Why is 1 Timothy 5:23 in the Bible?

There are a number of possibilities. I believe it had to do with shallow wells or water being taken from open streams that may have had pollution in it. For example, when people from the US travel to Mexico, they are warned not to drink the water because they could develop dysentery. Those who live there have their resistance built up. If Timothy was traveling about, he may have faced some of the same challenges and it would have been safer to drink wine. Further, wine may have had some soothing qualities for his stomach and may even have helped with his digestion.

Maybe it is because wine is morally good.

And no one after drinking old wine desires new, for he says, ‘The old is good.’” Luke 5:39

I think this is an example of Paul caring for another person’s physical health. That’s a good example for all Christians to follow.

To build on JD’s comment, it’s worth noting that not only will you find alcohol in most any clinic in the world for sanitation purposes—it’s isopropanol today simply to deter those there from getting drunk on it (same principle as salt in cooking wines, actually)—but in any city with significant trade or pilgrimage (like Ephesus or Jerusalem), you’re not going to “get used to” the water. You have, after all, new traders bringing all the neat bacteria and such from Spain to Africa all the way to Persia. Note here that Paul doesn’t just tell Timothy to have wine while he’s traveling; he writes to him while he appears to be resident in Ephesus. It’s not a temporary medicine, but rather an ongoing part of his diet.

The other thing that is intriguing is the question of why Paul had to tell Timothy to do this; given that wine was an ordinary food at the time (really is today in many countries) in both Greek and Jewish society, why did Timothy stop using it in the first place? Was it a misplaced asceticism, concern that the wine he could buy was made by pagans and was thus not kosher, excessive frugality, or a combination of these and other factors? Whatever it was—and I think some combination of the first three factors is most likely—Paul is rebuking Timothy’s thinking implicitly. “Son, you’re trying too hard, and it’s killing you.” Words we all ought to heed as we’re tempted to un-Biblical asceticism, legalism, and excessive frugality, no?

Plus, what Ron says. Isn’t God glorified when we enjoy His good gifts?

I find it interesting that Paul would interject a statement about Timothy’s health and the benefit of drinking some wine in the middle of a warning about the presence of sin and its external manifestation or lack thereof. It just seems that if Paul meant this primarily as advice about Timothy’s health, he would not have disrupted his flow of thought, but would have placed it on its own. The context makes me think this may have something to do with Timothy needing to follow Paul’s instructions concerning rebuking and appointing elders. Anybody have any light to shine on it for me?

Maybe Paul, after warning Timothy about alcoholic wine in Chapter 3, is encouraging him here to drink grape juice.

Clearly you are right about the grape juice, but which brand is sanctified?

After further consideration, it seems that Paul is encouraging Timothy to prepare himself for the inevitable confrontation either with sinning elders or with those who would rashly accuse them by taking a little wine. Apparently, the timid young man needed bracing. Sorry Ron and Tyler, I don’t think grape juice will do the trick.

It seems to indicate that Timothy was a tee totaler since there would otherwise be no need to tell him to drink wine. However, it is clearly medicinal in this case, and not recreational. So we probably shouldn’t put too much on it.

[RajeshG]

1 Timothy 5:23 Μηκέτι ὑδροπότει, ἀλλ᾽ οἴνῳ ὀλίγῳ χρῶ διὰ τὸν στόμαχον καὶ τὰς πυκνάς σου ἀσθενείας. (1 Tim. 5:23 BGT)

The Greek preposition διὰ with the accusative means “because of” or “on account of.” It’s one thing to try to connect it with the context while also properly handling the actual content of the verse, but to seemingly gloss right over the explicit declaration of what prompted the instruction is not a right way to handle the Bible.

You mean you don’t believe Paul is encouraging Timothy to tie one on before an elders meeting?

Seriously, though, the article you posted earlier in the thread attempts to explain the content of the verse without connecting it with the context at all. By all means, let’s do both. So if Paul is concerned with Timothy’s health, which seems obvious from the grammar, what does that have to do with his role in appointing and rebuking elders? Is that relevant at all, or is this just about making medically approved health changes because God is concerned with our bodies?

I found the parentheses. Here they are:

(μηκέτι ὑδροπότει, ἀλλὰ οἴνῳ ὀλίγῳ χρῶ διὰ τὸν στόμαχον καὶ τὰς πυκνάς σου ἀσθενείας).

