1 Timothy 5:22 (ESV): "Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor take part in the sins of others; keep yourself pure."
The laying on of hands usually refers to the act of appointing persons to an office (like the office of presbyter). Scholars call 1 and 2 Timothy, the Pastoral Letters for a reason. Furthermore, commentaries usually point out that 1 Tim. 5:23 was echoed in other writings of the Greco-Roman world--it was apparently a common maxim for the time.
REV Commentary: "The laying on of hands describes the implementing of a leadership position in the Church; this verse falls in the context of eldership and moral requirements for leaders (see commentary on 1 Tim 5:24)."
REV Commentary for 1 Tim. 5:23: "Timothy had apparently tried to set a good example to the Ephesians by not drinking wine at all, in spite of the ill effects it had on him. Paul corrects him, and tells him to go back to drinking some wine. This should be a good lesson for leaders. It often happens that leaders want so badly for their congregation to live righteous lives that they abstain from things that never needed to be abstained from in the first place, but so many people were being abusive that the leader thought abstinence was the best course. While there are situations in which that is the case, it is usually better to teach people to obey God, which includes moderation in most things, and allow them to be responsible before the Lord for their own lives. It is often better to set the example that moderation is both godly and possible than to simply abstain."
I would be interested to know the evidence for claiming that Timothy had stopped drinking wine & that the stopping of drinking wine had CAUSED the ill effects?
ReplyDeleteThe comments are inferences from the text. The verse says "drink water no longer," and then encourages Timothy to take a little wine for his ills. Why give this counsel if Timothy was already drinking wine moderately and not drinking much water? Secondly, it may have been a case of the water causing ill effects rather than abstinence from wine making him sick. But the ancients generally believed that wine had medicinal value, so even if abstinence was not making him sick per se, a little wine could have made him better.
ReplyDeleteNIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible: "use a little wine. Most people drank wine with their meals. It was watered down (often about two parts water to one part wine), and not distilled to a higher than natural degree of fermentation. Some have suggested that Timothy was abstaining from wine to avoid the criticism of the false teachers (4:3). your stomach. Wine was often used to settle stomachs and was thought to prevent dysentery; it could be used to disinfect water. Some restorative diets recommended water, others wine; wine was also used in some remedies (i.e., medicinally)."
Here are some of John Chrysostom's remarks on 1 Tim. 5:23:
ReplyDeleteBut before I proceed to solve these questions, permit me to say something of the virtue of Timothy, and of the loving care of Paul. For what was ever more tender hearted than this man, who being so far distant, and encircled with so many cares, exercised so much consideration for the health of his disciple's stomach, and wrote with exact attention about the correction of his disorder? And what could equal the virtue of Timothy? He so despised luxury, and derided the sumptuous table, as to fall into sickness from excessive austerity, and intense fasting. For that he was not naturally so infirm a person, but had overthrown the strength of his stomach by fasting and water drinking; you may hear Paul himself carefully making this plain. For he does not simply say, "use a little wine;" but having said before, "drink no longer water," he then brings forward his counsel as to the drinking of wine. And this expression "no longer" was a manifest proof, that till then he had drunk water, and on that account was become infirm. Who then would not wonder at his divine wisdom and strictness? He laid hold on the very heavens, and sprang to the highest point of virtue.
One more thought from the Expositor's Bible Commentary:
ReplyDeleteIt remains to ascertain the meaning of the curious parenthesis "Be no longer a drinker of water," and its connection with the rest of the passage.
It was probably suggested to St. Paul by the preceding words, "Beware of making yourself responsible for the sins of others. Keep your own life above suspicion." This charge reminds the Apostle that his beloved disciple has been using ill-advised means to do this very thing. Either in order to mark his abhorrence of the drunkenness which was one of the most conspicuous vices of the age, or in order to bring his own body more easily into subjection, Timothy had abandoned the use of wine altogether, in spite of his weak health. St. Paul, therefore, with characteristic affection, takes care that his charge is not misunderstood. In urging his representative to be strictly careful of his own conduct, he does not wish to be understood as encouraging him to give up whatever might be abused or made the basis of a slander, nor yet as approving his rigor in giving up the use of wine. On the contrary, he thinks it a mistake; and he takes this opportunity of telling him so, while it is in his mind. Christ’s ministers have important duties to perform, and have no right to play tricks with their health. We may here repeat, with renewed confidence, that a touch of this kind would never have occurred to a forger. Hence, in order to account for such natural touches as these, those who maintain that these Epistles are a fabrication now resort to the hypothesis that the forger had some genuine letters of St. Paul and worked parts of them into his own productions. It seems to be far more reasonable to believe that St. Paul wrote the whole of them.
