DRINKING AND THE SCRIPTURES

[watcher2013]

Methuo is sinful when one is FILLED with an intoxicant Rom 13:13; Gal 5:21. One can also be FILLED-methuo but not with an intoxicant but filled with food.

In the LXX, the Greek word methuo is found in:


Psa 23:5 "Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth (methuo) over" God was not getting David intoxicated in the presence of his enemies but David's cup was FILLED

Lam 3:15 "He hath filled me with bitterness, he hath made me drunken (methuo) with wormwood"
Filled is made equivalent to drunken.

Isa 51:21 "Therefore hear now this, thou afflicted, and drunken (methuo), but not with wine"

Psa 36:8; Isa 34:5; Isa 34:7; Jer 31:25; Jer 31:14among other OT verses where methuo is used but not specifically about intoxication but about being filled.


The verse at hand "For in EATING every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken." 1 Cor 11:21

Paul is speaking about thier EATING supper, some were getting nothing to eat while others were being filled. Hungry being conrasted to drunken > filled.

Earlier in this epistle, Paul mentioned the sin of being "drunkards", 1 Cor 6:10 and then said to the Corinthians such WERE some of you, verse 11. So why in the same letter would Paul say they were NOT drunkards then accuse them being drunken (intoxicated)?

If they were getting intoxicated at the Lord's Supper Paul would have condemned it and not tell them they have houses to get drunken in. That would be the implication.


Eph 5:18 "And be not drunk (methuo) with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;"

In Eph 5:18 Paul made the mutually exclusive proposition one cannot be filled with some wine and some spirit, one can only be filled with one or the other but not both.

Here again methuo/drunk is made parallel with FILLED. Paul is not saying one is to be intoxicated with wine no more than he is saying be intoxicated with spirit. Filled therefore would be the meaning of methuo...not filled with wine but filled with the spirit.

1 Pet 4:3 Peter lists three varying degress of drinking/drunkenness from excess to small and in the context he condemns all the varying degrees.

All of your examples required to be filled with something:
1. psalms 23:5, filled the cup - Filled the cup with what???
2. lam 3:15 - drunken with what: wormwood
3. Isa 51:21 - drunken not with wine.... but with what? vs. 22 Fury

So given the options in the Lord supper: (food/bread and wine)
They are either filled with food: which can be considered as gluttony in the worst form
or they are filled with wine = which can be considered as drunk.


being filled with food is not bad...however,
On this issue, whichever they were filled from...it's bad...because Paul had to correct them...

and of the reality was they were not ONLY EATING BUT THEY ALSO WERE DRINKING.
(eat this bread and drink this cup)

Your argument defies reality.
and as said by Paul: What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in?

Eph 5:18 "And be not drunk (methuo) with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;"

In Eph 5:18 Paul made the mutually exclusive proposition one cannot be filled with some wine and some spirit, one can only be filled with one or the other but not both.

Here again methuo/drunk is made parallel with FILLED. Paul is not saying one is to be intoxicated with wine no more than he is saying be intoxicated with spirit. Filled therefore would be the meaning of methuo...not filled with wine but filled with the spirit.

Let me ask you...it was said...not drunk with wine wherein in EXCESS....
This statement can be "cut" like your example in Isa 51:21...(not drunk with wine)...but it didn't
and to rephrase the statement:

And be not Filled with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;
this statement perfectly fits.
because filled with wine in excess will result in drunkenness...
while filled with Spirit, will result in Holiness...

The Bishop were not allowed to drink wine...(intoxicating wine or not)? pretty sure the wine in question was intoxicating...otherwise the statement is foolish to forbid one with non intoxicating fluids.
The Deacons are not given to "much" wine...pretty much the same as above...

 

[preacha24_7]

Every christian is different. I used to think it was OK for Christians to drink beer or wine. I've been a christian for a long time so my views have changed. I know some christian denominations believe that drinking alcohol is wrong. I used to drink beer, but I don't think its a good idea to drink because God called me to preach. My commitment to Christ means more to me than drinking a ice cold beer. However I don't think God would get mad if you drank a beer or one glass of wine.. just tired of all these heathens trying to judge me. God has really been good to me. Don't need alcohol. I get drunk in the spirit so don't need Budweiser or colt 45 anymore. If you feel its wrong to drink ask God to help you to quit drinking. God answers prayers. So don't ever feel like he won't help you. The devil will lie to you but don't listen to him. He don't want you to ask God for help. Prayer changes things. Sometimes he answers your prayers right away and sometimes you have to wait.

 

[Stephen63]

.......but you have not even came close to proving your position to be calling other hypocritses......

AMEN and I agree!

 

[Stephen63]

...but we should care about your bias?

Nicely put! HAH!

 

[dcontroversal]

That's right folks, you read it correctly...... not interested in commentaries that have 20 times his education..... just a conservative guess.

Because...... you're right. What possibly could I have been thinking? Obviously, these God-fearing commentators are biased, because after all YOU SAID SO!

Now that you've just accused & judged falsely well-respected commentarians........ who then are these hyper critical hypocrites anyway? It's easy to see you're name-calling & judging somebody in this thread.

