1 Timothy 4:3Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

Why is this so, if something was created to serve as food? Because bread too was created, yet excess is forbidden. Wine too was created, yet excess is forbidden. In the present case he commands abstinence from pleasure not because it is unclean, but because through excess it weakens the soul.

What then, you ask? Do we not forbid marriage? Not at all. We do not forbid those who desire it. But those who do not desire to marry, we persuade to preserve virginity. To forbid is one thing; to leave each person master of his will is another. The one who forbids does so without any limitation. But the one who advises the preservation of virginity as something higher does not forbid marriage. He persuades one to remain in virginity.

"Forbidding to marry and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by the faithful and by those who know the truth."

He rightly said, "those who know the truth." Therefore the former prohibitions had another meaning, since nothing is unclean by nature. It becomes so through the conviction of the one who receives it.

Indeed, why were many foods forbidden to them? To root out excessive satiety in them. If he had said, "Do not eat, lest you become sated," they would not have accepted it. Instead, he now makes this a law of necessity for them, so that through greater fear they might abstain more readily.

Everyone knows that fish is more unclean than pork. Nevertheless, they were not forbidden to eat it. As for how destructive satiety was for them, hear what Moses says: "Israel grew fat and kicked; he grew fat, thick, and gross; and he forsook God" (Deut 32:15).

There is also another reason. Namely, that after being placed in a constrained condition, they might finally turn to oxen and begin slaughtering sheep. It was not without reason that, because of Apis and the calf, he forbade the use of everything else. The latter is unclean, unpleasant, repulsive, and foul.

Good, you will say, what then do you command us to do? To go into the mountains and become monks? I grieve that you consider modesty and chastity the duty of monks alone, whereas Christ established laws common to all.

I do not forbid marriage, nor do I prevent rejoicing. But I want this to take place with chastity, not with shamelessness and countless vices. I do not command you to go into the mountains and deserts. I command you to conduct yourself honorably, modestly, and chastely while living in the city.

What then? Did God not create foods for unbelievers? Yes, but they abstain from them. What then? Is enjoyment not forbidden? It certainly is, but not the eating of food. Eating keeps moderation, but enjoyment knows no measure. Yet even enjoyment of food is not unclean in itself, but because it weakens the soul of those who give themselves to it.

"And those who know the truth."

Everything Jewish was a figure, but now the truth reigns. Many things were forbidden to the Jews (Lev 11:2 and following), not as unclean, but in order to uproot enjoyment. Being placed in a constricted condition by many prohibitions, they were to begin slaughtering bulls and sheep. In this way they would know what gods the Egyptians had invented for themselves. Therefore, by "the truth," understand either faith in Christ or simply the truth that will immediately be discussed.

Therefore, if that wondrous man allowed this anywhere else, we shall concede this also, for one must not be contentious. But see whether there has not been an error in one letter or stroke, and whether it should be read: “forbidding to marry and to hold fast to foods,” αντεχεσθαι, or εχεσθαι, instead of απεχεσθαι.

The Church honors marriage as honorable, Heb 13:4, and does not abhor foods. Yet she does not command one to hold fast to them either, assigning a middle place to both marriage and foods. Better is the one who rises above enjoyment of both. Yet the one who enjoys them moderately is blameless. The one who rejects them settles outside the sacred enclosure.

That often one letter, changed into another, omitted, or added, makes the meaning of what is said difficult is evident from what is written in the Acts of the Apostles: “if,” ει, “a spirit or an angel spoke to him,” Acts 23:9. It is also evident in the Epistle to the Hebrews: “if,” ει, “perfection were through the Levitical priesthood,” Heb 7:11. Therefore the particle “if,” ει, means “since,” επει. Otherwise the meaning is cut short and becomes contrary to what the Apostle intended to say.

In the words “true yokefellow,” Phil 4:3, one may also read “true yokefellow” in the feminine, by adding or writing the letter iota, but not pronouncing it.

