Royal Flock of Christ Church

Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake and thine often infirmities. 1 Timothy 5:23

Many think that Timothy had a sickness and a recurring illness for which Paul had to recommend a little wine. But they are wrong. 1 Timothy 5:23 has nothing to do with sickness issues, and a good understanding of the Bible proves this.

When Paul spoke about stomach sake, some conclude it must be stomach illness, but I doubt if they have ever read where Paul says food for the stomach: 1 Cor 6:13. When Paul said food for the stomach, was he referring to stomach illness?
Good Biblical understanding helps you realise that food for the stomach and wine for your stomach sake (wine was part of their regular food for the stomach) have the same meaning. The stomach needs food, hence food for the stomach; wine was part of the Jews’ diet; it was also for the stomach. Both food and wine were for stomach sake.

Wine for Timothy was to be for the sake of stomach; ie for food, not for the sake of wantonness, which would be sin, nor for the sake any spiritual benefit whatsoever. No referrence to sickness. Paul was simply recommending a little wine (as opposed to much wine) to Timothy that he could take it for food rather than practicing being a teetotaller like a Nazarite for whatever reason that Timothy may have been ascetic. Remember Paul himself says if it meant him abstaining from meat for his brother not to stumble he would. Paul was ready to abstain from whatever food that would offend his fellow Christian. That may be the same reason Timothy may have been abstaining from wine– because of some fellow. Remember, Paul circumcised Timothy because of the Jews, not because it was binding on Timothy in the Christian faith.

Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend. 1 Corinthians 8:13

Read the immediate verse before and after verse 23 of 1 Timothy 5 and you will see Paul’s advice was in the context of sin. Saying the verse refers to stomach sickness puts the verse out of context and disconnects it from any reasonable flow of thought. A little wine was food for the belly (it was necessary for food and was not a sin). And that has been Paul’s stance as we can see when he did not prohibit the deacon from wine in 1Timothy 3:8, but says they should not be given to much wine.

Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; 1 Timothy 3:8

Perhaps Timothy’s ascetic lifestyle wasn’t doing him any good as wine was a common part of everyday meal in Bible days and he may be struggling hard to maintain abstinence when in fact he wasn’t bound by any spiritual obligation to abstain even as Christ himself wasn’t bound. Remember Romans 14: There were some in the church who stood opposed to drinking wine. But Paul understood them as weak in faith. That gives reason for Timothy’s disuse of wine. And Paul had earlier handled the issue thus:

Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him…And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. Romans 14:1-3,20-23

Here was Apostle Paul, I believe, making Timothy see that enjoying his liberty in Christ was better off for him under great tribulation than asceticism. Was Timothy under any tribulations? You may want to ask. Yes. The gospel in their days caused them many tribulations, persecutions, distressed, danger, hardship, imprisonments, difficulties, unrest, stress and labours. It was not an enjoyment gospel as we have today. These Paul called frequent infirmities, not sickness. Not every where infirmity is mentioned in the Bible is it always in the context of sickness. To make this clear, recall Paul’s own infirmities when he listed them in 2 Corinthians 11:24-27.
Paul mentioned being beaten, stoned, and shipwrecked; suffering hunger, thirst, and nakedness, and facing dangers from various sources. Paul never had sicknesses and diseases as part of infirmities? It could not be part of it. Christ was the healer and health of the Church. Paul listed various infirmities without mentioning any sickness or disease. His infirmities were his sufferings for Christ. Timothy also had his fair share of that.
This understanding proves again that Paul wasn’t talking to Timothy about recurrent sickness or ill health. Timothy was Paul’s co-labourer in ministry. In fact he was his spiritual son (1Tim 1:2) whom he told to rather be partaker of the sufferings in Christ than flee from it.

Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God; 2 Timothy 1:8

So when Paul spoke to Timothy of Timothy’s frequent infirmities, Timothy sure understood the context clearly. Timothy was to enjoy wine in moderation as part of a balanced life and as part of his liberty in Christ considering his frequent sufferings. That is the meaning of stomach sake and often infirmities. That was Paul’s admonition. No where did Paul say that sickness was part of the sufferings in Christ or was part of what he called infirmities in Christ. Those who say Timothy had recurrent sickness didn’t pay attention to the word infirmities. Often infirmity may well mean recurrent ailment, but often infirmities in the context of sickness would mean frequent diverse sicknesses and diseases. No barrel of wine is a panacea or preventive to sicknesses and diseases of an endless list as infirmities, let alone a little of a brand. If that were the case, Paul’s recommendation fell flat.

Some have maintained that the water of the Israelites was bad and that little wine was added to purify it and that why it was recommended to Timothy was because the bad water was giving him often infirmities. But if that was the case, how did the nazarites like Samson, Samuel and John the Baptist survive? They would have been the most sickly for abstaining from wine and that would have been strong enough reason against the nazarite practice. What about the Rechabites who abstained from wine. How could they when wine was a must drink to make water safe?

If little wine was such a great preventive and cure-all for all kinds of sickness in the Bible days, what accounts for the multitudinous healings that Jesus went about doing? Almost everyone drank wine in Israel. It was part of their diet. They would have all been sickness free by reason of their regular intake of it.

Those who look to ancient medicine to say wine was a great preventive and cure in that generation should remember that the physicians were sorcerers. It was a sin to practice sorcery. The church was well grounded in divine healing. The Apostles were specially commissioned to heal. And Paul could not be buying into sorcerers’ ideas for practice.

When Jesus came healing, he healed ALL, proving that his healing was for all cases (Lk 4:40; 6:19; Mt 2:24; 6:17). If not, why didn’t he leave some and heal some so we know wine would fix the rest? And the Bible says Jesus is the same yesterday, today and for ever.

When Peter wrote to the churches that by  Christ’s stripes they were healed (1Pet 2:24). It made no sense to them if they must still rely on the cure-all wine for their infirmities.

James, when he asked, “Is any sick?” didn’t recommend wine. He recommended anointing the sick in the name of the Lord and the prayer of faith, and declared that Christ himself would raise the sick up. What happened to his reliance on the little quantity of wine that cures all? If the “cure-all” wine could beat the prayer of faith even by a little intake of it, why didn’t it save those who drank the Lord’s supper unworthily from falling sick that some even died?

If wine was Timothy’s healer from frequent infirmities, then that was Paul’s own. But remember Paul listed his infirmities but never mentioned sickness (2Cor 11), showing that to him often infirmities doesn’t always mean sicknesses and diseases in the context of a preacher like him and Timothy.