https://g3min.org/how-valuable-is-bodily-training/
In 1 Timothy 4, Paul speaks of bodily exercise. He says it
profits little, or profits a little. Either way it is not of great or supreme
profit.
But what is he talking about?
Growing up in Fundamentalist/Evangelical circles I always
heard that the physical body of the Christian is a temple and thus we should
eat healthy and exercise. The verse in 1 Timothy was often appealed to in
addition to the passages in 1 Corinthians that make the temple analogy.
And yet, the passages in 1 Corinthians have also been misread
and misapplied. In fact Paul somewhat repudiates the temple/healthy living view
when he (a few chapters later) limits bodily harm to fornication, and speaks of
keeping his body under or in submission – a kind of asceticism which
Evangelicalism remains hostile to. One also thinks of Christ's numerous
examples of fasting, as well as His words regarding pollution not being
connected to what one digests but what one thinks and says. The Evangelical
body-temple notion (which led many I knew growing up to lift weights) is
misguided, if not an outright error. It certainly misses the point of the
passages in question.
There was another type of asceticism rooted in Judaized
applications of the Old Testament and often combined with elements of Hellenistic
philosophy. This is what Paul addresses at the beginning of the section we call
1 Timothy 4 when he speaks of mandated celibacy and piety based on the
abstention from certain foods. Such legalism is the result of and results in a seared
conscience that ultimately lacks discernment and falls into hypocrisy. This
kind of straining at a gnat and swallowing the camel is all too common in the
legalism of Fundamentalist circles. I've known many cases in which worldliness
is embraced and endorsed but (what is a literally) a superstitious posture
about alcohol, playing cards, or the movie theatre remain.
His later statement about bodily exercise is in reference to
such religious expressions, to the question of asceticism. A full reading of Paul
(and for that matter the New Testament) reveals that such exercises are not
totally out of bounds or without basis and yet the ideology undergirding these
factions in Ephesus (that Timothy was engaged with) was motivated by wrong
reasons and in pursuit of the wrong goals. Paul even endorses celibacy in 1
Corinthians, and yet condemns these Ephesian teachers in 1 Timothy. It's clear
that something else was going on.
In both the 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians passages, the idea of
recreational exercise or a kind of workout routine is nowhere in Paul's mind.
That isn't what he's talking about at all. The bodily exercise he refers to is
not running, push-ups, weightlifting, or some kind of aerobic routine. That's
not even in the scope of discussion. He's talking about ascetic denial – a spiritual
exercise pursued by physical means.
Some erroneously think Paul is giving similar exhortations
when he metaphorically employs the image of a foot race or a boxer when
describing the struggles of the faith. He's not talking about running or boxing
any more than Christ was talking about agriculture or banking in the parables.
He's using illustrations that people will understand – but apparently even
today, many do not.
I was not too surprised to see another misguided article from
the pens at G3. They often excel at missing the point and this was no
exception. It was yet another example of the divide between New Calvinism and
old. Why do I say that? Upon becoming a Calvinist almost thirty years ago, it
was refreshing to find others who rejected the Fundamentalist understanding of
the body-temple dynamic as indeed it has been wrongly extrapolated from the
passages in question.
Of course some Calvinists take their liberty to unwarranted
and unwise extremes – to the point of glorying in their cigars and alcohol
which is another mistake. By all means have a glass of wine, but don't revel in
it. But some circles (especially those most influenced by Dominionism) tend to
be governed by a triumphalist ethic and this plays out in their approach to
such questions. They too have no interest in the kind of piety and even
asceticism put forth by the apostle. Rather they want to 'live it up' and have
created a kind of sanctified party and feasting culture, and in some cases
openly condemn those who do not share it – let alone those who insist that the
guiding ethos of this age is cross bearing.
There is nothing wrong with exercise. I would encourage it. I
do not wish to tempt God and as I grew older with a wife and children Paul's
words in Philippians began to carry more weight for me. I am ready to die and
in some respects look forward to it and yet I want to stay and finish the work
before me. I want to stay for those I can help, for those who need me and rely
on me. It grieves me to think of my family weeping or my wife sad and alone.
