you're getting your orders from Him before I'm going to give up my autonomy to follow you who knows where. I need to know that you understand what it means to love (agape), and are willing to honor God's command to love me.

A Project For Change

You know the most irritating thing a guy can do or say? Anything that suggests he's trying to change me when I haven't asked to be changed. If we're talking about how I'm horrible at sports and you offer to show me some stuff, if I want, that's sweet. If I tell you I don't like dancing and you tell me you're going to teach me how to dance, you're not listening to me. If you actually use the phrase "I'm going to change that," about something related to my personality, you've probably sunk your ship.

My purpose in life is not to change and bend to suit your likings. God made me to be me. If there's something about my personality you just can't deal with, I wasn't made for you. Don't waste my time, or your own, talking about how you're going to change me. Simply admit it's a deal breaker and move on.

Conclusion

Photocredit: ShutterStock.com/Dragon Images

A lot of women are waiting on their Boaz, but I'm not. I understand that I have a purpose in life, and my focus is on building my relationship with God so that I can realize that purpose. Part of that purpose may be to support, love, and lift up a husband. It may not. I'm not settling for any old Tom, Dick, or Harry. I'm not trying to wake up one morning regretting that I've wasted time on someone. I'm not compromising my values and beliefs. God made Eve for Adam, so if I become the woman God intends me to be, I'm right where I need to be.

The Christian Diet

What does God say about what we eat?

Note: I realize this post is missing a reference to Romans 14; I am in the process of turning this post into a series so that I can expand on the topic without having a book in one blog post. Please bear with me. In the mean time, I'm leaving this post up for reference.

Introduction

Photocredit: FreeImages.com/Tanja Sund

The diet of a Christian is another topic the Church can't seem to agree upon. Many denominations abstain from alcohol. Mormons, also known as the Church of the Latter Day Saints, or LDS, abstain from caffeine in addition to alcohol. Seventh Day Adventists observe the dietary laws of Leviticus and encourage a vegetarian lifestyle, while many have no restrictions at all about diet. It makes sense that along with telling us what is proper and improper behavior, God would also tell us what is or isn't acceptable to eat.

What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?1 Corinthians 6:19 KJV

Just as God went through meticulous detail to explain to the Israelites how to keep the temple clean and pure for God's presence, He tells us how to behave and what to consume to keep our bodies—the temples of the new covenant—acceptable for Him.
Top

The Dietary Laws

"Leviticus 11-12: Clean and Unclean" covers the dietary law given to the Israelites by God, but are we still expected to follow these guidelines? Many denominations believe that the dietary law is no longer applicable to us. Those who believe this argue that Jesus abolished the law on the cross so we are not bound to uphold them. A rebuttable of this is given in "The Law"; in short, Jesus Himself said that He didn't come to destroy but to fulfill. His fulfillment lies in the fact that He shed His own blood in payment of our transgressions, not that God suddenly thinks it's acceptable to behave contrary to the law.

Isaiah 66

Isaiah 66 tells us that those partaking in sinful behavior, specifically those eating pork, will be burned in the wrath of God's anger. By reading the entire chapter, we see that this passage is not God talking about what will happen in Isaiah's lifetime, but a prophecy related to the end times. God mentions that His word will be spread amongst the Gentiles, which began shortly after Jesus' crucifixion. This alone proves that God never intended mankind to eat that which He forbade us to eat, however we will look at several verses and arguments to conclude that God expects us to keep the dietary law.

They that sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens behind one tree in the midst, eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together, saith the Lord.Isaiah 66:17 KJV

Mark 7

The first "rebuttal" or explanation for Christians eating whatever they wish came from Mark 7:15. In this verse Jesus tells the Pharisees and the disciples that nothing external to man defiles him, it is the internal things coming out of man that defile him. From just this verse, many are satisfied that Jesus was saying eat what you will because it is not the food you eat that makes you unclean. There are a few problems with that interpretation however. For one, during the Exodus, when Moses told the people not to eat certain foods, was it really the food that made them unclean or was it their willingness to disobey God? Did the forbidden fruit actually harm Adam and Eve, or was it their willingness to disobey God that got them into trouble? Further, if you read all of Mark 7, to put the verse in context, Jesus is defending the disciples against the accusation of not washing their hands before eating bread. The bread was never said to be unclean and neither was the dirt! Jesus makes the point that the Pharisees were following man's traditions and laws (washing of hands before eating) as opposed to God's law. Jesus wasn't promoting eating unclean meat this passage. This is evidenced in Acts 10 when Peter is astounded and refuses to eat unclean meat in a vision. Peter adamantly denies ever eating anything unclean. Peter was with Jesus for the exchange of Mark 7, so we know that if Jesus was inferring that it was ok to eat unclean meat, Peter would not have been surprised or hesitant in the vision.