I think.... it's those people who investigated for truth & found it. And when they did..... they all disagreed with you.

So when you can't convince them, you psychologically project on them, calling them the heretics & hypocrites!

Didn't you tell me last month you were a pastor?

Originally Posted by dcontroversal

Who cares what bias men think and what the commentaries have to say...at the end of the day instead of being open to scripture you are regurgitating what other men regurgitate......Not to mention that Matthew Henry has never impressed me one iota.....

First you should read what I wrote as it is two thoughts and if you need commentaries to know what the word teaches speaks volumes to your ability to reason the scriptures as John tells me I need no man to teach me the truth as it is the Spirit that goes before me and leads and guides me into all truth.

Second what I said is true...if you quote commentaries you are regurgitating what other men teach and or regurgitate so you point is mute....and you should really grow a little skin...

Seeing how you have no clue as to my education and or what I have studied your point about the commentaries having 20 times my knowledge is also mute as there is no proof that the men you follow are right in their opinion!

I can tell you that you will not change my mind and to be demeaning about my education is just as much a stroke against me as me saying people who reject the truth are hypocrites so congratulations you sunk to my low.....and....

There have been numerous people who are educated in the scriptures that agree with the biblical stance as found in the OP and your last attempt to belittle me doesn't bother me at all so keep on following the path that you are on and I will choose to stay the course I am on and we can let God judge who is right and or who is wrong....

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Originally Posted by dcontroversal

Who cares what bias men think and what the commentaries have to say...at the end of the day instead of being open to scripture you are regurgitating what other men regurgitate......Not to mention that Matthew Henry has never impressed me one iota.....

First you should read what I wrote as it is two thoughts and if you need commentaries to know what the word teaches speaks volumes to your ability to reason the scriptures as John tells me I need no man to teach me the truth as it is the Spirit that goes before me and leads and guides me into all truth.

Second what I said is true...if you quote commentaries you are regurgitating what other men teach and or regurgitate so you point is mute....and you should really grow a little skin...

Seeing how you have no clue as to my education and or what I have studied your point about the commentaries having 20 times my knowledge is also mute as there is no proof that the men you follow are right in their opinion!

I can tell you that you will not change my mind and to be demeaning about my education is just as much a stroke against me as me saying people who reject the truth are hypocrites so congratulations you sunk to my low.....and....

There have been numerous people who are educated in the scriptures that agree with the biblical stance as found in the OP and your last attempt to belittle me doesn't bother me at all so keep on following the path that you are on and I will choose to stay the course I am on and we can let God judge who is right and or who is wrong....

He does not comprehend that just as many commentaries of people who have 20 plus years would say just the opposite.

He does not wish to listen. Thus no one can talk to him.

 

[Stephen63]

Originally Posted by dcontroversal

Who cares what bias men think and what the commentaries have to say...at the end of the day instead of being open to scripture you are regurgitating what other men regurgitate......Not to mention that Matthew Henry has never impressed me one iota.....

First you should read what I wrote as it is two thoughts and if you need commentaries to know what the word teaches speaks volumes to your ability to reason the scriptures as John tells me I need no man to teach me the truth as it is the Spirit that goes before me and leads and guides me into all truth.

Second what I said is true...if you quote commentaries you are regurgitating what other men teach and or regurgitate so you point is mute....and you should really grow a little skin...

Seeing how you have no clue as to my education and or what I have studied your point about the commentaries having 20 times my knowledge is also mute as there is no proof that the men you follow are right in their opinion!

I can tell you that you will not change my mind and to be demeaning about my education is just as much a stroke against me as me saying people who reject the truth are hypocrites so congratulations you sunk to my low.....and....

There have been numerous people who are educated in the scriptures that agree with the biblical stance as found in the OP and your last attempt to belittle me doesn't bother me at all so keep on following the path that you are on and I will choose to stay the course I am on and we can let God judge who is right and or who is wrong....

It doesn't matter....... they can see you now.... that's what matters....... My job is done.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

It doesn't matter....... they can see you now.... that's what matters....... My job is done.

What Job?

Twisting scripture. Ignoring Scripture? Judging those who do not agree with you?

That job was done weeks ago.

 

[dcontroversal]

It doesn't matter....... they can see you now.... that's what matters....... My job is done.

Oooh you really got me....man busted...here just in case they didn't get it I will post it again.....

Originally Posted by dcontroversal

Originally Posted by dcontroversal

Who cares what bias men think and what the commentaries have to say...at the end of the day instead of being open to scripture you are regurgitating what other men regurgitate......Not to mention that Matthew Henry has never impressed me one iota.....

Hey every body I don't use commentaries.....anybody who wants to use them I don't care....and to quote commentaries as your source of truth instead of the bible means you are teaching what the commentary teaches....

 

[dcontroversal]

What Job?

Twisting scripture. Ignoring Scripture? Judging those who do not agree with you?

That job was done weeks ago.