Because of the inadequacy of sources, it is practically impossible to evaluate the health of ancient populations and the role of water in it. It is, however, quite safe to conclude that despite the impressive measures used to obtain pure potable water, urban centres had serious public health problems.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.iwapublishing.com/news/brief-history-water-and-health-ancient-civilizations-modern-times
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/ancient-water-law-unearthed-in-laodicea--87259
ReplyDeleteNot sure if Phillipians 4:5 equates to "moderation in MOST things"? Gentle?
ReplyDeleteIs there any other verse that promotes "moderation in most things"?
A notable Greek saying is Παν μέτρον άριστον, but I don't think Philippians demonstrates that Christians should be moderate in most things. However, being moderate in all things never struck me as right because of what Jesus teaches about spiritual exertion, and some things we just simply do not even practice. On the other hand, why not be moderate in most things, ceteris paribus? If one chooses to consume alcohol, he/she should be moderate. But circumstances may dictate that one not drink at all. The same with other facets of life. Proverbs 30:6-8.
ReplyDeleteThe ideas of Kleovoulos o Lindios are not related to this unless we are saying that Hebrews have succumbed to 6th century Greek thinking?
ReplyDeleteI was not thinking of alcohol in this case. My interest in ecology makes me think of collective effects. Things that we all might think are reasonable in moderation but the collective effect is far from moderate.
In other words, who sets a bar to decide what "moderate" actually is or in reality is it completely arbitrary.
https://blogs.princeton.edu/research/2014/11/04/when-less-is-more-death-in-moderation-boosts-population-density-in-nature-trends-in-ecology-and-evolution/
ReplyDeleteI don't think the earlier Hebrews were immersed in Greek thinking, but some later Hebrews were. Is moderation arbitrary? I don't think so. Aristotle teaches that moderation is relative to the individual: to put it simply, what's moderate for person A is not necessarily moderate for person B. The Buddha, Confucius, Bible writers (and so forth) all preached balance or moderation--the golden mean.
ReplyDeleteI think everyone can most likely agree that a case of beer per day is not moderate for anyone (although I've known some to do it); neither is a 5,000 calorie a day diet moderate for most people. Could we be deceived about whether we're being moderate? Of course. However, that would not mean moderation is arbitrary any more than speed limits are arbitrary. Aristotle suggested that reason can tell us what constitutes moderation. Today, we might think science can set the parameters for moderation. Either way, it doesn't have to be arbitrary.
Don't have a lot of time now to read fully and address the Princeton link. It's loaded with assumptions that I question. And it's rooted in secular thinking and limited-scope empiricism. On the other hand, the article does illustrate how one might go about developing a scientific theory of moderation.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26964691
ReplyDeleteSo again this does not disprove the possibility of moderation, but who defines the parameters?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229453685_Assessing_the_impact_of_culling_on_population_size_in_the_presence_of_uncertain_density_dependence_Lessons_from_a_great_cormorant_population
This is why I think it is so important. What if the "unclean" birds and bats in deuteronomy if killed and/or eaten in moderation could still lead to ecological disaster?
Of the moderate thinning of Forrest's
ReplyDeletehttps://e360.yale.edu/features/how-deforestation-affecting-global-water-cycles-climate-change
From a secular viewpoint, who defines the parameters is us/the universe, common sense, reason, etc. For a theist/Christian, God defines the parameters. As I said earlier, Aristotle used reason to set the parameters, and he argued that moderation is not the same for each person. I believe God also gave us a measure of common sense, but we're limited, imperfect, and we live in a sinful and divided world. So ethics will always be messy in this system. Nevertheless, no one is going to convince me that drinking a case of beer in one day constitutes a form of moderation.
ReplyDeleteTo answer your second question, I don't believe that Jehovah will allow an ecological disaster to occur (Rev. 11:18). Besides, at this point in our human existence, we don't know what wholesale moderate eating looks like.