Acts 10

Which brings us to Acts 10, another passage people use to say it is now ok to eat unclean animals. Most focus on the end of the chapter, in which Peter has a dream that God tells him to eat all manner of beast, even those that are unclean. Peter vehemently denies, stating that he has never eaten anything unclean in his life. God then tells Peter not to call anything God has cleansed unclean or common. Many use this as evidence that God sanctioned eating unclean meat. However, they neglect the context. For instance, in all of the other visions God's people are given (think Daniel or John), the vision has to be explained: a beast is not a just beast. In many of the visions, beasts represent nations. Not surprisingly, the surrounding context of the chapter follows a man named Cornelius who is a Gentile believer. Cornelius is seeking to speak with Peter to become better acquainted with God. Cornelius shows up while Peter is pondering the vision from God, and God tells Peter to go to speak with him and his men. In verse 28, Peter tells us what he has learned from the dream, not to call any man unclean or uncommon. Prior to the years after Jesus' resurrection, Gentiles were considered unclean,^[1] and Peter reminds us in this verse that it was illegal for Jews to mingle with Gentiles at that time. Peter specifies that God's vision taught him that no man is unclean; the unclean beasts in his vision were representative of Gentile nations. God cleansed man with Jesus' blood, where in the Bible does it say that Jesus died to cleanse the animals? In the following chapter (Acts 11) the Jews confront Peter about including the Gentiles and their quibble is that the Gentiles are uncircumcised, not that they eat unclean meats because the God fearing Gentiles already followed Jewish customs.^[2] This means that neither Cornelius, Peter, nor the Jews angry with the inclusion Gentiles understood this to mean they could eat whatever they wanted. It is evident that they understand God's command to be in reference to the inclusion of Gentiles in the ministry.

Colossians 2

Paul tells us not to let any man judge us of many things, one of which is meat. People often cite this as well to defend the position that unclean foods are now clean. As with everything, I suggest reading the verse in context. Reading the whole of Colossians 2 and applying knowledge we receive from the Old Testament, we may see things a bit differently. Notice that Colossians 2:8 specifically points out that Paul is speaking against man's traditions—not God's.

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.Colossians 2:8 KJV

Paul goes on to actually give us some instructions concerning these traditions of men:

¹⁴Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; ¹⁵And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.¹⁶Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: ¹⁷Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. ¹⁸Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,Colossians 2:14-18 KJV