I just didn’t notice them, until now.

[TylerR]

I found the parentheses. Here they are:

(μηκέτι ὑδροπότει, ἀλλὰ οἴνῳ ὀλίγῳ χρῶ διὰ τὸν στόμαχον καὶ τὰς πυκνάς σου ἀσθενείας).

I just didn’t notice them, until now.

Well that clears everything up. Clearly v.23 is intended to be interpreted in isolation from everything else Paul is saying in Ch.5.

All mocking aside, the idea that v. 23 is a personal note that is a bit of a rabbit trail is not unknown. A common explanation (perhaps the most common?) is that v. 23 flows as personal note out of “keep yourself pure.” It may indicate that Timothy had bought into a bit of asceticism and was jeopardizing his health.

Taken in context, it might be understood along the lines of this: Be careful about receiving accusations against elders and be careful about appointing elders too quickly and by doing so, be responsible for their sins; keep yourself pure. (BTW, keeping yourself pure does not mean jeopardizing your health; take your medicine). Some sins are public now and some will be later; just like good deeds.

There is no reason in the context to suspect that medicinal wine had anything to do with appointing or taking accusations against elders.

I just didn’t notice them, until now.

Studying the context and understanding the flow would have helped you see them earlier. The Greek manuscripts did not have punctuation and so things like commas, periods, question marks, parenthesis, etc. had to be supplied from the context. There are several notable places where there is disagreement about them such as Ephesians 1:4 or 1 Thess 2:6.

In this particular case, the very personal nature of the comment alongside the absence of wine from the surrounding contest seem to indicate that this is a parenthetical statement of personal advice.

You can only argue that verse 23 is only about medicine if you ignore the question of why Timothy decided to become a teetotaler. Whatever those reasons were—and I’ve offered a few likely ones that I believe are consistent with Scripture and history—Paul is implicitly telling Timothy “those reasons are not good enough.” And in that light, 1 Timothy 5:23 is likely in the Scripture for the exact same reason that we read the second chapter of John.

Regarding whether verse 23 is part of a “flow” that includes its surroundings, maybe, but to me it seems more like it’s a list of instructions Paul is giving, something of an outline form. He has a few more inches of papyrus, needs to say some things, but at this point, he’s not going to waste words and “shaggy dog” it.

You can only argue that verse 23 is only about medicine if you ignore the question of why Timothy decided to become a teetotaler.

I must have missed this or misunderstood something. Where does it say that Timothy decided to become a teetotaler?

[Ron Bean]

You can only argue that verse 23 is only about medicine if you ignore the question of why Timothy decided to become a teetotaler.

I must have missed this or misunderstood something. Where does it say that Timothy decided to become a teetotaler?

Ron, it’s implied; if Timothy is abstaining from wine to the point where Paul has to tell him that he’s getting sick because of his abstinence, one would infer that Timothy is abstinent at that time, a teetotaler.

[Larry]

Studying the context and understanding the flow would have helped you see them earlier. The Greek manuscripts did not have punctuation and so things like commas, periods, question marks, parenthesis, etc. had to be supplied from the context. There are several notable places where there is disagreement about them such as Ephesians 1:4 or 1 Thess 2:6.

In this particular case, the very personal nature of the comment alongside the absence of wine from the surrounding contest seem to indicate that this is a parenthetical statement of personal advice.

Yeah, Larry, I understand that, hence my comment about finding parentheses in the Greek text. The theory that v.23 is a parenthetical statement is one of the popular views, but it is far from certain. My concern here is that Rajesh advocates for explaining the content of the verse apart from the context. This is a serious hermeneutical error, imo, and arguing for a parenthesis doesn’t negate the need to interpret the verse in the context of chapter 5.

You can only argue that verse 23 is only about medicine if you ignore the question of why Timothy decided to become a teetotaler.

No, you can actually argue it is only about medicine by reading the verse and believing what it says. To argue that it is about more than that requires adding to Scripture in some fashion.

And in that light, 1 Timothy 5:23 is likely in the Scripture for the exact same reason that we read the second chapter of John.

As a sign that Jesus is God so we should believe in him?

My concern here is that Rajesh advocates for explaining the content of the verse apart from the context. This is a serious hermeneutical error, imo, and arguing for a parenthesis doesn’t negate the need to interpret the verse in the context of chapter 5.

