Paul's admonition to Timothy to take a little wine for his stomach?

[jmacvols]

According to my Greek-English Lexicon (Liddell and Scott, Abridged) definition 1 is wine. (It's not said if they mean fermented or not, I believe they didn't feel the need to make a distiction since wine is, by definition, fermented)

Definition 2 in Liddell and Scott is "the fermented juice of apples, pears, etc., cider, perry: oinos ek krithwn barley-wine, a kind of beer : palm-wine, lotus wine, also as distinguished from grape wine (oinos ampelinos)."

Paul: Hey Tim, stop drinking water only, but have a little wine for your stomach's sake, but be sure to boil all of the demon alcohol out of it first. (That last part was editted out of the final manuscript)

Humm, why not just boil the water?

I gave a quote from Atheneaus where he used oinos for unfermented grape juice. Aristotle used oinos to refer to grape juice in his book Metereologica. There are many other examples from Greek antiquity where onios is used for unfermented grape juice.

In the LXX, many times oinos is used for unfermented grape juice (tirosh). Isa 65:8 - "As the new wine is found in the cluster..." Here a cluster of grapes is called wine. Pro 3:10 - "So shall thy barns be filled with plenty, and thy presses shall burst out with new wine." Here wine is said to burst from presses, yet it is fresh grape juice that flows from the presses.

But whether the wine Paul instructed Timothy to mix with water for his stomach's sake was fermented or unfermented, it was for medicinal uses, it gives no excuse for social or recreational drinking. Grape juice, as I posted, was used to settle stomachs. Paul's medicinal instruction for Timothy was not to encourage recreational drinking no more than a doctor prescribing a prescription drug is to encourage recreational cocaine or marijuana use. If drinking fermented wine was already common among first century Christians, then there would have been no need for Paul's instruction to use it.

 

[jmacvols]

My very Profound Theological observation is that Scripture condemns drunkenness, NOT the moderate use of alcohol. That is of course unless you took a Nazirite vow, to which any partaking of that grape is evil.

Is moderate drunkeness condemned?

 

[wlajoie74]

I gave a quote from Atheneaus where he used oinos for unfermented grape juice. Aristotle used oinos to refer to grape juice in his book Metereologica. There are many other examples from Greek antiquity where onios is used for unfermented grape juice.

In the LXX, many times oinos is used for unfermented grape juice (tirosh). Isa 65:8 - "As the new wine is found in the cluster..." Here a cluster of grapes is called wine. Pro 3:10 - "So shall thy barns be filled with plenty, and thy presses shall burst out with new wine." Here wine is said to burst from presses, yet it is fresh grape juice that flows from the presses.

But whether the wine Paul instructed Timothy to mix with water for his stomach's sake was fermented or unfermented, it was for medicinal uses, it gives no excuse for social or recreational drinking. Grape juice, as I posted, was used to settle stomachs. Paul's medicinal instruction for Timothy was not to encourage recreational drinking no more than a doctor prescribing a prescription drug is to encourage recreational cocaine or marijuana use. If drinking fermented wine was already common among first century Christians, then there would have been no need for Paul's instruction to use it.

oh really so you have to be an apostle to tell a friend why don't you take some tylenol for that headache.

 

[jmacvols]

oh really so you have to be an apostle to tell a friend why don't you take some tylenol for that headache.

I don't understand what you mean?

 

[ebia]

I gave a quote from Atheneaus where he used oinos for unfermented grape juice. Aristotle used oinos to refer to grape juice in his book Metereologica. There are many other examples from Greek antiquity where onios is used for unfermented grape juice.

In the LXX, many times oinos is used for unfermented grape juice (tirosh). Isa 65:8 - "As the new wine is found in the cluster..." Here a cluster of grapes is called wine. Pro 3:10 - "So shall thy barns be filled with plenty, and thy presses shall burst out with new wine." Here wine is said to burst from presses, yet it is fresh grape juice that flows from the presses.

It's quite normal to use a word for the finished product in reference to the same stuff earlier in the process. That's quite different to using the word to mean the stuff staying or being consumed in that unfinished state.

What wine is used for is not unfermented grape juice, but yet-to-be-fermented grape juice, or more accurately still, wine-partway-through-its-production.

But whether the wine Paul instructed Timothy to mix with water for his stomach's sake was fermented or unfermented, it was for medicinal uses, it gives no excuse for social or recreational drinking. Grape juice, as I posted, was used to settle stomachs. Paul's medicinal instruction for Timothy was not to encourage recreational drinking no more than a doctor prescribing a prescription drug is to encourage recreational cocaine or marijuana use. If drinking fermented wine was already common among first century Christians, then there would have been no need for Paul's instruction to use it.[/quote]
That doesn't follow. The way one might use wine for medicinal purposes and the way one might use wine for as a drink are not identical. One might drink half a bottle with dinner once a week, and still benefit from half a glass daily for medicinal purposes (or vice versa!)

