"Not a drunkard (1 Tim 3:3) refers to one of the vices common in antiquity. The overseer need not abstain from wine (5:23). But like the deacon (3:8), the overseer must control his appetite so that drunkenness does not overtake him (Titus 1:7; cf. Eph 5:18)."
(Page 80)
"The list of desired qualities begins with the qualifier serious. Similar to the overseer who is above reproach (v. 2), deacons need inward character, a dignified and serious manner of life that outwardly engenders respect from others. This virtue is followed by three prohibitions. First, not double-tongued means deacons must not be duplicitous. They are not double talkers who say one thing while thinking another or who say one thing to one person and something different to the next (Kelly:81). As go-between persons in the Christian community, deacons dare not yield to the vice of duplicity, which destroys the trust people give them to carry out their service. Second, not indulging in much wine speaks against the excessive use of wine, which leads to drunkenness and disqualifies one from this work. Paul applies this prohibition to other church leaders as well, such as bishops and women deacons.
(Page 82)
"One way the unhealthy teachers have expressed themselves is through abstinence and ascetic teachings (4:3-4). Timothy may have abstained from wine and followed the abstinence teaching of the teachers by drinking only water, which in his case created health problems, perhaps because it was impure. So Paul instructs him not only to keep himself pure and free of sin, but also to take care of his physical health by taking a little wine. Stomach problems were common in the ancient world, and Greco-Roman doctors prescribed a little wine. The Talmud indicates that Jewish elders also believed that wine was the primary medicine (Collins:149). For health reasons, Timothy is to avoid the ascetic practice and the Nazirite rejection of wine (Num 6:1-4), which Paul apparently considers unhealthy teaching."
(Page 118)
See also page 221 for Zehr's commentary pertaining to 2 Timothy 4:6. Compare Numbers 15:5, 7, 10.
Pastors are not to be ascetics (1 Tim 4:3-7), but are to discipline themselves in godliness more than athletes discipline themselves, since godliness holds promise both in this life and the life to come (4:7-8). Pastors are to be the Lord’s servants as they maintain Christlike attitudes during difficult times (2 Tim 2:22-24). They test their ministry in the presence of the living God and the living Christ. By faithfully preaching and teaching the Scriptures through sound doctrine, pastors help the congregation discern within their culture what to choose and what to reject. They reject the ascetic practices of the surrounding culture (1 Tim 4:1-6) but borrow from the athletic ideal (4:7-10). They borrow from the medical use of wine (5:23), but reject drunkenness (1 Tim 3:3, 8; Titus 1:7). They borrow from the household practices of caring and sharing (1 Tim 5:8), adjust slavery practice with the Christian gospel and the mission of the church (6:1-2), and reject the view that one can use religion
to gain money (6:5, 9-10). Instead, they are to be content with what they have (6:6-7) and not be lovers of money (1 Tim 3:3, 8; 6:9; Titus 1:7)
(Page 362)
Work Cited: Zehr, Paul M. 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 2010.
24 comments:
1 Timothy 4:3-4 does not mention drink.
Matthew 6:25
1) how do you think Matt 6:25 applies here?
2) Zehr doesn't necessarily say that 1 Timothy 4:1-3 mentions wine, but it does suggests Paul might have dealt with individuals who campaigned for abstinence in food and possibly drink. Such tendencies were not unknown in the ancient world.
I checked Zehr's specific remarks about 1 Tim 4:1-5, and the only things he focuses on there are illegitimate proscriptions revolving around food and sex/marriage. He does not mention drinking or wine in his comments on those verses. I have his entire commentary.
Only reference mathew for language usage. When drink is expected, it is mentioned.
https://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/emergency/drinking/making-water-safe.html
Concerning Matthew, what does Jesus mean by drink in 6:25? Is he referring to alcholic beverages? Why, if such things are not necessities? Matthew is dealing with needs and not wants. I emphasize that Zehr did not say 1 Timothy 4:1-3 mentions drink.
No, he is not referring to alcohol. I am only demonstrating language where food does not seem to be a generic term that includes drink.
Where is the evidence for a group that only drink water?
https://leslefts.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-great-medieval-water-myth.html?m=0
Duncan, I sometimes have to stop and ask what connections you're trying to make. I believe it's now apparent what you're thinking. If I understand your point correctly, you're trying to address Zehr's statement which to quote him, "Timothy may have abstained from wine and followed the abstinence teaching of the teachers by drinking only water, which in his case created health problems, perhaps because it was impure."
Firstly, he is not saying that the food reference in 1 Timothy 4:1-5 includes drink. I quoted his remarks for those verses and Zehr says nothing about food including drink.