If you study the Jewish law, you will find that the Pharisees added laws to what Moses listed in Leviticus; one such example is that to this day Kosher law dictates that meat and dairy cannot mix. This stems from God's command not to seethe a kid in it's mother's milk. To seethe is to boil, which means God isn't forbidding man from eating a burger and drinking a milkshake or placing a piece of cheese over turkey in a sandwich. Furthermore we don't get milk from chickens or turkeys and it is unlikely you use goats milk, so the only problem you would really face is boiling beef in it's mother's milk. Since beef cattle like Angus and Texas Longhorn do not provide milk (except when they are nursing) and dairy cattle are often not sent off to be slaughtered, it is unlikely you will seethe beef in its mother's milk either. Though, I could see the separation just in case. In essence, the Pharisees overshot this law to protect people from accidentally breaking one of God's commandments, but God's commandments are hard enough to keep without man's extra laws placed on top. Paul is talking about man's traditions being nailed to the cross. We see Jesus make "a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it" when He corrects the Pharisees doctrine throughout His ministry. Verse 16 takes understanding of the Pentateuch to really understand. The holydays, new moon, and sabbath days he speaks of are the feasts that foretold Christ's coming. I am currently writing a post on how the Feast Days connect to Christ, which I will link here as soon as it is completed. All of the other items mentioned in this verse stem from the preparation for Christ's arrival, so are these meats and drink Paul mentions, the sacrifices (which remember, meat sacrifices are actually grain sacrifices and have nothing to do with meat). Or is Paul talking about meats sacrificed to idols? Gentiles converting to the faith would have family members who might sacrifice to a pagan god then offer the convert meat from the sacrifice. Is Paul saying it's ok to eat that meat? Or is Paul telling the Gentiles not to let their pagan friends and family judge them for no longer getting drunk and no longer eating unclean foods? Or is it as those trying to justify eating unclean food think and Paul is telling Gentiles to continue eating unclean food and ignore judgment? People often forget that Paul's duty was to preach to the Gentiles, who would have a different set of problems than the Jews. Just as preaching to a child from a Christian family will be different than preaching to a child from an atheist family. Further, if Paul is referring to unclean meant, notice that he said let no man judge you, he doesn't say God won't judge you; which is odd. Whatever he's telling them not to let man judge them for, it must already be established where God stands, and so far God stands against eating unclean meat. The biggest problem with the idea that Paul is telling the Gentiles they can eat unclean foods, is that it would contradict Isaiah 66:17. Paul is likely telling them not to let the Jews judge them for not upholding traditions such as sacrifices,feasts and the sabbath days of the feasts because they were placeholders for the Messiah, who has now come, rendering these things unnecessary.^{[8][9][10][11]}

1 Timothy 4:1-7

1 Timothy 4:1-7 is the one of two of the only arguments that ever made the slightest bit of sense to me. Here, Paul is telling Timothy about some of the false doctrines that will appear in the end of days. One such doctrine is abstaining from meats. Paul goes on to say that every creature of God is good and not to be refused.

⁴Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; ²Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; ³Forbidding 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. ⁴For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: ⁵For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. ⁶If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained. ⁷But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness.1 Timothy 4:1-7 KJV

Unfortunately, we still have a contrast with Isaiah 66—if all meat is to be received with thanksgiving, why are those eating pork (and mouse) consumed by fire at the end of days? One source points at the last half of 1 Timothy 4:3: "meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving."^[12] In the beginning, no meat was made to be received with thanksgiving, it was only after Noah that we were allowed to receive meat. If you look closely at the story of Noah, you will see that God specified clean and unclean to Noah in reference to how many of each animal was to be brought on the ark. We are not given information on dietary restriction, but why would God reference clean and unclean animals for no reason to Noah? Was it merely for future reference, like "hey, Noah, you can eat this now but in the future I will forbid a subset of your ancestors to eat these"? We can't be certain about that, but we do know that the Jews of the New Testament were forbidden to eat or offer unclean meats. Those meats would not be considered "created to received with thanksgiving" from the perspective of the Jews.

The main difficulty of understanding what is written in the Bible stems from a lack of complete knowledge. Many things come into play when reading a particular verse: what did the original Hebrew or Greek say (is it a faithful translation)?, what do other passages in the Bible say on the subject?, what did the phrase or word mean in the time it was written?, what is the history/culture of the person writing this verse?, etc. For example, in 1 Timothy 4:3, Paul specifies that "forbidding to marry" is one of the false doctrines. If one was to pick up a Bible and jump straight to this verse, they may argue that forbidding alternative forms of marriage (such as homosexual marriage) is a sign of being on the wrong side of Christ. Yet, in Romans 1:26-27 KJV, Paul explicitly condemns homosexuality, and in 1 Timothy 1:9-10 KJV, he implicitly condemns homosexuality. Therefore, based upon knowing Paul's stance, we know that when he says marriage in 1 Timothy 4:3, he is referring to marriage between a man and a woman. We must use this same technique to determine what Paul means when he says meats.>

What is Meat?

Sometimes, such as in Genesis 1:29 and Leviticus 2:1, meat has nothing to do with flesh; in these verses meat is not the same as the primary meaning of the word we use today. Yet, we do see in Genesis 9:3 that meat is referring to the flesh of animal as we would expect today. In Acts 15:29, Paul talks about abstaining from meat offered to idols—though it is not specified whether this meat is unclean or clean.