 

[ebia]

Is moderate drunkeness condemned?

Is moderate gluttony condemned?

 

[christianmomof3]

Paul's admonition to Timothy to take a little wine for his stomach?
What else can we learn from this?

bellyaching leads to whining?

 

[ebia]

Athenaeus recommended the use of "sweet wine"/unfermented wine (grape juice) for stomach ailments. "Let him take sweet wine, either mixed with water or warmed, especially that kind called protropos, the sweet Lesbian glukus, as being good for the stomach; for sweet wine (oinos) does not make the head heavy." - Anthenaeus, Banquet. The lesbian wine had its alcoholic content removed. This is very similar advise that Paul gave Timothy.

I'm struggling a bit here to see what is actual quote, what is gloss put on it, and what is artifact of translation. But two things jump out:
1. Either you or whatever you are quoting can't make up their mind whether this is unfermented grape juice or de-alchoholised wine.
2. I don't see anything in the quote that implies it is either of those two things, just that it is sweet and that it doesn't "make the head heavy".

I gave a quote from Atheneaus where he used oinos for unfermented grape juice. Aristotle used oinos to refer to grape juice in his book Metereologica.

If I'm looking at the right quotes, it looks to me like he is talking about must, ie freshly pressed juice that is going to ferment but has not yet. Calling that wine is common-place, because it is wine that is not yet finished. It's like talking about bread that is still waiting to be baked, or Saxons using the same word for beer and for barley because the only sane thing one would do with barley is make beer from it. I use the same word for the tea I drink and the leaves I use to make it, but I'm not suggesting that sucking on a leaf is a reasonable substitute for a cuppa.

Meteorology is a technical discussion on the properties of substances, not a treatise on beverages. No-one seriously disputes that oinos (and words for wine in many languages) includes grape-must, precisely because what it does is become wine. What you need to show is evidence of widespread preservation and consumption of unfermented grape juice products, as a beverage, and that said products were still called oinos without qualifier. So widespread that use of the words for wine would bring images of that product to mind in ordinary life. And widespread needs to include Jewish history going back to what - Isaiah at least.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

I gave a quote from Atheneaus where he used oinos for unfermented grape juice. Aristotle used oinos to refer to grape juice in his book Metereologica. There are many other examples from Greek antiquity where onios is used for unfermented grape juice.

In the LXX, many times oinos is used for unfermented grape juice (tirosh). Isa 65:8 - "As the new wine is found in the cluster..." Here a cluster of grapes is called wine. Pro 3:10 - "So shall thy barns be filled with plenty, and thy presses shall burst out with new wine." Here wine is said to burst from presses, yet it is fresh grape juice that flows from the presses.

But whether the wine Paul instructed Timothy to mix with water for his stomach's sake was fermented or unfermented, it was for medicinal uses, it gives no excuse for social or recreational drinking. Grape juice, as I posted, was used to settle stomachs. Paul's medicinal instruction for Timothy was not to encourage recreational drinking no more than a doctor prescribing a prescription drug is to encourage recreational cocaine or marijuana use. If drinking fermented wine was already common among first century Christians, then there would have been no need for Paul's instruction to use it.

Grape juice existed only for a brief time- immediately after it is pressed.

If you crush grapes, you get grape juice. However, the juice and air are contaminated with yeast, so within a day or so it will be converted to wine.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

I appreciate yor statement. Would you mind substantiating it? I don't know that I appreciate being told that I am promoting something that is untrue.

Unfermented wine a fact ... - Google Books

Your apology is accepted.

The articles consists of experiments done in the industrial age with an understanding of microbiology.

(A) is exactly describing pasteurization- a method that was created by Pasteur in the 19th century.
(B) is the same thing done at boiling point.

Pasteurization didn't exist in past. It requires an understanding of microbiology, and would have been difficult, but not impossible to do. Theoritically, one could do it using ancient methods, but only if you know exactly what you are doing and why. However, it would have revolutionized the food industry. Wine, beer, cheese, sausages, smoked fish and so many other foods were created because they didn't put food into sealed containers and heat them to 160F. These foods were created by a kind of controlled spoilage. Wine is spoiled grape juice- but not totally spoiled (vinegar). Pasteurized foods didn't exist until the mid 1800s.