In the book of Proverbs it is written: “At last it goes down more naked than a dyeing tree,” υπεον, Prov 23:31. What is this name, υπεον? The writer of Proverbs did not say “naked,” or “entirely naked,” as υπεζον, as he would have had to say if this word indicated either the dyer’s tree or an upper chamber, υπεωον. On the contrary, he said “more naked.”

What is said in the Psalm, “it shall be,” εσται, “to stillness,” that is, to a quiet and spring-like state, has been changed thus: “it stood,” εστη, “to stillness,” Ps 106:29.

Again, in the words, “The Lord settles the flood, and will sit,” Ps 28:10, that is, He subdues it, and the flood will be subdued, it says “settles,” κατοικιει, and not “will make dwell,” as some think. This is like the saying, “He makes the barren woman dwell,” κατοικιζει, “in a house,” Ps 112:9; and, “The Lord makes those of one mind dwell,” κατοικιζει, “in a house,” Ps 67:7; and, “Thou, O Lord, hast made me dwell,” κατωχισας, “alone in hope,” Ps 4:9. For the word οικισαι has another meaning.

Some, perhaps not understanding this, wrote, “And the Lord will sit as king forever.” But the beginnings of the verses convict them, in which the first word is “Lord”: “The Lord is king forever,” and, “The Lord will give strength to His people; the Lord will bless His people with peace,” Ps 28:11.

In the Song of Songs the words, “I adjure you, daughters of Jerusalem, by the powers and by the strengths of the field: if you awaken and arouse love until it wishes,” Song 2:7, have this meaning: love allows whomever it wishes to soar on high.

Those who did not understand the meaning of the particle “if,” εαν, namely, that it signifies permission, wrote instead, “if you awaken and arouse love.” Then one would have had to add, “if you awaken it, such and such will happen,” and not leave the sentence unfinished.

Yet, lest I lengthen the letter more than is fitting, I have said what not only does not damage the meaning of the Scriptures, but restores it, makes it firm and unshaken, and resolves the seeming obscurity. I end here, advising future readers to look upon this without contentiousness. If anything has been said correctly, let them give thanks to God. If anything is incorrect, let them not deprive the writer of pardon, since he said this indecisively and left the judgment to future readers.

But according to the Apostle, food does not commend us to God. The Apostle himself was ready never to eat meat (1 Cor 8:13), so as not to scandalize his brother. Yet he did this out of love for his neighbor, not from aversion to food. As God's creation, food is good in itself, and as useful for man it must be received with thanksgiving to God.

To understand more clearly why the Apostle rises so strongly against false teachers who reject marriage and condemn the eating of meat, one must observe that beneath this false teaching another, more dangerous one was concealed. It denied the very dogma of the Incarnation of the Son of God and distorted the true meaning of the teaching about redemption.

Starting from the thought that the flesh is a product of the devil, and that therefore the Son of God could not assume true human flesh, but only an apparent one, the heretics tried to instill contempt for the flesh in Christians. They urged the exhausting of it by excessive abstinence from certain foods, and also from marriage.

At the same time, another goal was achieved: the rejection of the reality of the Incarnation of the Son of God, and therefore also of the reality of our salvation by the God-man Jesus Christ. Penetrating into the satanic depths of the false teaching, the Apostle, illumined by the Holy Spirit, teaches Timothy and all Christians to beware of these hypocritical ascetics, lying teachers who, as he says, have a seared conscience.

Whoever abstained from them in this spirit would be uttering blasphemy against the Creator of all things.

Blessed Theodoret writes: 'They call both marriage and most foods abominable, in mockery of their Creator, who made them for blameless use.'

For this reason the Apostle calls such abstinence blameworthy and warns against it. In what spirit and for what motives believers may abstain from marriage, the Apostle indicated in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 7.

There too he indicated that everyone who struggles ought to abstain from all such things, offering himself as an example; cf. 1 Cor 9:25-27.