In 1 Corinthians 8, the discussion of meat is around meat offered to an idol, again there is no specifications about clean or unclean. The verses here are discussing the fact that we know there are no other gods therefore idols are not real. Many believe this passage tells us that for this reason, we may eat food that has been offered to idols, but others disagree, particularly after taking into consideration Acts 15 forbids the eating of meat offered to idols. One person suggested that in 1 Corinthians 8 Paul was answering the question of why they could not eat meat sacrificed to idols (a stumbling block to their brothers) rather than explaining that they could.^[17][18] Moving along in 1 Corinthians 8 we see that you are not worse off if you do not eat the food and that you should be mindful of weak-minded brethren. If it offends or causes confusion amongst your brothers you should abstain for their benefit (I would imagine this would be particularly applicable to parents with young children).

What Did the Original Say?

The New Testament was original written in Greek, in what is known as the Septuagint. The word that appears there which is translated to meat in the English Bible is βρωματων. Today this word means oats (according to Google Translate), but in ancient Greek, it meant "food (literally or figuratively), especially (ceremonially) articles allowed or forbidden by the Jewish law:--meat, victuals."^[13][14] The word for unclean meat, however is akathartos.^[15] The word in Timothy 4:3 is referring to ceremonial meat; that which was allowed by Jewish law were sacrifices to God (which were no longer necessary now that Jesus had come), and that which was forbidden by Jewish law were sacrifices to idols or things handled by pagans/Gentiles. The original is not specifying unclean meats.

Who is Speaking? Who is Being Spoken To?

Paul, the author of 1 Timothy, preached Christ to the Gentiles but he was born a Jew, and Timothy, the recipient of the letter, was born to a Jewish mother and a Greek father.^[16] Both men would have been well versed in the Jewish customs; specifically clean and unclean meat. When two practicing Jews come together for dinner, do you think they ask each other if the meat is provided is that of a clean animal? Or do they just assume that as a practicing Jew, the other would not give them unclean meat? Do you ask your fellow Christians what they mean when they say God or do you just assume they mean the God of Abraham? When Paul said meat, it is likely he was referencing clean meat (he would naturally preface unclean meat based upon his upbringing).

1 Timothy 4:4

But then Paul says all creatures are good and nothing to be rejected... Note that once again Paul qualifies this with "if it be received with thanksgiving." The next verse adds that it is sanctified by God. Unclean meat is not received by God with thanksgiving, nor is it ever sanctified by God. Paul is not God so he can't sanctify the meat himself and no where in the Bible does it say that thus saith the Lord or Jesus in reference to unclean meat becoming clean. All creatures God created were good; this is true, we learned this in Genesis 1 and 2 however just because they were good did not mean God allowed people to eat them (Adam and Eve were vegetarians). Nothing was to be refused if it was received with thanksgiving, which likely is referring to food handled by pagans (Jews did not consume food touched by pagans or washed it thoroughly as they thought this made it unclean^[15]).

Acts 15

In Acts 15, the apostles are adamant that of all the laws the converted Gentiles were to follow, the most important ones were to abstain from blood (which is commanded first to Noah, then to the Israelites in addition to the clean/unclean animals), meats offered to idols, strangled animals, and fornication.

²⁸For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; ²⁹That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.Acts 15:28-29 KJV

This is an interesting list because meats offered to idols, blood, and animals not killed for sacrifice or in the acceptable manner for food are all discussed in Leviticus around the same chapters with the list of unclean meat. Yet, unclean meat is not specified here and fornication is, which has seemingly nothing to do with the other three laws. It seems to me, however, that even though they reference "laws" in general, they are speaking of specific laws mentioned to the new converts. I highly doubt the apostles found it more important to follow these commandments than Jesus' commandments to love God and love your neighbor (essentially reiterating the 10 Commandments). Perhaps clean and unclean was already understood, just as Jesus' commandments were already understood to be requirements.

