This very brief study pertains to what the Holy Bible has to say regarding the consumption of alcoholic beverage. I will start by saying that a Biblical review of this topic is one of the most taboo subjects in American conservative Christianity. I am walking on very dangerous ground by even daring to bring it up. I say dangerous not because there is any inherent danger walking in the truth of God's eternal Word. But there is to me personally danger, because my life and love is for Christ and for His Church. And it is His Church from whom I stand in danger of being estranged by daring to approach the Scriptures on this topic, rather than the traditions of man.

How unfortunate that we, His people, are unwilling to even examine His Truth on this topic. For it, His Word is without any controversy, perfectly clear and precise on the acceptance Jesus Christ has of drinking alcohol. And yet in order to justify our traditions and those of our Puritanical fathers, we have deceived ourselves by refusing the manifold witness of chapter, verse, and context. This refusal has necessitated an open denial of the Scripture. It is claimed that when the Bible says "wine" it does not really mean what it says, and requires clergy for an accurate interpretation. Refusing a literal rendering, we have sought out hidden meanings from verses that, when translated, clearly support that which we refuse.

I want to look both at the Holy Bible - the only standard and reference for the Truth - as well as looking at the arguments of the "conservative" church, my brothers in Christ, who prefer man's tradition to the truth, believing that they are doing service to God. The first clear mention of wine is in Genesis 9 with Noah, a righteous and blameless man who walked with God. He was also a drinker. In fact, in the 21st verse of the 9th chapter, Noah has become drunk. And yet there is never any indication, according to the Bible, that this behavior was less than acceptable to God. True enough, wine got others in trouble, making clear the dangers in taking alcohol to an excess, yet in no wise condemning the consumption of alcohol.

Again in Genesis 14:18, we see that Abraham drank wine, as did God's priest, without in any way being reproved or spoken of as being less than in the perfect will of God. This priest, Melchizedek, is spoken of in Hebrews as probably being Jesus Christ Himself appearing under the Old Testament to Abraham. In Genesis 27:25: Isaac, the son of Abraham was also a drinking man and imbibed just before what was one of the most important spiritual activities of his life. Again in Genesis 49:12 the tribe of Judah: both the lineage of the people of Israel, the kings of Judah, and of Christ himself, is spoken of as drinking wine in excess without reproach! Although this is only part of the book of Genesis, from the beginning and throughout the entire Bible, God establishes wine - alcoholic fruit juice - as an important factor in the lives of the patriarchs of the faith, whose children we are if we hold fast to that which is true.

Pretty fantastic in my estimation! If only the Bible were a lie, then our American Christendom would be justified in its disdain for what God calls good. Without any dispute, the book of Genesis does not condemn drinking, even to excess, for the patriarchs of the faith. We shall now see whether the rest of the Scriptures are consistent or not. We shall see that the Holy Bible not only grants permission to drink, but actually endorses wine as a good and holy drink. And although it is a digression, we shall look at the dangers of mixing alcohol with immaturity, which also gets substantial biblical attention.

However, before continuing, we need to clarify a very important point. Because some among my fellow believers have actually claimed that the word "wine" as used in the Scriptures does not refer to the same word as we call "wine" today. Such a concept is, doctrinally, unthinkable. First, if the Scriptures as interpreted by the King James Version, the New American Standard, the New International Version, the Revised Standard Version, and other English translations do not use the same vocabulary as we do, then our entire religion is in jeopardy. If "wine" does not mean wine, what right do we have to believe that "resurrection" means resurrection, or that "believe" means believe? There is no longer any standard for truth, for right or for wrong. I do not want to belabor the point. Nevertheless, it is critical because if the Bible does not mean what it says, our faith is in vain. We proceed on the assumption that the Bible is, in fact, true.

Surprisingly, these same believers will swear up and down that the Bible is infallible! It is in their statement of faith, as well as on their lips that the Bible cannot lie, is inspired by God, contains no errors, is perfect. But their traditions would erase what is inscribed by the finger of God.

I am not a Hebrew speaker. However, in response to the objections of the church, I will address the topic of "mistranslation." The Strong's Concordance tells me (as if I needed a concordance to believe Scripture) that the Hebrew word transliterated "yayin" is the predominant word for wine. It means to ferment or effervesce. This is what occurs in grape juice when left to itself. It starts to vigorously bubble and appears to boil as the naturally occurring yeasts convert the sugar into carbon dioxide and alcohol. Under normal circumstances, these bubbles escape and leave a non-effervescent liquid with some 7-12% alcohol. Some misled brothers in Christ have mistakenly concocted this to mean that the wine was boiled, removing the alcohol content! Well, it is a convenient theory, but renders false the scriptures, since alcohol-free wine cannot make a person drunk as is clearly stated in many of these accounts.

In all fairness to their ideas, there is a somewhat modern Jewish tradition of boiling wine to make it Kosher. However, it is restored to its original alcoholic content (or frequently made stronger).