The false speakers erred not because they urged celibacy and abstinence, but because they turned both into an unavoidable law, and did so on false principles.

This is what the Apostle condemns. He 'does not reject celibacy and abstinence, but accuses those who force men to count them as law' (Blessed Theodoret).

They acted as though those who partook of them thereby became unclean and stood among the perishing.

Blessed Theophylact asks: 'What then? Do we not forbid people to marry?' He answers: 'By no means.

But those who do not wish to marry we direct toward the preservation of virginity, teaching that it is more honorable.

Yet it does not follow from this that marriage is dishonorable. Likewise, from the fact that gold is more honorable, it does not follow that silver is dishonorable.

In general, the more honorable is more honorable because it is more honorable than what is honorable. The better is better than what is good, not than what is bad.

Therefore, let the one who can lay hold of the gold of virginity. Let the one who cannot do this receive the silver of marriage.'

Who were these false teachers? The Jews abstained from certain foods. But they had a definite commandment concerning this, and as long as they remained Jews they could not act otherwise.

In other Epistles Saint Paul does not blame them for this. He only teaches that now the keeping of this law is no longer timely.

But in the present passage, as it seems, the Apostle does not have them in mind. He means those who abstained not by God's commandment, but by their own vain wisdom.

Yet it may be considered likely that they borrowed the example of abstinence from foods from the Jews, and even built their false teaching occasioned by it.

Thus the prohibition of foods may, in some small part, be considered as resting on Judaism, though not in a Jewish spirit.

As for forbidding marriage, neither Judaism nor paganism could provide occasion or support for it. This is something entirely new.

Whence did it come? Perhaps it was the offspring of the false teaching creeping into Colossae and circulating through Phrygia, in which harsh treatment of the flesh was a prominent point; cf. Col 2:23.

It was very natural to add to this the prohibition of marriage, which the Ephesians did.

From the word 'forbidding' one cannot directly conclude that this was already happening in practice at that time.

In connection with the preceding discourse, it can also mean: those who will forbid. Yet one cannot deny that the beginnings were already present.

Such a teaching was already circulating, but it was still weak, both because its followers were few and perhaps because the whole system had not yet been established.

Both things were still expected in the future. The Apostle therefore gives warning.

Among the heresies that later appeared, one may see the Manichaeans, Encratites, and Marcionites indicated here. So say Saint Chrysostom and all our other interpreters.

Grammatically, 'forbidding ... to abstain from foods' would directly mean that they demanded men not to abstain from foods, that is, to receive every food without scruple.

But this would be contrary to the Apostle's thought. Therefore it must be understood as if it read: 'forbidding to marry and commanding to abstain from foods' (Blessed Theophylact).

Oecumenius gives several examples from Greek writers to show that there is no mistake in the Apostle's words, and that such expression is characteristic of Attic speech.

'Which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.' Having indicated some subjects of the false teaching, Saint Paul immediately exposes its untenability briefly but decisively.

He fixes attention, however, only on the latter point, the forbidding of foods. The first point, forbidding marriage, he does not deem worthy of attention.

This is probably because its absurdity is self-evident to everyone. If it became universal, it would directly lead to the end of the human race.

Ambrosiaster writes: 'They do not grieve that they were born, yet they forbid marriages,' thus showing themselves haters of mankind.

Perhaps the Apostle passed over this subject of the false teaching because it was only beginning to arise and was coming forward timidly.

Meanwhile the error concerning the use of foods was already circulating openly through the Churches. It was being introduced by the Judaizers, though in a different sense than by these Ephesian false teachers.

The Apostle presses upon this error and leaves the first aside. Saint Chrysostom notes, among other things, that 'the Apostle acted this way because he did not wish prematurely to sow in believers' souls the thought that marriage is unclean.

He exposes only what had already begun, namely, the error concerning food.'

He exposes it by pointing to the purpose for which foods were created: 'which God created to be received.'