I don’t see Rajesh arguing that. But if the parenthetical/personal explanation is correct (and it seems so), then it really doesn’t have much if anything to do with accusing and ordaining elders. In any event, there is nothing in the verse or the flow of the paragraph that would lead us to believe it has anything to do with elders.

[Larry]

In any event, there is nothing in the verse or the flow of the paragraph that would lead us to believe it has anything to do with elders.

I disagree strongly with this statement. The context in which v.23 is found is clearly referring to appointing and rebuking elders. It could be parenthetical, bit even then, it is not divorced from its context. There must be some reason Paul put it here and not somewhere else in the letter.

There must be some reason Paul put it here and not somewhere else in the letter.

Yes, apparently because he just said “Keep yourself pure” and was reminding Timothy that abstaining from medicinal use of win was not necessary to keep pure. That is the context.

Your burden is to show how it could be related to accusations and ordination of elders. Do you have any arguments for that from the text?

[Larry]

You can only argue that verse 23 is only about medicine if you ignore the question of why Timothy decided to become a teetotaler.

No, you can actually argue it is only about medicine by reading the verse and believing what it says. To argue that it is about more than that requires adding to Scripture in some fashion.

And in that light, 1 Timothy 5:23 is likely in the Scripture for the exact same reason that we read the second chapter of John.

As a sign that Jesus is God so we should believe in him?

Larry, having heard countless pastors ask questions like “why did he do this in the first place?” regarding countless passages, your position seems to be at odds with standard hermeneutics. Certainly 1 Tim. 5:23 involves medicine, and certainly John 2 establishes the deity of Christ by having Him create wine, but at the same time, part of the message of both passages is the question of why Timothy abstained for a time, and why Jesus chose to begin His ministry at a party, creating over 100 gallons of fine wine. In both cases, what Paul and Christ do is to implicitly say that no, asceticism is not a measure of spirituality, and wine is a good thing.

Nope? To what?

The question of why he did this in the first place is a valid question and is part of studying Scripture (or anything else), and I addressed that above, but it is almost certainly unanswerable because the text doesn’t say. And if the text is the ultimate authority (remember that first fundamental you claim so often), then we have to leave that tentative at best.

But that wasn’t your statement. You said the only way to limit it to medicine was to ignore something the text doesn’t say. And I pointed out that the verse is quite clear on its own. You don’t need anything else to understand the verse. The verse tells us that the instructions were based on health. It says nothing of any other reason. And so if the Scripture is sufficient and authoritative (remember that first fundamental), then we can know what the verse means and why it is there. If you insist on some other reason for authority, then you are denying the sufficiency of Scripture and the wisdom of God in his choice of revelation.,

Read the verse and see what it says. It is quite clearly stemming from the last phrase of v. 22. There is no need to seek another connection. It stands on its own. Might there be something else behind it, such as asceticism? Sure, but that is not in the text.

Even your assertion of about John 2 seems a clear denial of the text. It tells us why that sign was included, and asceticism is not it. The question is, Is the text authoritative or not?

Larry, again, you’re simply ignoring basic hermeneutics. Not only is the question valid, as you concede, but it is essential. Moreover, given other things noted in the Scripture, we can infer with a reasonable degree of accuracy what it was. Really, what you’ve done with this passage, and with John 2, is to limit the interpretation of Scripture to “that which is blindingly obvious, and perhaps with a good nod to fundamental culture.” That’s not required by the 1st Fundamental.

Larry, again, you’re simply ignoring basic hermeneutics.

How so? (Do you notice how little you support the claims you make?) Basic hermeneutics (or advanced hermeneutics) is that you interpret a text in its context. That’s exactly what I have done. I have actually used the words of the text to explain the text.

Not only is the question valid, as you concede, but it is essential.

Essential to what? And if this is essential, why is it that God didn’t reveal it to us? You seem to be claiming that Scripture is not sufficient because it lacks something essential and that the wisdom of God in what he actually revealed by inspiration is less than your wisdom and what you declare that we need to know.

Really, what you’ve done with this passage, and with John 2, is to limit the interpretation of Scripture to “that which is blindingly obvious, and perhaps with a good nod to fundamental culture.” That’s not required by the 1st Fundamental.

How so? Interpretation is limited and should be limited by the text. Application may indeed be broader. But I haven’t appealed to what is blindingly obvious and there is no nod (good or bad) to fundamental culture (whatever that actually means).