(C) is preventing rigorous fermentation from taking place. By heating the juice to above 180F (185) it also evaporates alcohol, but not water. As the article admits, it has to be done daily. That would require an incredible amount of money and labor to prevent spoilage- for societies on the verge of starvation. Furthermore, the article doesn't mention the fact that you are not going to end up with grape juice. You will have a kind of vinegar/watery substance.
(D) is basically the same thing.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

But whether the wine Paul instructed Timothy to mix with water for his stomach's sake was fermented or unfermented, it was for medicinal uses, it gives no excuse for social or recreational drinking. Grape juice, as I posted, was used to settle stomachs. Paul's medicinal instruction for Timothy was not to encourage recreational drinking no more than a doctor prescribing a prescription drug is to encourage recreational cocaine or marijuana use. If drinking fermented wine was already common among first century Christians, then there would have been no need for Paul's instruction to use it.

I don't mean to sound like a jerk, but I am continually amazed as to how removed we are as a society from the past and understanding how people used to live.

The perfect example is that no one seems to understand why Paul is recommening wine for stomach troubles. Want the answer? Think like an ancient.

Alcohol was a necessary component to society. Before people understood micro-organisms, water was dangerous. People would pull water out of wells, lakes, streams and rivers. They were often contaminated with bacteria. If you lived in urban areas, human waste didn't go to the sewer for processing. It often ended up right back in their water source from runoff.

Beer and wine were integral parts of life:
- Beer is made by soaking roasted barley in ~155F water. At this temperature, all the bacteria die. All they knew was that this pulls the sugars from the barley into the water. The beer picks up yeast from the air or container and then ferments. Beer was incredibly safe.
- Wine is made by crushing grapes. The juice is converted into wine. The wine doesn't have any nasty bacteria in it.

When people drank water, they often got sick- because they were drinking bacteria from human and animal waste. Wine and beer was safe- so to tell soemone to drink wine makes sense... it has enough alcohol to kill bacteria and is safe to drink.

 

[ebia]

it has enough alcohol to kill bacteria and is safe to drink.

let's be a little bit careful - it's not primarily the alcohol that makes wine or beer safer than water.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

let's be a little bit careful - it's not primarily the alcohol that makes wine or beer safer than water.

It sort of is. In some ways you are right. Like I said, beer is safe because it is heated up and kills all the bacteria in the water. Wine comes from plants and not water from the ground.

Alcohol also kills or inhibits bacteria- which is why it was often mixed with water.

The main thing is that alcohol is a product of safe spoilage. If a food is totally spoiled, it is either poison or has no nutritional value. You could take the alcohol out using modern technology, but it has a lot of nutritional use. That's part of why we have whisky, vodka, etc...

If you have ever brewed beer or wine- and you open up the container and smell it- (as a human) it smells good... but there is something very sterile and hostile seeming about.

 

[ebia]

It sort of is. In some ways you are right. Like I said, beer is safe because it is heated up and kills all the bacteria in the water. Wine comes from plants and not water from the ground.

That bit is correct.

Alcohol also kills or inhibits bacteria- which is why it was often mixed with water.

Alcohol doesn't kill bacteria except when it is in reasonable concentration. It's inhibiting effect is limited in wine and even more limited in beer.
The reason you can mix a lot of unsafe water into wine is because chemicals from the grape skins in combination with the alcohol acts to kill bacteria. You don't get that effect with beer, so don't go adding a lot of dodgy water to your beer.

The main thing is that alcohol is a product of safe spoilage. If a food is totally spoiled, it is either poison or has no nutritional value. You could take the alcohol out using modern technology, but it has a lot of nutritional use. That's part of why we have whisky, vodka, etc...

Whisky, vodka, etc have a much higher concentration of alcohol so one can mix those, though one shouldn't take them below about 20% with unsafe water. You can add far more water to wine than to whisky!

Not that I would want to go adding muddy water to a single-malt in the first place.

If you have ever brewed beer or wine

Yes. I also have friends who are professional brewers and professional winemaker and worked with the former in various ways...

- and you open up the container and smell it- (as a human) it smells good... but there is something very sterile and hostile seeming about.

That's Carbon Dioxide knocking you out.

 

[eyzonthepriz]

What else can we learn from this?

