• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

What do we do with this? (1 timothy 4)

A

Asforme&myhouse

Seasoned Member
Real Person
Male
1 Timothy 4:1-5
"Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer."

What do we with this? Is it speaking about not only those who would forbid monogamous marriage but those who forbid biblical marriage? I would assume so since there isn't anything to specify between the two. It would seem that no one is forbidding monogamous marriage, really anywhere, not the government, not the church, not even oppressive regimes around the world. Is that verse specifically speaking about the traditional modern churches?
 
I agree that nobody seems to be forbidding marriage entirely, and I can't see anyone doing that in future either. They might change the legal details, even the names, but I can't see anyone ever forbidding a man and a woman from living together in what we would call a "marriage" even if they don't use that word for it but call it "domestic partnership" or some such nonsense. This must be about forbidding particular types of marriage that are allowed in scripture.

Forms of legitimate marriage that are or have been forbidden in different places include (there may be others)
  • marriage of priests
  • polygamy
  • interracial marriage
  • arguably marriage of young people, if the legal age of consent is set overly high in particular jurisdictions (can of worms, don't intend to debate that, just listing everything)
  • marriage of relatives not forbidden in scripture.
To illustrate the last point, my great-great-great-grandfather married a woman, who had one child, but then became very ill. Her sister moved in to keep house. After the wife died, he married the sister. But according to the Church of England, his sister-in-law was to be considered as his own sister, so it would be incest for him to marry her, so the church would not marry them. So they headed up to Scotland and got married at Gretna Green (a place just across the border where all the couples who couldn't get married in England for one reason or another eloped to, often young couples, mainly because Scotland had lower marriage ages without parental consent and allowed anyone to perform wedding ceremonies). He then had another 13 or so children to the second sister. This is an example of marriage being forbidden as "incest" by man, when it is not actually forbidden by God. And also a great example of recognizing when the church is wrong and just doing what you know is right anyway (I have a lot of respect for my great-great-great-grandfather!).

I think the main point to take from this verse is that the "doctrine of demons" we are warned about is not "people allowing improper marriages" but rather "forbidding of marriage". Yes, gay marriage etc is wrong, and our society is slipping down a dark track with that. But forbidding marriage is an even bigger problem, so bad it is called a "doctrine of demons". So if Christians are upset about gay marriage, we should be even more upset about mandatory monogamy, because that could be even more evil...
 
[Q I think the main point to take from this verse is that the "doctrine of demons" we are warned about is not "people allowing improper marriages" but rather "forbidding of marriage". Yes, gay marriage etc is wrong, and our society is slipping down a dark track with that. But forbidding marriage is an even bigger problem, so bad it is called a "doctrine of demons". So if Christians are upset about gay marriage, we should be even more upset about mandatory monogamy, because that could be even more evil...[/QUOTE]

That's kind of what I was thinking. I personally think that the church has given that which is God's to caesar. Going to the government or the chuch for permission to do something that God created and ordained before any government or chuch existed. We are now seeing the fruit of that with "gay marriage" and the divorce rate in the church.

So, if that, in fact, is the case (forbidding to marry being a doctrine of demons) what should a believer do in reguard to sitting under that teaching? Does one continue to attend services and be a good witness or leave?
 
We see in the New Testament (can't give a reference off the top of my head, just a general rule) that the new church were meeting in their homes, but also preaching in the synagogues. As far as I can see they did not abandon their old Jewish fellowship at all, they kept on going, and preaching, until their preaching either convinced the congregation that Yeshua was Messiah or got them kicked out. A scary approach, but scriptural! I'm not saying we all have to do that of course.

We must remember always that marriage is only one theological detail among many, and we must not let polygyny be our entire focus. If we think this one detail is so important that we would be willing to break fellowship over it with a church assembly that we agree with in most other issues, we are getting pretty close to making polygyny an idol and becoming a weird cultist.

Now this could show you that the teaching as a whole is not as solid as you once thought, that the pastor is not truly as bible-based as you believed, and get you to start seeking an alternative assembly where you may be able to learn more. Nothing wrong with that. In that case you would be leaving over something far more important, with polygyny just being the issue that brought it to your attention.

The simplest approach is to leave it in YHWH's hands. Pray "if you want me to leave let them kick me out over polygyny, if you want me to stay let them be happy with me staying". Then you just have to sit back and see what He decides you will do!
 
I support polygyny, but really don't see that specifically in this verse. I may be wrong, but I seem to remember this verse having to do more with gnostic heresy. It may have something to do with monastic or ascetic lifestyles being promoted as superior. I will research and get back.
 
I don't see it needing to be narrowed to any one thing. It seems to have been intentionally broad. Do some churches reject polygyny? yes, then it fits. Do some churches forbid only certain members to marry? Yes, then it fits. Do some churches reject patriarchy? Yes, then it fits. Are there churches that require a certain diet? Yes, then it fits. Anything that defies any clear biblical doctrine is a departure from the faith, giving heed to a deceiving spirit, a doctrine of demons and a lie spoken in hypocrisy. What catches my eye, when I read this, is how you will know them, and that this by the searing of their mind. These are the ones who absolutely refuse to hear anything you have to tell them. You will always be wrong. Some will almost go into a kind of conniption fit over it. (sounds kind of like a demonic influence doesn't it?) Or in some cases, it could be a simple, "well, I don't think that's what it means and you'll never be able to change my mind." and you can't, it's been seared.
 
Don't forget that biblical marriage requires wifely submission, and that is being forbidden in our society.

I don't want to argue about the extent to the required submission but I think we can all agree that a level of submission is required and that the culture and increasing the legal institutions are moving to forbid that.

