p. 165 | 1 Timothy iv, 1--5 by John Harvey Waggoner

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Apr 24, 1866

1 Timothy iv, 1--5.

By John Harvey Waggoner

SEVERAL inquiries have been made for an explanation of 1 Tim. iv, 1-5. This scripture has by some been applied to the action of the Catholic church; the points which give plausibility to that view, are found in verse 3, supposed to be fulfilled by the facts of that church, and the disallowing the clergy to marry.

But we do not believe it has its application there. Several points of similarity will not prove identity. The correct application must be where all the specifications are fulfilled. We have applied it to the work of Spiritualism, and still think we must look there for its fulfillment. The first and second verses need no comment: they are too plainly fulfilled. The third verse is evidently not fulfilled. But it is worthy of notice, that Spiritualism is setting the full tide of its influence against the marriage institution. While the Catholics deprive the clergy of marriage, they preserve the institution, regarding it as sacred. And we know of no people, either Christian or anti-Christian, who are waging a war against the very institution of marriage, except the Spiritualists. That marriage should be abused as it is, we all regret, and if these abuses could be corrected we should rejoice. But Spiritualists do not expect or aim to correct the abuses of the system, but to abolish it altogether. Proofs on this point will soon be given.

But we suppose the particular point of inquiry is concerning the commandment to abstain from meats, in connection with verse 4: "For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving." There seems to be an apprehension that our present position on diet will conflict with this. But we think there is no ground for fear.

1. We do not know of any disposition on the part of Seventh-day Adventists to command to abstain from meats; every one is permitted and expected to "be fully persuaded in his own mind." There has been no "test" established in the matter, nor do we expect there will be.

2. There must be a limitation to the words, "Every creature of God is good." No one believes, or ever did believe that all creatures or all animals were fit for food. It is needless to say that there has always been a difference of opinion as to where the line of limitation should be drawn; but that there is a limit to the expression all agree. And having divided animals into two classes—"clean and unclean"—fit and unfit for food, we must then draw another line, relative to their condition. For some time past in Europe the cattle have been affected with a terrible plague: now if a portion of such flesh were placed before any of our inquiring friends, would they eat it because it is written, "Every creature of God is good?" Or if a piece of filthy swine, crawling with Trichina, certain to cause the most awful suffering and horrible death to the presumptuous eater, was offered to them, would they receive it "with thanksgiving?" Of course they would not; neither would they scruple for fear of coming in conflict with the text in such cases.

But here is just where we are placed. Allowing that there was a time when flesh meats might be eaten with safety or benefit, that time is evidently past. "The whole creation" feels the fall of man, and every thing shows signs of degeneracy and decay. As diseases are on the increase, the animals, too, are sufferers, and the danger of eating their flesh is increased. It is difficult also to determine the state of health of an animal; therefore we purchase at a continual risk.

We look upon it as a special mercy to us as a people, that this subject has been introduced to our notice. We are students of prophecy, we are looking forward to a time of trouble—of persecution and suffering; when we shall not be permitted to buy or sell; perhaps not suffered to dwell in our own homes. Need we raise the query, Who will best pass through these troubles? such as have accustomed themselves to luxurious food, or such as have denied their appetite and learned the valuable art of "eating to live?" The Jews loathed the plain, simple, and of course, healthy, food that God furnished them in the desert, because their appetites craved the accustomed meat from "the flesh-pots of Egypt." Had that generation been trained to a simple diet in Egypt, they would have been saved many trials. This is a voluntary work,—a work of faith. There are more considerations why we should consider this a genuine reform, than can be noticed in one article. Suffice it that we feel perfectly at rest on it so far as the above scripture is concerned.

J. H. WAGGONER.

Battle Creek, Mich.