On a related topic, NPR is now reporting that if everyone ate their required daily intake of produce, there would be shortages.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/07/17/742670701/if-we-all-ate-enough-fruits-and-vegetables-thered-be-big-shortages
The NPR report may seem logical but it is utter nonsense if one is prepared to eat vegetables INSTEAD of meat. Edible nutrition is available in many forms of plant, not just the customary or traditional.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/05/vast-animal-feed-crops-meat-needs-destroying-planet
Now I much prefer the taste of tofu over the taste of tofu turned into meat.
"I don't believe that Jehovah will allow an ecological disaster to occur", i think your definition is different to mine as many species and maybe also humans are already functionally extinct. It has already happened but most do no realise it yet. Its a Wiley cayote moment. Off the cliff but not fallen yet. Fossil fuel is propping us up.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.darrinqualman.com/historic-nitrogen-fertilizer-consumption/
I walked around my garden today and estimated about 5 percent of insects that are normally present this time of year. Through the whole of spring and summer I drive several hundred miles a week but when washing the car hardly any insects remains to be found.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/10/plummeting-insect-numbers-threaten-collapse-of-nature
Who are destroying the earth? I this a them and us scenario.
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying the NPR report is correct. Besides, they're just reporting what the Lancet Planetary Health study projects for 2050. The point is what if (hypothetically) everyone consumed the required amount of fruits/vegetables and less meat, not any meat at all?
ReplyDeleteHow could humans be functionally extinct now? We've not had an ecological disaster for the planet yet, but scientists are foretelling one. Ecological disaster also implies serious calamity. Disaster has been defined as "a sudden event, such as an accident or a natural catastrophe, that causes great damage or loss of life."
The situation with insects and bees is a bad one, but we have not experienced a planetary ecological disaster yet. I don't believe Jehovah will allow the planet to be utterly ruined. See Isa. 45:18.
When I speak of a disaster, this is what I have in mind: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC556105/
Would a genuine Christian willingly and unrepentantly ruin the earth? Did Noah ruin the earth in his day?
Wasn't the premise for the flood violence?
ReplyDeleteDidn't stop him potentially cutting down thousands of trees.
But more importantly what about the I sects? I there evidence in the fossil or any other record a decline in insects, not animals?
Have you heard the latest from the climate scientist - 2030 is the new 2100. So I would not be overly concerned about 2050.
Ecological disasters take many forms and this one has come as a thief. I wonder how many bread basket failures we will get this year?
However none of this worries me and things must take there course.
The Genesis account states that humans were ruining the earth in Noah's day, which might have happened more than one way, but Noah did not ruin the earth. Yeah, he cut down numerous trees no doubt, but why? I doubt that Jehovah held it against him. :)
ReplyDeleteI don't know about any fossil records from antediluvian times that would serve as evidence of declining insects or animals. Maybe there is, but I've not seen it.
I'm aware of what climate scientists are saying about 2030, but to be frank, I take much of what they say with a grain of salt. Either way, I try doing what I can to take care of the planet. Nobody is going to do that perfectly in this world.
A Christian looks to Bible prophecy and Almighty God to retain peace in these times. I'm not overly worried either.
https://youtu.be/KuwnDXmMemI
ReplyDeleteI cannot stress enough how critical the data on earth worms is as an indictor of bacterial and fungal collapse.
B12 deficiencies were an early indicator
http://news.mit.edu/2007/b12
https://baltimorepostexaminer.com/carnivores-need-vitamin-b12-supplements/2013/10/30
https://youtu.be/D3L0R6LzEUE
ReplyDeleteI go with the data.
Not that I disagree, but the question is whether current events will take us to the brink of a major ecological collapse. As humans, we've survived threats to our existence for 1000s of years, so while I'm not advocating a carefree attitude toward the environment, I just believe Jehovah's got this. Use reason, common sense, and trust in him and obey his word. Do your best to navigate existence in this ungodly world and he'll understand when you err.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.resilience.org/stories/2011-05-09/you-and-your-slaves/
ReplyDeleteHistory is not a good guide but this is how humans tend to reason.
I'm certainly not saying all that we need is reason or common sense: I mentioned other things too. See Jeremiah 8:9.