If you continue in the chapter, Peter says they are speaking of commandments that even they (the Israelites) could not keep; but the Israelites kept the dietary law easily. Jews keep the dietary even today, and while it may not be as simple as eating without restriction, it is far from impossible. Now that I live in area with a high population of Jews, there are not only Kosher restaurants, but Kosher supermarkets as well. The things that were hard about the law that Gentiles would have been facing would be circumcision at a late age (specifically mentioned in the chapter), or arguing and being disobedient to parents (particularly if one's Gentile parents were not converts), etc. In this context, we see that meats offered to idols would be prominent on the tables in the mixed-faith families of the Gentiles. Also, their relatives would serve clean meat but not kill them as the Jews did, and thus blood or strangulation may be an issue. In that time period, it is possible the Gentile converts also butchered their own meat, but today, you can't buy meat that doesn't have blood in it unless you buy Kosher meat and you can't simply wash the blood away. They are still forbidding Christian Gentiles to eat blood, so we would still be restricted to Kosher meat. The Jews, while more careful with their meat, would have also struggled with this law, as getting all of the blood out of the meat was not an easy task. Similarly, the Israelites would have likely had many spats with their parents as well (who hasn't had a spat with their parent, this seems to be a key ingredient in growing up). These seem in line with laws Peter thought were difficult even for Gentiles. If this is the case, the apostles could have been picking from a list of laws handed to the Gentiles that may not have been inclusive of all laws. We can't know for sure, and even if we could say without a shadow of doubt that this is true, we don't know what the other laws were. The only law we are expressly told was unnecessary is circumcision.

Personally, I believe that more clear books of the Bible may have been written but were destroyed in the assault on Christianity during the early church. The directness of the Old Testament is replaced with implication and assumption in the New Testament. We also see several passages about the antichrist and false prophets deceiving believers along with the masses. If there was an explicit verse that said "unclean meat is still unclean meat," no believer today would touch unclean meat and it would be extremely obvious that interpretations of the verses mentioned here were not about unclean meat and vice-versa. If that were the case no one would attempt to purify themselves and eat swine at the same time as prophesied in Isaiah 66. Satan likely destroyed any manuscripts he could not twist and distort during the early days of the faith. God, looking out for us, left enough for us to be able to raise a red flag and figure it out (such as Isaiah 66).

Matthew 6/Luke 12

Jesus tells us not to worry about food at all. In Luke 12 and Matthew 6, Jesus tells us not to worry about what we will eat.

²²And he said unto his disciples, Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat; neither for the body, what ye shall put on. ²³The life is more than meat, and the body is more than raiment. ²⁴Consider the ravens: for they neither sow nor reap; which neither have storehouse nor barn; and God feedeth them: how much more are ye better than the fowls?Luke 12:22-24 KJV

²⁵Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? ²⁶Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?Matthew 6:25-26 KJV

No one has ever brought up these verses in an argument. I believe this is because it is rather obvious that Jesus is speaking about worrying where your next meal will come from. Just as God provided food for the Israelites in the desert, He will provide food for His followers now. Whether we are short on money or living in the end times where buying and selling is illegal without the mark of the beast, there is no need to worry about what is happening here. While God has a purpose for us in this life, He will provide for us and once we fulfill that purpose, death is only the next step toward our final destination in Heaven. Jesus isn't saying eat whatever you want so much as don't worry about where the food will come from (see Luke 12:24 or Matthew 6:26).
Top

Denominations

Most denominations hang their hat on Acts 10 (or one of the other chapters mentioned above) and justify eating unclean meat. Some denominations forbid alcohol consumption, while others believe that moderate consumption is ok. Denominations such as the Latter Day Saints (or Mormons) abstain from caffeine in addition to alcohol. Seventh Day Adventists practice the dietary law, and promote vegetarianism. United Church of God also practices the Dietary Law.
Top

Alcohol

I don't need to rehash the dangers of alcoholism; we know that too much alcohol is a bad thing. People often turn in to the worst versions of themselves after parking in too much alcohol. There's also the dreaded hangover that can follow an evening of overconsumption. These are logical conclusion with or without faith. The question amongst believers is how much is too much? Throughout the Bible, God condemns drunkenness—the first time we see drunkenness it accompanies Ham's betrayal of Noah. Noah obviously had too much, but is that one beer, three classes of wine, a shot? Many churches err on the safe side and argue that you should just stay away from alcohol all together. It seems like a logical conclusion, after all you can't over-indulge if you don't indulge at all. Abstaining from alcohol not only ensures you won't become a drunk, it also saves money. Of course, there are several passages that seem to support the idea of moderate drinking in the appropriate setting. In Leviticus 10:9, God tells Aaron neither to have wine nor a strong drink before performing his duties as a priest; note that He doesn't say never have wine or a strong drink. Similarly, a wine offering is given in Leviticus 23:13 and Jesus turns the water into wine in John 2. Before Jesus is crucified they try to give Him wine (mixed with myrrh) and He refuses.^[3] So, what is God telling us to do?

