Alright, alright, I don’t want to get into a huge debate about whether or not a single drink of alcohol is a sin. We can talk about that later. I’ve just talked to several people over the past few weeks who keep having trouble with various sins and it these stories keep starting with one problem–alcohol. So, I thought I’d share Ephesians 5:18 with you.
“And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit” (ESV).
The Greek Word for Drunk
I’m not a Greek scholar, but what I’ve read says the word translated “drunk” here is “methusko.” According to Vine’s, this is special form of the word “methuo” which means to be filled and in the context of intoxicating drink means to be drunk. The special form is called the inceptive form. Vine’s goes on to say that this special form marks the process of the verb. That is, it is not talking about the end result but the process. (Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p 343.). Webster’s Dictionary defines “inceptive” as “expressing the beginning of the action indicated by the underlying verb, …” Abbot-Smith’s Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testamentclaims “methusko” is “causal of [methuo]” (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, Scotland. 1973, p 282.). Bullinger’s A Critical Lexicon and Concordance To the English and Greek New Testament says “methusko” means “to grow drunk (marking the beginning of No. 1 [methuo])” (Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids. 1978. P 238.).
I think this should give us a bit of a pause before we bottoms up. God addresses not just the end result, but the process from beginning to end.
Don’t Be Drunk, Be Filled with the Spirit
God didn’t just say don’t be drunk with wine. He offered an alternative. Instead, be filled with the Spirit. Sadly, many charismatic teachers have taken this all wrong and believed Paul was saying being in the Spirit meant you would act like you were drunk.
That totally misses the point. He says don’t be drunk with wine because there is debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit. Why? Because you’ll act completely differently when you are filled with the Spirit than if you are filled with wine. Being filled with the Spirit does not mean you will act like a drunken fool. Being filled with the Spirit means you will act with the wisdom of the Spirit (cf. Ephesians 5:15-17).
However, notice Paul’s point in context. Instead of starting the process of be filled with wine, Paul says we should be filled with the Spirit. The contrasting point is to the degree we pursue the process of being filled with wine, we will not be filled with the Spirit. This is important because the Scripture repeatedly points out we must be filled with, led by and follow the Spirit (e.g. Romans 8:5-9; Galatians 5:16-25).
Scientifically, we know the very first things intoxicants attack are our judgment, willpower, discernment and inhibitions. Things we would never do under normal circumstances, we will do once alcohol gets into our system. Rage, fornication, theft, violence and so one easily follow once we start drinking the lubricant for sin.
This hearkens back to Proverbs 31:4-5, in which Lemuel’s mother told him not to drink lest he drink and forget the law. That is exactly what happens when we drink alcohol.
Alcohol: The Gateway Sin
In reality, even if you want to say that a glass of wine over the holidays is okay, can you at least see what Paul explains here? Alcohol in any amount is dangerous. To the degree you let it into your system, you hinder the work of the Spirit to guide you to life. Sadly, I’ve seen way too many people fall prey to all kinds of sins because they started saying they could handle a bit of alcohol.
I’m sure dozens of people can say, “I’ve had a drink and I haven’t done those things.” Fine. I can’t answer for everyone. My point is simply this, Paul says it is a gateway to abandoning the Spirit. If you want life through the Spirit, put the booze down. Don’t defend it. Don’t take it up. Set it down. Walk away. Fill yourself with the Spirit instead. That’s where life is.
I hate alcohol. Let me just get that out of the way. I am prejudiced against it because of all the horrible alcohol-inspired acts I saw in my life. Your term of "gateway sin" is on the money!
I would like it to be known that I, as a non-Christian seeking God's truth, would NEVER even listen to ANYBODY if I knew they drank alcohol at all. I thank God the new testament Christians I connected with were not drinkers, as some of my brethren are. If so, I may never have become a Christian, being put off by behavior that I deemed "un-Christian."
Isn't it funny, Edwin, how some of our brethren will fight tooth and nail to prove their "liberty" to drink alcohol, when non-Christians OVERWHELMINGLY deem casual drinking an anti-Christian trait?
Again, I hate alcohol.