ReplyDeleteMaybe, when looking back on what is about to occur we will echo the kind of thoughts in Mat 24:21,22 ?
ReplyDeleteFrom a Messianic Jewish website:-
ReplyDelete"Through Jeremiah, the LORD announced:
“The priests did not ask, `Where is the LORD?’ Those who deal with the Law [תפשׂי התורה] did not know Me [לא ידעוני] …” (Jeremiah 2:8).
“My people have committed two sins: They have forsaken Me, the spring of living water, and have dug their own cisterns, broken cisterns that cannot hold water” (Jeremiah 2:13).
“How can you say, ‘We are wise, for we have the Law of the LORD,’when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely? The wise [חכמים] will be put to shame, they will be dismayed and trapped. Since they have rejected the word of the LORD, what kind of wisdom do they have?” (בדבר־יהוה מאסו וחכמת־מה להם) (Jeremiah 8:8-9).
These prophecies suggest that God remained keenly interested in the way that the Law was applied, and held those accountable who handled it corruptly."
The law of Moses:-
ReplyDelete"Maimonides writes that it is impossible for there to be an argument or disagreement concerning a Halachah L'Moshe M'Sinai, for the Jews who heard the instructions from Moses implemented them into their daily lives and passed it on to their children, who passed it on to their children, etc.
Some examples of Halachah L'Moshe M'Sinai are: tefillin straps must be black, a sukkah must have at least two and a half walls, and all the different Halachic measurements and sizes."
Are these in the bible?
Does Maimonides even claim they're in scripture? Sounds like oral tradition to me.
ReplyDeleteYes so we can agree on that, but note that the tradition is called the Law of Moses at the mountain. This is why I believe we have to be very careful with references to "mosaic law" and it's implications.
ReplyDeleteWhat Bible verse unequivocally refers to oral tradition as the law of Moses? I know many Jews believed the oral Torah was also given at Sinai, but I just wonder about the scriptural evidence for that view.
ReplyDeleteWell, what denies it? The Pharisees and Sadducees both followed oral tradition and as quoted above about scribes writing something down other than scripture. Jeremiah does not give it that name, but then why should he when speaking against it?
ReplyDeleteSomething normally counts as evidence when a positive case can be made for it. Like evidence that the Peloponnesian War occurred almost 2400 years ago.
ReplyDeleteWe can't simply appeal to the absence of denial. Besides, Jesus condemned the Pharisees for following tradition rather than scripture. Furthermore, how do we know that Jeremiah 8:8-9 is not talking about the written law?
I'm also wondering how this issue connects with the OP. :)
Sorry, but you brought up Jeremiah 8:9 & IMO miss applied it. If Jeremiah 8:8 is not talking about additions to the law then what else could it be about, contextually?
ReplyDeleteYes, this is all off post. What I am saying is that Jeremiah was rejecting the oral Torah but not the Torah of the 5 books To him it was the true wisdom - the something more that was required.
"when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely" - if it was the written law then they were altering it or adding to it - isnt that what the oral law did?
ReplyDeleteHow can I misapply Jeremiah 8:9 by asking a question about it? I genuinely wondered how we know what the verse is addressing. Where did I even try to apply the verse? :)
ReplyDeleteNow if you mean my original allusion to Jer. 8:9, I was making a principled application, which again was not a misapplication in my opinion. As the WT says, there are contextual and principled applications of Bible verses. I was applying Jer. 8:9 in the secondary sense. My point about Jer. 8:9 was that people in the world tend to ignore divine wisdom like the WT discussed this past week. So, what wisdom do they really have since they reject divine wisdom?
This article discusses some of the complexities for Jer. 8:8-http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1015-87582018000200009&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en
The scribes could have been altering interpretations of Torah.
The article goes nowhere but suppositions but that's ok. I found it useful for another reason
ReplyDelete"is clear that, according to Jeremiah 8:4-9, migrating birds comprehend the will of the Lord, but his own people comprehend in part, due to the lying interpretation by the scribes engaged with the misinterpretation of the instruction of YHWH. Bright (1974:63) points out that several kinds of birds instinctively know the order of nature established by Yahweh that rules their existence, but Israel does not know the divine rule () that governs her."
More for me to investigate for my project.