I agree and say Yeah no doubt...I have a list...and there is a bottom of the list and doesn't even make the list...can you guess which one the above is on? (My job is done statement)

 

[homwardbound]

But if you do not of your own accord obey the law you never will obey, God wil not force you to against your will to obey. You have to determine with your own self-will to obey God.

So how you doing are you perfect yet?

God requires perfection, how are you, I or anyone ever going to attain that? Will anyone of us ever, and what is the oinly way possible to be perfect?

 

[jag1977]

But if you do not of your own accord obey the law you never will obey, God wil not force you to against your will to obey. You have to determine with your own self-will to obey God.

Here I am changing I am of you to what is truth. The purest form of truth in your opinion....

But you do not your accord (obey the you). God not you to against your to obey. You to determine, your to obey God.

 

[Stephen63]

I agree and say Yeah no doubt...I have a list...and there is a bottom of the list and doesn't even make the list...can you guess which one the above is on? (My job is done statement)

Really? Reeeealy? Well, for being past the bottom of your list, you sure seem to make me a priorty on this page. I'll be waiting for your reply.

 

[dcontroversal]

Really? Reeeealy? Well, for being past the bottom of your list, you sure seem to make me a priorty on this page. I'll be waiting for your reply.

I don't recall me saying anything to you in particular...but if you are going to keep replying with things that are not true and or trying to belittle me and my education I will gladly respond mi amigo........HAH!

Not to mention that all I did was reference your statement HAH

(My job is done statement)

 

[Stephen63]

I don't recall me saying anything to you in particular...but if you are going to keep replying with things that are not true and or trying to belittle me and my education I will gladly respond mi amigo........HAH!

Not to mention that all I did was reference your statement HAH

(My job is done statement)

So, are/have you been a pastor?

 

[john832]

When you use several commentaries, you can get a consensus of what the truth is through their agreement. These agree that wine for medicine purposes, probably watered down. There's no agreement for casual drinking.

OK, where is the total abstinence you contend is scriptural?

 

[gb9]

there is not any. I have said several times that there is no verse to prohibit alcohol consumption, many that condem drunkenness as a sin. but so many can't seem to see the difference between this.

 

[Stephen63]

Originally Posted by dcontroversal

I don't recall me saying anything to you in particular...but if you are going to keep replying with things that are not true and or trying to belittle me and my education I will gladly respond mi amigo........HAH!

Not to mention that all I did was reference your statement HAH

(My job is done statement)

So, are/have you been a pastor?

I'm waiting......

 

[homwardbound]

All are called to prophesy the Christ has come and gone back home, came to bring us new life in his Spirit not our own any more for our own is dead, via through the death, burial, resurrection and delivery of the Same Holy Spirit of God the Father that led him not just lived in him, more importantly through him. Think this is for all believers?
[video=youtube;3YXINEYdnkY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YXINEYdnkY&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/video]

 

[Mindwrencher]

Notice the following and what the bible teaches the wine and strong drink...

Jesus turned water into wine--> John chapter 2
Paul told Timothy as a (pastor( to take a little wine for the sake of his stomach--> 1st Timothy 5:23
To drink wine with a merry heart--> Ecclesiastes 9:7
That laughter and wine makes the heart merry--> Ecclesiastes 10:19
Give strong drink to those ready to perish--> Proverbs 31:6a
Give wine unto those who are heavy of heart (depressed)--> Proverbs 31:6b

It comes down to the following..

1. Does it cause a weaker brother/sister to stumble or be offended Corinthians
2. Not to be drunk in excess Ephesians
3. Not to be (given) to it as in addicted or have to have it 1st Timothy
4. Being mature about it

There is nothing wrong with any one having a drink of wine and or strong drink as long as it meets the requirements above.

I believe that what you have said is true. But some will respond with every kind of twist they can imagine to "water down" the obvious wine and turn it into some sort of "so called" wine. .
And they do it for the same reason that the commentators do: To defend their doctrine, instead of listening to the word of God.
So I make the following comments for their benefit:
Those who constantly "re-translate" the scriptures usually are not experts in the language they re-translate. The translators of the bible often have impeccable education in the field of ancient languages and are quite familiar with the nuances of Aramaic, Greek, Hebrew and other ancient languages not used in the bible.
So most translations can be trusted to "get the message across accurately", and all opposed....get an education, a real education before you amateurishly start rearranging and redefining the work of those far more professional scholars.
If you know the Aramaic and Greek and use them instead of English, then be true to the Aramaic and Greek and NOT to your doctrine which you feel to the core of your being is more correct that what any translation says. Listen to God. Challenge yourself by asking "If I am wrong and this passage means something other than my doctrine, how does it change anything." You will often find that it doesn't really change anything, you were wrong to look at it with a slant towards what you believe, but seeing that a different viewpoint doesn't really change anything, just accept what it is translated as and move on.
I am quite familiar with the traditional view that some ancient sources say that the wine was "watered down". OK, if it WAS watered down, then don't you see how much more powerful is the inspired writer's point? In other words, don't drink the watered down wine to the point that you become inebriated, but instead "gorge" yourself on the Spirit.