Frederic, could you please tell us how you really feel. Quit hiding behind all that vague language and just tell us what's on your mind. 😉
Or maybe Paul was simply making a comparison? But you be the judge of that/. The truth is that Christ turned water into wine at a wedding, and offered it to his disciples at the last supper, not to mention in Timothy when we are instructed to take a little wine for stomach issues, and not just water. and i know the standard retort that wine wasn't alcohol in those days, that it was just grape juice, which is funny, since they speak about the effects of wine in that day with all the spinning and such. In truth, anything done without faith is sin, so i guess if you have faith issues with such things then you should probably stay away from them.
but subjecting others, well, perhaps youll find yourself standing in the shoes of Noahs son, the one who went out gossiping and pointing out the supposed sin of Noah, the drunk, who was counted as righteous by God and tapped to deliver mankind across the flood. Maybe Paul was saying to seek the Spirit,and not the flesh, of the word.
Hey Randy,
Thanks for your input.
Let me first address the point you made about what I actually said in the post.
"Or maybe Paul was simply making a comparison?" Absolutely. Paul was making a comparison. He made a comparison to being filled with the Spirit versus being filled with intoxicating drink. He says we should not be filled with wine, but we should be filled with the Spirit. Please refer back to the original post to see how truly deep this comparison is.
"Maybe Paul was saying to seek the Spirit, and not the flesh, of the word." Maybe, but if that is what he was saying, why didn't he write that? Instead, he wrote, "And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit…" Paul knew how to compare the Spirit and the flesh. He could have used those words. He didn't. He compared being filled with the Spirit to filling ourselves with intoxicating drink. One was viewed positively (the Spirit), the other was viewed negatively (wine). In fact, in the case of the second, we were told not to do it.
Regarding your other points:
"The truth is Christ turned water into wine…" I appreciate that later in the post you dispense with the idea that "wine wasn't alcohol" out of hand. However, I think you make that issue too simple. First, I would never blanketly say that "wine" wasn't alcohol in those days. However, the word "wine" didn't always mean intoxicating juice. Sometimes it certainly did. Sometimes it didn't. For further discussion of this, I am including a section from a lesson I once presented on the matter.
With the above in mind, consider again the statement about the Cana wedding. The usual argument is that these people had been drinking intoxicants for days and now Jesus was giving them more intoxicating drink. Really? That would have Jesus involved in a drinking party which we know is a sin (I Peter 4:3). Further, he wouldn't simply be providing folks with a social drink, but would be giving intoxicated people more intoxicants. He would be encouraging their intoxication and furthering it. We all agree that being intoxicated is wrong (Galatians 5:21). Before we use the wedding feast at Cana to defend social drinking we need to understand that if this was an example of drinking intoxicating drink, it does way more than say something about moderate social drinking. Rather, it has Jesus promoting intoxication and being involved in drinking parties, both of which are condemned.
"…and offered it to his disciples at the last supper…" The Bible does not say he offered wine to the disciples at the last supper, but fruit of the vine. Fruit of the vine is juice, not intoxicating alcohol.
"…not to mention in Timothy when we are instructed to take a little wine for stomach issues…" First, we aren't instructed anything here. Rather, Timothy was instructed something. We have to then ask how this instruction to Timothy applies to us. Second, if we assume this is a reference to intoxicating drink, which I think it probably is (simply because I doubt Paul had to convince Timothy to drink some juice) then the statement implies some things. If drinking intoxicating drink was so commonly accepted among the early Christians, why did Paul have to convince Timothy to do this? I think this implies that Timothy believed he shouldn't do this. Third, assuming this is intoxicating drink, Paul was convincing Timothy to use it for medicinal purposes, not for social purposes. What is authorized? Not the common, moderate, social drinking, but medicinal drinking like NyQuil.
"…youll (sic) find yourself standing in the shoes of Noahs son (sic)…" The problem with Noah's son was talking about Noah's drunkenness. Noah was drunk. Ham's problem was talking about Noah's nakedness. But let's comment about Noah's righteousness. Noah was counted as righteous because he found "favor" or "grace" in the eyes of the Lord (Genesis 6:8). If Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord, that means he sinned. We can't say that just because Noah did something it was alright.
Thanks for your input and I hope this response is helpful.