"secondary sense" - is this like types and antitypes?
ReplyDeleteGlad the article could be useful somehow. By secondary sense, I just meant that I'm applying a principle or lesson from the text as opposed to dealing with an historically based interpretation.
ReplyDeleteScholars have many questions about Jeremiah 8:8-9. See Bob Utley's free commentary and K-D's remarks
ReplyDeleteBob Utley:-
ReplyDelete"8:8-12 This is a literary unit which describes the religious leaders. This is the first extended mention of a group known as the "scribes" (BDB 707). We learn from 1 Chr. 2:55 that scribes developed into families. They do not serve a major function in Israel's faith until after the exile. They seem to have been developed by Ezra into the synagogue system and rabbinical Judaism. They were basically interpreters of the Mosaic law to local people for specific questions regarding the Torah.
If the leaders are blind, how dark is the darkness? They think they are "wise" and that they "know" the Law of the Lord (cf. Jer. 8:9)."
So its still points to being oral Torah.
https://www.baytagoodah.com/uploads/9/5/6/0/95600058/262596668-from-the-maccabees-to-the-mishnah.pdf
page 142:-
"Even the Gospel of John, whose favorite appellation for the Jewish authority figures is the term "Jews," frequently uses "Pharisees" as an equivalent (and never mentions scribes). "
page 155:-
"By the first century of our era, the Pharisees were priests and laypeople who
believed that the ancestral tradition was as binding as the written Torah of
Moses. The ancestral tradition included observance of the purity laws (that is,
priestly piety transferred to the laity), tithing (another matter of interest to
priests), and numerous details in the laws of oaths, Sabbath, and marriage.
According to the New Testament, the Pharisees were closely associated with
the scribes, a profession grounded on expertise in the laws. The crucial historical question is the relationship of the Pharisees to general Jewish society.
Were they a sect? an elite? a "movement"? an order? Each of these possibilities has been defended by modern scholars. None of the ancient sources views
the Pharisees as a sect, and there is no sign that the Pharisees of the first century had that exclusivist ideology, strict organization, and group-oriented
eschatology that characterize sects. But the name Pharisee, which means
"separatist"; the emphasis on the laws of purity and table fellowship (if indeed
the houses of Hillel and Shammai were Pharisees); the rabbinic association of
haberim (if indeed this is a relic of Pharisaic times); their relatively small numbers (six thousand in the days of Herod)—all these imply that the Pharisees
were a distinctive group that abstained from normal social intercourse with
other Jews. Perhaps, then, they were pietists who, in order to attain a higher
level of purity and religiosity, separated themselves to some extent from their
co-religionists, but who saw themselves, and were seen by others, not as exclusive bearers of the truth but as virtuosi and elites. "
Looking back through this thread reminded me of the Awake article - "A Big Lesson From a Tiny Island"
ReplyDeleteYou might also say I'm making a distinction between peshat and derash (contextual-historical versus Midrashic).
ReplyDeleteI don't think you can say with certainty that Jeremiah has the oral tradition in mind. Nothing in the context necessitates that conclusion.
ReplyDeleteFor example, here's Peter Pett's commentary:
“How do you say, ‘We are wise, and the instruction (torah, law) of YHWH is with us?’ But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has wrought falsely.”
Yet they think that they are wise. They even claim to have the Instruction of YHWH (His Torah). But what they have is a distorted word, produced and deliberately distorted by those who manipulate what is in the ancient texts. This is not speaking of false copying, but of what they wrote down after supposedly considering what they had read.
Bob Utley also writes about Jer. 8:8ff:
ReplyDeleteThis issue is who is being condemned?
1. the scribes (i.e., equal to "wise men" of Jer. 8:9)
2. the people (Jer. 8:10)
3. other religious leaders (Jer. 8:9)
The problem is not the scribes' work (i.e., copying the Law and/or explaining it), but the people's rejecting both the prophetic word and the covenant obligations.
"They shall be cast down," says the Lord.
ReplyDelete"I will surely consume them," says the Lord.
"No grapes shall be on the vine,
Nor figs on the fig tree,
And the leaf shall fade;
And the things I have given them shall pass away from them."'"
Deuteronomy curses?
See Deut. 28:38-40, etc.
ReplyDelete