In this sense what God recognizes as marriage is being forbidden by the church and government by forbidding polygyny and encouraging all kinds of adultery and rebellion.
 
I guess the biggest thing for me isn't so much polygyny itself. At first when I began to realise that it is scripturally permissible, I was just like hmm that's interesting I guess it's not a sin, but then it began to dawn on me that there is more to it than that. Polygyny is so distasteful in the modern church that under the churches teaching about marriage in general it can't be ok at all. That's when it began to dawn on me that the understanding of what marriage is touches so many aspects of doctrine that we can't afford to have a wrong view of what marriage is. God repeatedly uses marriage as an illustration of our relationship to Him. If we don't understand our position in this relationship we are not going to be in submission to Christ as we ought. This misunderstanding of marriage also creates numerous family problems in the church. It isn't so much the idea that they would forbid plural marriages, but their reasoning for doing so. Also, the sheer number of scriptural references that they choose to ignore makes one wonder about other things being taught and why they are being taught... and then there is the whole doctrine of demons thing... Yikes! Not saying that I'm leaving yet, but I am pondering all these things.
 
I agree this verse isn't specifically about polygyny. It is about many things, one of those things is "forbidding marriage", and polygyny is just one of several forms of marriage that fall under this. A large part of it is forbidding of marriage by priests (I believe this is the gnostic heresy you refer to Mojo), and the standard Protestant church would generally interpret the verse to be only about that. But the verse doesn't talk about any specific situation, just "forbidding marriage" in general, which is far wider and does encompass polygyny also - and that prohibition actually affects everyone rather than just priests.
 
History is key.

We live in 2016, and scripture was written some 2k years ago, yet we try to take our modern , individual concerns and fit them into ancient dilemmas.

Could it be referring even to Hellenistic practices of temple prostitution?
Could it refer to Jews being forbidden to marry unclean Gentiles?
Could it refer to celibate priests?

Sometimes the scriptures are mysteries wrapped up inside enigmas.

I just really don't see polygyny specifically in here...just my opinion.
 
A further thought on this matter, the verse says "...forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods..." It does not say, commanding to abstain from marrying. The difference being, forbidding to marry doesn't necessarily mean commanding complete abstinence from a thing. Let me know if this makes sense and perhaps someone with a better grasp of the original greek can let me know if this holds any water.
 
You can forbid two people from marrying without commanding them to abstain from marriage completely. For instance, John can forbid Joe and Jane from marrying each other without forbidding either of them from marrying someone else. Perhaps Joe already has a wife. Joe isn't being commanded to abstain from marriage, he's already married, but he has been forbidden to marry Jane. John forbids Jane from marrying Joe, but is completely fine with Jane marrying Robert, who is single. Does that make sense?

I'm not saying that's what the verse says, I'm just wondering if that's a possibility considering that two different words were used when it seems the same one could have been used for both, marrying and foods.
 
Ah, that makes sense. And yes, I agree. Nobody seems to try and forbid marriage entirely, just particular forms of union that they disapprove of.

We need to remember that some forbidding of marriage must be acceptable. For instance, if I told my daughter "I forbid you from marrying Joe the violent druggie who already has two wives who never appear in public without two black eyes and in ragged clothes", I would simply be acting in my legitimate capacity as her parental authority looking out for her welfare. There is no Biblical law forbidding her from marrying Joe, but surely I have the legitimate authority to make a judgment call here.

Where does my authority as her father stop? Could I forbid her from entering any polygamous marriage? Quite possibly.

But if I were to become an elected politician and pass a law forbidding all women from entering polygamous marriages - or even forbid all women from marrying violent druggies - I would be forbidding marriage outside my true authority and therefore be in breach of this passage. Because I have no true authority over anyone else's daughter, whatever human political position I may hold.

So maybe this refers to illegitimate forbidding of marriage, rather than all forbidding of marriage?
 
FollowingHim said:
So maybe this refers to illegitimate forbidding of marriage, rather than all forbidding of marriage?
Click to expand...

This is how I have interpreted it, but I suppose there is nothing there solidifying that stance.

FollowingHim said:
Where does my authority as her father stop? Could I forbid her from entering any polygamous marriage? Quite possibly.
Click to expand...

This reminds me of Genesis 31:50 where Laban says to Jacob: If you mistreat my daughters, or if you take wives besides my daughters, although no man is with us, see, God is witness between you and me.” While he wasn't prohibiting polygyny, he was asking for a covenant between the two of them that Jacob would not take another wife, presumably to ensure Laban's descendants were the benefactors of Jacob's blessings. I hesitate to use anything Laban did as evidence, but I do think it applies to this conversation.
 
I think there is biblical precedent for fathers to have some authority over who their daughter marries. It seems that first timothy is speaking about some who depart from the faith following doctrines of demons, and not necessarily politicians, although I suppose they could follow doctrines of demons as well.
 
Not to derail a thread, but doctrines OF demons could also be a reference to those who believe that demons exist. Studying the terms demon and demons, what they used to mean, and where the terms come from is kind of fascinating. Those two words do not appear in the Hebrew scriptures, only in the biblical books translated from the greek.
Maybe another thread if anyone is interested in the subject?
 
We have long seen this verse as applicable to polygyny, as it was a lawful and fairly common thing for a man to marry another wife in biblical times.
I'm sure neither YHWH, nor those preaching the gospel would have considered anything involving same gender couples marriage, and as others have pointed out, no one forbids monogamous unions, with or without state sanction. This means that the only lawful thing (scripturally speaking) that is forbidden, (especially in Utah, and by self righteous people who exalt themselves above the knowledge of God) is polygyny.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top