I have to think you didn’t actually read what I said. i have already said that my guess is that Timothy had bought into a bit of asceticism and was jeopardizing his health. However, that is not necessary knowledge to understand the passage.

Larry wrote:

my guess is that Timothy had bought into a bit of asceticism and was jeopardizing his health.

I appreciate how you stated that. I have been trying a bit harder to be more careful in my preaching to say things like, “my guess is” or “some commentators believe” rather than just making a blanket statement about something that we do not know for certain.

I agree with Bert that our “fundamentalist culture” has often clouded how scripture is interpreted, but if that is the case is it not also possible that our reaction to some of the mistakes of the fundamentalist culture could also affect our interpretation? I say this because I know it has happened to me on occasions on either side of an issue. My hope is that I catch myself before I say anything, but I recognize that will not always happen.

In my years of preaching I’ve learned to avoid using terms like “my guess”, “it’s implied”, or similar terms for a number of reasons. Number One is that I’m more confident in preaching what I’m certain the Bible teaches. Number Two is that I’ve learned that too many listeners didn’t hear my qualifiers and took my statements as facts.

Number One is that I’m more confident in preaching what I’m certain the Bible teaches. Number Two is that I’ve learned that too many listeners didn’t hear my qualifiers and took my statements as facts.

So in your “tears of preaching” (I can identify with that), how do you communicate to the hearers that there is a divergence of views on a particular question or issue?

Thanks for catching the typo.

When I encountered things where there were different views they were usually minor to the main point of the text. I usually just said that were a number of different views and I wasn’t sold on any of them and that they made good material for “coffee shop conversations” among friends.

In the limited moments I have to preach/teach I would rather say “I know” than “I think”.

[Larry]

There must be some reason Paul put it here and not somewhere else in the letter.

Yes, apparently because he just said “Keep yourself pure” and was reminding Timothy that abstaining from medicinal use of win was not necessary to keep pure. That is the context.

Your burden is to show how it could be related to accusations and ordination of elders. Do you have any arguments for that from the text?

Larry,

You are correct that v.23 follows after the warning to keep yourself pure, but that statement also exists in a context. In what way was Timothy in danger of becoming impure? Read the rest of v.22. My point from the beginning has been that you cannot ignore the issue Paul is dealing with in the paragraph in which this statement is found.

The purpose of Paul’s encouragement to drink wine may very well be simply out of a concern for Timothy’s physical health, as Rajesh claims in his blog post on the subject, but you must at least consider the context of v.19-25 before you conclude that it certainly does not have anything to do with Timothy’s responsibility to cautiously rebuke and appoint elders.

I’m not sure why it’s my burden to show that context matters and not anyone else’s to prove that it doesn’t.

Ron, I whole heartedly agree when you say,

In the limited moments I have to preach/teach I would rather say “I know” than “I think”.

The point I wanted to make is that when a passage like I Timothy 5:23 comes up and I speculate about contaminated water being the reason, I want to make it is clear that the text does not actually give the reason. Perhaps I should not even speculate about the reason or share what many others have believed to be the reason and should instead just say that Timothy was told to drink a little wine instead of water and we do not know why. I had not thought it wrong to share the predominate theory, but perhaps I was wrong in that. I am interested in hearing your further thoughts.

While humbling, I’ve found that declaring “I don’t know” can be a wonderfully liberating statement. Sadly, the phrase doesn’t seem very popular.

In what way was Timothy in danger of becoming impure? Read the rest of v.22.

That was my point: By ordaining someone to ministry before evaluating their life and thereby sharing in responsibility for their sins. The wine comment has nothing to do with that per se; it was a personal thought that occurred with the idea of keeping himself pure. Timothy abstaining from wine and becoming sick has nothing do with accusing or ordaining elders. That’s why it is most likely a parenthetical comment.

My point from the beginning has been that you cannot ignore the issue Paul is dealing with in the paragraph in which this statement is found. … you must at least consider the context of v.19-25 before you conclude that it certainly does not have anything to do with Timothy’s responsibility to cautiously rebuke and appoint elders.

I don’t think anyone has disagreed, at least that I saw.

I’m not sure why it’s my burden to show that context matters and not anyone else’s to prove that it doesn’t.

As you as you find someone who argues that context doesn’t matter I will wholeheartedly join you in attempting to correct them, because i agree with you.