I wanted to re-post my earlier comments regarding this thread because I dont think drinking alcohol or not is important in regard to this portion of scripture .
What we can learn from this is that the gifts (speaking in tongues, healing, etc) did cease as paul said they would. The gifts were given to give creedence to the testimony of ignorant fishermen who were telling the Jewish nation that it was time to forsake their entire heritage and beliefs passed down from the beginning for a new way. As recorded in the gospels, this didnt go very well with the Jews. the Lord Jesus Christ performed many miracles including raising the dead but they killed him anyway. God was showing the world his approval of the new way by continuing the miracles after our Lords death and resurrection for a witness against them. Back to the original question: Encouraging Timothy to drink a little wine simply clarifys that If Paul still had the gift of healing at that time he could have sent Him healing by sending him a handkerchief or apron (see Acts 19:12). Also consider this in light of 2 timothy 4: 20 where Paul left Trophimus sick in Miletum.The gifts passed away then "the end" as recorded in Matthew chapter 24 took place. What "end?" The end of the old testament, the Jewish nation, the temple sacrifice, the need for priests etc..! THIS is the real reformation brothers and sisters. Where was Israel and temple worship to be found after the year 70 A.D.? I know most of you dont know because you've never heard it preached. 99 % of the churches are locked on to teaching about the "antichrist" fiction put out by John darby and C.I. Scofeild. I was the same way for many years till the Lord blessed me with the truth that HISTORY backs up and you can research! Examine these things for yourself you will be very surprised with the pin point accuracy of Jesus words to his disciples in Matthew 24. It is a shame that Jesus hasn't received the praise due to him for bringing his words to pass. If you are interested heres part 1 of an 8 part sermon series on 70 A.D. entitled "The Witness of 70 A.D." By Pastor Jonathan Crosby. I personally think parts 6,7, and 8 are the most powerful, but I recommend listening to the whole series to get all the mind blowing historical facts.
www.LetGodBeTrue.com - Free Audio Sermons

 

[GQ Chris]

This thread is making me want to get into the brewing business now, interesting stuff here...

 

[cowboysfan1970]

One thing that's been very common over the past 30 years and especially the past 20 is an increasing number of Christians who profess beliefs that more and more things are sins unto themselves. Most of these beliefs are not based in Biblical theology but in a political or social agenda. This whole thing about alcohol being a sin unto itself and drinking it will without any question or doubt send a person straight to hell was invented by The Women's Temperence Movement in the late 19th century. Their name was misleading because they didn't believe in temperance but in total prohibition of alcohol. It was a political and social agenda that they had and they knew that the only way they could get it accepted into society is if they got it preached from the pulpit on Sunday. They spun an elaborite story of how the wine mentioned at the wedding at Cana was not wine at all but grape guice. It was a completely ridiculous idea but they kept pressing and pressing until ministers started promoting it in their sermons. That's when wine and any other drink became "the Devil's brew." They manipulated and twisted the Bible to conform to their own agenda. There have been other doctrines like it's a sin to dance, it's a sin for women to wear pants or anyone to wear shorts, it's a sin to listen to secular music, it's a sin to dance, it's a sin to have sex for any other reason than procreation, etc. If you challenge them they won't shy away from opening their Bibles and showing you where it says that. Or at least where they think it says that. When you closely examine their claims and ideas Biblical support is missing. What might be much closer to the truth is they might be bearing false witness against God, Christ, and the Bible itself. I was raised with some of those beliefs and I set out on a journey to see if there was any truth to them at all. So far all I've been able to find is someone giving their opinion as to what the Bible says or even more so, what they wish it said. People with strong doctrines and dogmas aren't afraid to change scriptures to fit their agenda. They believe the the ends justifies the means. They are also usually very spiritually arrogent and very quick to condemn anyone that dares disagree with them or question them.

 

[GQ Chris]

Yeah... grape juice, lol.

 

[ebia]

This thread is making me want to get into the brewing business now, interesting stuff here...

Brewing is very interesting - I did contemplate taking it up commercially at one point, but figured I would probably get bored with it after a while if I did. I don't have much contact with it at the moment but in England I was actively involved in national committees of the Campaign for Real Ale, had good friends who were commercial brewers, wholesalers, publicans. I ran beer festivals, got involved in technical panels, homebrewed to competion level etc. Brewing is much more involved and interesting (IMO) than wine or cider making - though I have friends who are professionals in both of those as well. I've visited a few distilleries, but my main contact with whisky is as a consumer (I did have a collection of 80 different expressions of single malt at one point).

Sigh.

Australia is a lot less fun on that score - the beer is rubbish, single malt is very expensive, and wine is nothing like as exciting. And the pubs here -well, less said about them the better.

 

[ebia]

Yeah... grape juice, lol.

FWIW there is an organic winemaker here (well, 80km upstream) who makes a very nice range of grape juices packaged in champaigne bottles.