God placed in the nature of man, as an animal being, the need for food. Around him, among the creatures, He scattered such things as can satisfy this need by being eaten.

He permitted this to them already in Paradise. He confirmed the same at the expulsion from it and expanded it in the commandments and blessings given to righteous Noah after the flood.

God arranged this so that people, seeing in the food prepared around them His good care for them, would recognize it and receive food with thanksgiving.

This thanksgiving was to nourish religious feelings toward God, and in points of faith concerning God to illumine His countenance with bright, attractive, and awakening features.

Thus in this act, seemingly the simplest, the eating of food, God placed a most compelling and constantly speaking school of faith and piety.

The false teachers, by suggesting that there are foods that make a man unclean, perverted this order of God.

They turned men away from God's intention in giving man both the need for food and food itself.

They cast a certain darkness upon God's creation and made this constantly speaking school about God, and about the feelings due to Him, fall silent.

Clearly, they are impious. 'By suggesting that there are foods unclean and worthy of aversion, they brought men to unworthy thoughts about the Creator of man.

They disposed men to believe that such foods have another creator, and not a good one' (Ambrosiaster).

Thus by this brief reminder of the purpose for which foods were created, the Apostle sufficiently exposed the untenability of the false teaching about them.

Of course, such exposure could be understood and convincing only for those in whom religious feeling is alive and sound concepts about God are strong.

Therefore Saint Paul added: 'by those who believe and know the truth.' He did not say this in the sense that God created foods to be received only by such people.

He meant that such people use them according to God's intention in creating them, that is, they eat them with thanksgiving.

Since he wrote to those who believe and know the truth, his speech suggested this: you who believe and know the truth, by eating foods with thanksgiving, precisely and fully fulfill God's intention in creating them.

Your thanksgiving sanctifies every food. Eat it, doubting nothing, and do not yield to the disturbance that the false speakers wish to plant in you by claiming that there are unclean foods.

The Apostle's words may be paraphrased this way: God created these foods so that believers might eat them with thanksgiving, doubting nothing.

There is no word about unbelievers. They eat food without any good thoughts, only to eat and be pleased, like unclean animals.

Even clean foods, if one is to distinguish them, they make unclean by their ungrateful heart and by the merely sensual pleasure of throat and belly.

'Foods are unclean for the one who eats them without thanksgiving and praise to Him who created them' (Ambrosiaster).

What then, someone will say? Is enjoyment of foods forbidden? Enjoyment naturally accompanies the eating of pleasant food.

But in those who receive it with thankful feelings toward God, enjoyment loses the character of sensuality, is spiritualized, and is sanctified.

When foods are eaten in order to enjoy them, making provision for the flesh in lust, men appear plunged into sensuality.

But when foods are received to satisfy unavoidable need, with thanksgiving, then they feel sweetness without becoming sensual.

The uplifting of mind and heart to God in this act makes the sweetness itself somehow detached and freed from materiality.

Such people receive food, but they do not indulge the flesh in it.

The word 'receiving,' metalepsis, means participation or reception. Oecumenius writes: 'See how by the word metalepsis the Apostle drove out luxury, tryphe? Metalepsis means moderate reception of food.'

'Metalepsis,' writes Theophylact, 'preserves moderation. Tryphe knows no measure. Yet even enjoyment of food is not unclean in itself, but because it relaxes the soul of those who surrender to it.'

Both take this from Saint Chrysostom.

By 'the truth' in the words 'those who know the truth,' he means the Christian faith, which alone contains true and sound views about all that exists.

Here, of course, is also included the truth concerning foods, that they must be received with thanksgiving, in moderate satisfaction of the body's need.

Those who see it this way act in this respect with full conviction that they act rightly, according to God's will.

Such conviction gives brightness and holiness to the simple use of food, and surrounds it with a certain special feeling.

Or perhaps here there is a fore-indication of 'that truth of which he will immediately speak, namely, every creature of God is good' (Blessed Theophylact).