This gives specific mention of two practices – forbidding marrying and abstaining from meats, both of which are practiced by Roman Catholics. Of whom Paul is speaking has been a point of contention for many years. It would be difficult to know if he refers to any specific movement that later developed. That should not matter to us because the teaching is the measure of truth or error, not the men who start a “movement.” As already noted, truth is not based on the unproven claim that their traditions came from the apostles when no evidence supports it. Therefore, anyone who advocates a teaching that resembles the error that Paul specifically identifies in this passage has aligned themselves with an apostasy. This would include the practices of the past and present.
1 Timothy 4:1-5 – “But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons,by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude; for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer.”
It is difficult to point to just one teaching that Paul may be referencing, here. Any or all of the popular views would be applicable, however. For example, many Greek philosophers adopted forms of asceticism (Pythagoreans, Stoics, Sophists, and Cynics). Plato viewed asceticism as a way to condition the body to a point at which the soul could be free. The Jewish Philosopher, Philo, may have also had a large influence toward these thoughts. The Essences, a sect of the Jews, were also among those already practicing the list of things mentioned before Paul wrote this letter. They rejected marriage except under strict regulations for the purpose of preservation and abstained from the consumption of wine and animals. (Vincent) Why they taught these things and what influences were in place is difficult to trace with any certainty. What is certain is that human beings adopt certain elements from different sources to produce a unique version or twist of their own that would attract others.
The Jewish Gnostics of the second century had many variations of practice and teaching among them. Their principal teaching of “docetism” was founded on the notion that matter is inherently evil, and that God could not be associated with it. This affected their view of the nature of Jesus and whether he really became a man and died on the cross. Since a human being is only an eternal spirit trapped inside an evil body, their ultimate goal is to escape the prison of the body and the material world to reunite with the spiritual. One can see how Paul’s teaching could be perverted to give it this twist (Romans 8:19-21, 2 Cor.5:1-8, 16). The smorgasbord of teaching illustrates how human beings may pick and choose verses that support a context that is different from the one from which they borrowed certain statements. If matter is evil, then, two of the body’s greatest appetites (marriage and food) would be rejected. This influence was so widespread that even the Koran reads, “And for claiming that they killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of GOD. In fact, they never killed him, they never crucified him – they were made to think that they did. All factions who are disputing in this matter are full of doubt concerning this issue. They possess no knowledge; they only conjecture. For certain, they never killed him.”[1] You will also notice the mention of “knowledge” in the above quote. The very idea of a “Gnostic” is the claim to possess knowledge as a gift unknown to others.
Another example can be taken from Eusebius, who quotes from Irenæus, that Saturninus, Marcion, and the Encratites preached abstinence from marriage and animal meats.[2] I doubt that Paul had specific reference to any certain group, but to the teaching itself that is repeated by many through the centuries.
The Catholics, based on 1 Corinthians 7, held to this view. Although, Paul makes no clergy/laity distinction, one way to elevate the one with knowledge and dedication to the holy is to disallow marriage for them. It is true that Paul prefers virginity as the better choice, but it was not applied to clergyman, but to all Christians (“saints”) who were presently in distress. Even then, Paul does not forbid it. In fact, he specifically states that no sin is committed by choosing marriage. Notice carefully, the context of the reading. Paul writes:
“But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and his interests are divided. The woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how she may please her husband. This I say for your own benefit; not to put a restraint upon you, but to promote what is appropriate and to secure undistracted devotion to the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:32-35).
Unfortunately, one reads the words, “holy” and “undistracted devotion” and instead of seeing all priestly-Christians, he or she envisions a distinct class — a clergy of priests. Such distinctions are not made in Scripture and for that reason it is very possible that the goal of the “church fathers” was to transition people away from Gnostic teaching on celibacy by providing a place for it in their own society. After all, those who are were strong advocates were spiritual leaders who would find the priesthood a perfect fit. The practice of the institutional church to adopt a popular practice was commonplace in order to keep people bound to it.
The context of 1 Corinthians 7 speaks of a “present distress” (v. 26) and advises virgins not to seek a wife. However, he follows it with the statement, “But if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Yet such will have trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you (27-28). Again, this is not intended to separate the devout Christians (those who remain virgins and support chastity and purity) from those who marry (those who are not strong but burn in lust). It is intended to spare all Christians from the burden of care given to a spouse under the threat of persecution (cf. 1Cor. 7:26). The broader principle of undistracted attention to spiritual things, while still true, does not support a clergy. Pope Pius XII writes:
“Holy virginity and that perfect chastity which is consecrated to the service of God is without doubt among the most precious treasures which the Founder of the Church has left in heritage to the society which He established.” This assuredly was the reason why the Fathers of the Church confidently asserted that perpetual virginity is a very noble gift which the Christian religion has bestowed on the world. They rightly noted that the pagans of antiquity imposed this way of life on the Vestals only for a certain time; and that, although in the Old Testament virginity is ordered to be kept and preserved, it is only a previous requisite for marriage; and furthermore, as Ambrose writes, ‘We read that also in the temple of Jerusalem there were virgins. But what does the Apostle say? ‘Now all these things happened to them in figure’, that this might be a foreshadowing of what was to come.”[3]
Several observations are necessary to show the rule of one man and how Scripture is twisted to support their practice. First, Paul didn’t “establish a society.” Second, he mistakenly connects chastity (he calls “perfect chastity”) with virginity, which implies that a married man or woman cannot be chaste or pure. Yet, marriage is “honorable” (Heb. 13:4) when having an “undefiled bed.” A holy bed is not the absence of a spouse, but the presence of “your” own spouse (cf. 1 Cor. 7:1). That’s all he writes about the heritage left by Paul. What follows is a reference to what the “Church Fathers” taught. In seeking to establish a link to the Jewish temple, he appeals to Ambrose’s misapplied quote of the foreshadowing of the Old Testament temple virgins to support present day virgins “in the church society.” This use of 1 Corinthians 4:6 as a proof-text is like a child trying to force a piece of a puzzle into the wrong spot. This application can only be made if we understand the church as an institution that resembles the Old Testament regime of a physical temple with physical priests to serve the people.
He further adds:
Further,
the Fathers of the Church, such as Cyprian, Athanasius, Ambrose, John
Chrysostom, Jerome, Augustine, and many others, have sung the praises of
virginity. And this doctrine of the Fathers, augmented through the course of
centuries by the Doctors of the Church and the masters of asceticism, helps
greatly either to inspire in the faithful of both sexes the firm resolution of
dedicating themselves to God by the practice of perfect chastity and of
persevering thus till death, or to strengthen them in the resolution already
taken.[4]
Pope Pius XII closely aligns himself with the “Church Fathers.” These “Doctors of the Church” and “masters of asceticism” inspires the “faithful” to commit themselves to this form of asceticism. For proof, he appeals to the “doctors” and “masters,” not to Jesus Christ and His apostles.
Returning to 1Timothy 4, it is not important that we know of
whom he is speaking, if he has reference to any particular group. What is important is that these practices
and teachings are described as a “falling away from the faith” and a “listening
to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons.”
It is the production of “hypocrisy of men that speak lies” and “branded
consciences.” The result of these false
claims leads others astray.
[1] Koran 4:157
[2] Ecclesiastical History, 4.29
[3] “SACRA VIRGINITAS” Encyclical of Pope Pius XII on Consecrated Virginity,12,4) http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_25031954_sacra-virginitas_en.html
[4] Ibid.