God may take me and they will have what they need as He provides and yet as
long as I am useful to them and to the Father, I would stay. To live is Christ
and to die is gain.
Exercise and eating healthy are fine things but can become
distractions and for some they easily become idols. Live your life, enjoy
things in detached moderation, and focus on heavenly things. Lay up your
treasure there. Seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at
the right hand of God. Deny yourself, die to self and yet don't think this
denial is about bodily exercise. That may or may not be part of it.
Otherworldliness should characterize our conduct and character. We shouldn't be
in bondage to the things of this world, to this present evil age that is marked
by curse and death, to things which are passing away. As such our appetites
should be governed. We all fail in this and what one finds easy is a struggle
for another. Be charitable.
Mr. Aniol of G3 seems to be responding more to Evangelical
worldview wrestlings with the created order and the fact that many leaders in
the movement (often corrupted and shaped by political interests and
motivations) are trying to respond to a bevy of culture war issues regarding
everything from marriage and sexuality, to gender and the environment. Their
reading (often forced) is that the secular world is expressing a kind of neo-Gnosticism.
The problems with this argument are compounded by misreadings of Church History
and especially the New Testament which in turn are fed by misguided assumptions
regarding the Kingdom and the dubious validity of the Christendom paradigm.
They approach these questions from the standpoint of a long cultural tradition
and a battle over civilisation which many clearly do not understand. The New
Testament is in the equation but subordinated and often used in a disingenuous
and unhelpful ad hoc fashion.
Thus, Aniol is driven (it would seem) by a series of
assumptions and concerns that have led him to misread the text. In fact it
would seem he hasn't even read the passage carefully as he completely misses
the point about exercise.
He's right to point out the tensions, the ever present
dualities under which we live in this present evil age marred by the Edenic
fall. The creation groans and yet the apostles speak in stronger terms
regarding the body. Paul calls his body 'vile' in Philippians 3, and speaks of
our present reality as a kind of nakedness with something lacking in 2
Corinthians 5. Peter speaks of his body as a tent or tabernacle in 2 Peter 1,
in other words something impermanent and less than eternal.
This doesn't mean we despise and abuse our bodies, nor does
this grant one iota of validity to the contemporary gender delusion and its
cult of mutilation. On the contrary, we are stewards of what we are given but
our bodies are fallen, under curse, and will die. And we await something more,
a body in newness of life at the resurrection and with the new bodies we partake
of a new heavens and a new Earth.
As such Paul speaks of our mortal bodies in Romans 8, bodies
doomed to die, bodies with temporal appetites that lead to death and as such we
are not to live after such as if debtors. Some have abused the idea of the
flesh (sarx) and limited it to the body but others err in always excluding the
often appealed to connection to the physical body and its mortal nature and as
such the proclivities it is given to when dominated by sin – the bondage of
pain and corruption Paul speaks of.
This is why Paul speaks of temperance and keeping his body
under, bringing it into subjection – the antithesis to the triumphalism of
today's Dominionists. Once again their scope of their misunderstanding of the
New Testament needs to be emphasized. They have truly missed the mark.
The heart of Paul's piety is self-denial, a point that is
very clear in 1 Corinthians 8 as he leads up to his conclusions at the end of
chapter 9 and the call to bring his own body, his own interests, his own pride
and will into subjection, and with it comes a warning – once again ignored and
explained away by contemporary Evangelicalism.
Alongside this misread of 1 Timothy 4, Aniol does provide
some sound teaching and wisdom and yet his use of the passage as a foil is
poorly done and thus he misses the larger set of truths and potentially
misleads on at least this basic question.
Physical exercise is fine but that's not what Paul is even talking about in 1 Timothy 4. Build the case elsewhere and on a different foundation otherwise the focus becomes skewed – as we so often see with the New Calvinist authors at G3.