The comment above only throws out possibilities--Timothy "may" have abstained from wine and followed abstinence teachers. Zehr is not being dogmatic in this instance, but merely setting forth what may have occurred. Maybe he drank only water and abstained from wine, but the text doesn't say that, and we have no solid evidence that any first century group only drink water while abstaining from wine. But Zehr is correct that some groups did abstain from wine; his other points are speculative, but he's not claiming otherwise.
Nevertheless, Paul did instruct Timothy to take a little wine for his frequent cases of sickness. This counsel harmonizes with what other ancients say about the value of medicinal wine in moderate amounts.
The blog link you also referenced primarily deals with the medieval period although the writer includes some ancient references.
For some ancient references to wine, see also http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/books/b9789004232549s011
What other ancients said is not my concern. Is there evidence that wine actually can do what they thought it can do?
"we have no solid evidence that any first century group only drink water while abstaining from wine. But Zehr is correct that some groups did abstain from wine;" - ?
Jewish sages :- "Three things, wine, white bread, and fat meat, reduce the feces, lend erectness to one's bearing, and strengthen the sight. Very old wine benefits the whole body (Pes. 42b)."
Scientific? Obviously never heard of fibre.
"After bleeding, according to Rab, a substantial meal of meat is necessary; according to Samuel, wine should be taken freely, in order that the red of the wine may replace the red of the blood that has been lost (Shab. 129a)."
What ancients said about wine is important to me because I like to contextualize texts, and whether they were correct or not, which I think they were--other comments elucidate (possibly) Paul's meaning in 1 Tim 5:23. Modern studies on the benefits of wine today will always be conflicting for various reasons.
Claim 1) a group only drank water, but no wine, and claim 2) a group abstained from wine, are two different claims. So I'm not sure what's so aporetic about the statement. It is logically possible for the same group of people to abstain from wine, drink water, along with any other non-alcoholic beverage. The Nazarites did not drink wine; however, they probably drank water.
Probably no group or individual in antiquity would have been completely right about the benefits of wine or anything else. They could not have known what we're supposed to know these days. That doesn't mean they were not right about wine benefiting the body. We cannot judge the ancients by 21st century standards: that would be unfair and anachronistic.
This article looks interesting by A. Pinker: www.scielo.org.za/pdf/ote/v22n1/08.pdf
He discusses the Egyptians, etc.
How can you contextualize texts if you cannot place then in the same time? That would be a very broad context indeed.
"Modern studies on the benefits of wine today will always be conflicting for various reasons." - are their any? other than the now debunked Resveratrol theories.
It either has measurable benefits or it does not?
Studies keep trying and failing - usually funded by the industry.
https://www.drinkaware.co.uk/alcohol-facts/health-effects-of-alcohol/mental-health/alcohol-and-mental-health/
So the stomach is not the only factor.
Historians divide sources into the ancient world, middle ages, modern, etc. From an historical pov, it's fair to compare what Hippocrates wrote with the NT writings or to compare Pliny with an NT writer.
Of course wine has measurable benefits; I believe that, and others have claimed to measure the benefits. However, all scientific evidence is subject to human interpretation--either for or against the evidence.
All scientific knowledge, like other forms, will be provisional. But the Creator and his representatives know truth beyond a shadow of a doubt. I'm not trying to use God and the Bible as a copout though since I think enough data has been produced to show that alcohol in moderate amounts may have some health benefits. Even if alcohol has no health benefits, that doesn't mean it's wrong to drink moderately.
this article gives balanced advice IMO: https://lpi.oregonstate.edu/mic/food-beverages/alcoholic-beverages
This kind of advise is just dangerous. See:-
https://nutritionfacts.org/video/can-folic-acid-be-harmful/
https://nutritionfacts.org/video/some-dietary-supplements-may-be-more-than-a-waste-of-money/
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/16728-alcohol--your-heart-health
This is probably due too the 140+ falsified studies.
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/23/health/global-alcohol-study/index.html
But the proof of the puding is usually in the long term evidence.
How historians divide sources is somewhat arbitrary. Cultures, contact and many other factors must be brought to bare.
I commonly find that when people talk about the dangers of alcohol, they don't properly distinguish moderate from immoderate drinking. But that's all I'm going to say because we're at an impasse. If wine was good enough for 950 year old Noah, it's good enough for me.
Historians normally take culture and other factors into account. See the Catholic Encyclopedia entry for ecclesiastical history or something like that. It's eye-opening.
How old was Noah when he discovered wine?
I made the prior comment to lighten the mood, but Genesis reports Noah being about 600 years old when the flood occurred. He lived to be 950 with 350 of those years being after the flood. So he must have been 600+ when he discovered wine.
Post a Comment