There are those who argue that wine in the Bible is actually grape juice. Although wine is often listed alongside strong drinks, many believe it was not alcoholic.^[4] Reference 4 has a detailed and unbiased discussion on wether the wine mentioned is actually fermented and alcoholic or not. As you research the idea, I would encourage you to think more-so about your motivation in drinking an alcoholic beverage. Do you drink beer because everyone around you is drinking it and you don't want to be left out? Are you drinking because you need a "pick me up?" Could you not just ask God to cheer you up? Seeking refuge from problems is a dangerous reason to consume alcohol. Or do you actually like the way it tastes? I attended a school known for its alcoholism and grew up in family that makes wine, so I've had my share of tasting alcoholic beverages. For me, straight liquor is disgusting; I'm sure God did not want me to take that. What God makes is good, and boy my tastebuds and throat do not think straight liquor is good. Now, that being said, raw beans aren't good either... I've had a few mixed drinks that taste ok, but not so good that I feel the need to pay $10+ instead of $2 for a Pepsi. Most wine does taste good, though I still prefer grape juice to wine. I can easily see someone saying that grape juice is better than wine (I'm referencing the governor in John 2 who proclaims Jesus' wine is better than the other wine). I can also see wine being considered of God as long as you don't over indulge. Part of the Nazarite vow required the Nazarite to abstain from wine, as evidenced with John the Baptist, though it seems a bit weird to make them abstain from grape juice. Why not orange juice? Or apple juice? Milk? What would be so special about grape juice? Wine, on the other hand, has the potential to cause intoxication. It does make more sense that He would forbid wine.

It is obvious that God does not want us to be drunk; for some drunk comes one glass in, for others it may be ten glasses later. If you drink, I suggest researching the arguments and praying on the topic. Also, I encourage you look at the motivations behind drinking. Think about whether you partake every once in a while for a celebratory occasion (like the wedding Jesus attended) or if you drink to fit in, or to feel comfortable, etc. (these would indicate deeper issues). Can you go without drinking indefinitely? If the answer to that question is no, then drinking is definitely not something you should participate in.
Top

Caffeine

Caffeine is considered a physcoactive drug often found in coffee, soda, tea, and chocolate. Though it is considered a drug, it is a naturally occurring substance that is found in the leaves or fruits of certain plants.^[5] However, caffeine has the potential to cause addiction. While a person may not experience devastating withdrawal symptoms such as a person trying to quit a drug like heroin, symptoms such as fatigue or headaches do occur. For this reason some believe we are meant to abstain from caffeine as well. Denominations such as Seventh Day Adventist and the Latter Day Saints (Mormons) see caffeine as a gateway drug and thus members of these denominations will not consume things that contain caffeine.^[6][7]

What does the Bible say? The Bible doesn't specifically mention caffeine, though it does tell us not to be addicted to anything. We should never be in the position that we have to have something. Luckily, with caffeine is it easy to become "un-addicted." I use to be a very heavy Pepsi drinker, though I was always conscious that I was at risk for addiction (possibly because one of my best friends was Mormon and adhered to abstaining from caffeine). Throughout my life I would notice that suddenly Pepsi just didn't taste the way it had before, and then I'd stop drinking caffeine for a while—sometimes it was a month, sometimes a few months. Recently, I cut back to only one or two caffeinated drinks a week. I don't feel any different without the caffeine than I did when I drank 3 or 4 pepsi's a day. I would say that I saved money, but orange juice and grape juice (my substitutes) cost more than soda. I don't think that because you drink coffee you're going to suddenly go and try cocaine, so I wouldn't call it a gateway drug. I do think that there is risk in partaking in caffeine—we all know that person who is just horrible if they don't get their morning cup. I strongly believe God doesn't want us to be that person. I limit my caffeine intake, which is easy as the only two foods I consume that contain caffeine are soda and chocolate (I don't like coffee or tea). I don't eat much chocolate, maybe a piece once a month...maybe even every other month. So, really, I just try to keep my soda intake in check—often I substitute Sprite for my Pepsi. I haven't tried caffeine free soda, though that is an option as well. Like with all things, moderation is definitely the key. If you are an all or nothing type of person, then I'd suggest leaving the caffeine alone, but if you can have a little here and there without needing something all the time, moderation may be ok.
Top

Vegetarianism

Vegetarianism is more popular than most would believe, and often has no roots in faith. Yet there are some who promote the idea of vegetarianism in Christianity. It stems from the fact that God created us as vegetarians in the beginning. This implies that in perfection, we would not eat meat. The Seventh Day Adventists advocate vegetarianism when possible.^[7] God explicitly tells Noah we may eat meat, and explicitly defines for Moses which types of meat we may eat. This, however, does not mean we have to eat meat; simply that God allows us to. Brown University has put together some information on the benefits and risks of a vegetarian lifestyle, which can be found here. Benfits of being vegan (abstaining from both animals and animal byproducts such as milk or eggs) can be found here.
Top

Discussion

It stands to reason that if God never told us we could eat unclean animals, we can't eat unclean animals. God was very blunt and deliberate when He told Adam and Eve they could eat any of the green herbs that grew in the garden but could not eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. God was very blunt and deliberate when He told Noah he could eat meat but not blood. God was also blunt and deliberate when He told Moses and the rest of the Israelites that they couldn't eat unclean meats. Why wouldn't He be blunt and deliberate in telling us we could eat unclean animals? I imagine if God were to allow us to eat unclean foods, in Acts 10, Peter's vision would have followed with him having a pork roast or telling the others that all meat was now clean—instead it stays focused on the cleansing of the Gentiles. Why? Because that was the whole of what God meant. Unclean meat is still unclean meat. Note that just because beef is clean does not mean a medium rare steak is—God also tells us not to eat blood. At the very least, I think it's a matter Christians should pray on and read more into.
Top

References

1. Elwell, Walter A. "Entry for 'Clean, Unclean'". Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 1997
2. Long, Phillip J. "Acts 10 – What is a “God-Fearing Gentile”?". Reading Acts. February 2015
3. Mark 15
4. Patton, Michael. "Did Jesus Turn Water Into Wine or Grape Juice?". Credo House. November 2012
5. "Caffeine". Better Health. 2015
6. Armitage, Suzanne. "Word of Wisdom, Caffeine and Hypocrisy". Fair Mormon. 2015
7. Ministerial Association General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. "Christian Behavior". Seventh-day Adventists Believe ... A Biblical Exposition of 27 Fundamental Doctrines. 1988
8. "Please Explain Colossians 2:14". Sabbath Truth. 2010
9. Levy, Ralph. "Colossians 2:16-17: Does It Abolish the Law of Clean and Unclean Meats?". Life Hope & Truth. 2015
10. United Church of God. "What Did Paul Really Say in Colossians 2:16?". Beyond Today. February 2011
11. United Church of God. "God's Food Laws". Beyond Today. January 2011
12. Nicholas. "Q and A: What does 1 Tim 4:4 mean?". Presents of God Ministries. 2015
13. "Parallel History Bible: 1 Timothy 4:3". God Rules. 2015
14. "Word: brwma". God Rules. 2015
15. Montesinos, Rafael. "1 Timothy 4:3-5". DefensaAdventista. 2015
16. Acts 16:1
17. SRoper. "Comment on Acts 15 and 1 Corinthians 8". Puritan Board. November 2013
18. Garland, David E. "The Dispute Over Food Sacrificed to Idols (1 Cor 8:1-11:1)". George W. Truett Theological Seminary. 2015
19. Pastor Doug Batchelor. "How Does Romans 14 Fit With Biblical Direction to Avoid Unclean Meat?". Amazing Facts; visited 2017