Others claim that the wine is actually just unfermented grape juice, never really having been converted to wine at all. Well, remember that the Hebrew word for wine could (as I understand it) be perfectly well translated "fermented stuff." However, I again ask the question "How is this unfermented grape juice ever going get Noah drunk?" Well, Hebrew to the rescue; there is another word for fresh grape juice: tiyrosh, which means "pressed out", as opposed to fermented. While it is plausible that this pressed out liquid could be so fresh as to be non-alcoholic, one would have to believe that these Bible whizzes are more fluent in Hebrew than the translators of any English Scripture, all of whom agree that "tiyrosh" is "wine," not the English words "grape juice." Further Hosea 4:11 states that tiyrosh is capable of "taking away the heart," an amazing feat for Welch's.

Others cling to a hope that "Well, the wine back then wasn't as strong!" So what laws of nature have altered in the last few thousand years that changes the science of what occurs when grape juice is left to its own devices? Historical evidence is abundant on the truth that the basics of wine making have not changed substantially from that time. In the past several decades, we like to think that we have "revolutionized" wine making. But honestly, you pick grapes, squeeze them into one container, wait, and you put the results in another container.

Others dream that the wine of "way back then was mixed with lots of water to prevent themselves from becoming intoxicated." It is unclear what evidence they proffer for such a doctrine. The Bible contains none. However, it is equally clear that those who drink even adulterated wine may or may not become drunk, depending upon the dilution and how much is consumed. Again I disclaim all knowledge of the Hebrew language. However, my concordance tells me that there is a specific Hebrew word: "mamcak" that means mixed wine. I think it is used only once in scripture (in Proverbs). It is possible that this one scripture implies diluted wine. It is equally possible that it means wine mixed with strong drink. However, I have never seen any shred of scriptural evidence that would suggest that either tiyrosh or yayin would ever refer to wine mixed with anything. Again, qualified translators of Scripture seem to agree, as the single Proverbs reference is translated "mixed wine," whereas none of the other occurrences are. There is no indication of what is mixed with wine to produce "mamcak." It could be water. Or just as likely, it could be strong drink to produce a more alcoholic brew.

And there is yet another Hebrew word: "shekar," that is used, according to Strong, for "intensely alcoholic drink." Hence there is a full suite of words in the Hebrew describing the same range of alcoholic beverages we enjoy today: fresh juice, which might be either lightly or non-alcoholic, mixed drinks, normal wine, and strong drink, that which is more concentrated than a natural fermentation. It requires a vivid imagination (and one that did not look at the context of the scriptures) to conceive of any different interpretation for these terms. And all English Bible translators unanimously agree with this interpretation.

In addition to the modern evidence, there are many benefits wine gives us that are written in the Bible. Wine is helpful at curing stomach problems and associated issues. It also recommends drinking alcohol as a treatment for depression.

Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities - I Tim.5:23

Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts. Let him drink, and forget his poverty, and remember his misery no more. Prov. 31:6-7

Is it in conscientious translation that we presume this to be less a divine command than "He that winneth souls is wise."?

But continuing, we are told that wine sustains us and causes us to be joyful in our God.

And he said, Thy brother came with subtilty, and hath taken away thy blessing. And he said, "Is not he rightly named Jacob? For he hath supplanted me these two times: he took away my birthright; and, behold, now he hath taken away my blessing." And he said, "Hast thou not reserved a blessing for me?" And Isaac answered and said unto Esau, Behold, I have made him thy lord, and all his brethren have I given to him for servants; and with corn and wine have I sustained him: and what shall I do now unto thee, my son? Gen. 27: 35-37

You make the grass for cattle and vegetables for the use of man. You make food grow from the earth. You give us wine that makes happy hearts. And you give us olive oil that makes our faces shine. You give us bread that gives us strength. Lord, you have made many things. With your wisdom you made them all. The earth is full of your riches. Ps. 104:14-15

Scripture goes so far as to say that not only are we happy when we drink, but God Himself is made happy!

And the vine said unto them, Should I leave my wine, which cheereth God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees? Judges 9:13

Wine proves to the world and to our own souls that God has blessed us.

If you pay attention to these laws and are careful to follow them, then the LORD your God will keep his covenant of love with you, as he swore to your forefathers. He will love you and bless you and increase your numbers. He will bless the fruit of your womb, the crops of your land--your grain, new wine and oil--the calves of your herds and the lambs of your flocks in the land that he swore to your forefathers to give you. You will be blessed more than any other people; none of your men or women will be childless, nor any of your livestock without young. The LORD will keep you free from every disease. He will not inflict on you the horrible diseases you knew in Egypt, but he will inflict them on all who hate you. Deut. 7:12-15

But more important that any of these good things, drinking wine is one of the means by which we are identified with Jesus Christ, who was hated and persecuted by the religious conservatives of His day because (among other things) of His persistent partaking of alcohol in spite of their abstentionist traditions. In addition to the biblical references of his drinking wine, Jesus in the second chapter of John made wine and distributed to others in great abundance. But we will study this more in just a few moments. God’s acceptance of wine was not some sacrificial barbarity that passed away with the advent of the New Testament. Let's look at the list of abstainers listed in the New Testament Bible:

That's it!

Lest I be accused of being an extremist, even though it is not recorded in Scripture, there were almost certainly (no scriptural evidence here) some in the early church that abstained from wine. In I Tim. 5:23, Paul command Timothy to drink wine for his health. That can probably be rightly interpreted as implying that Timothy drank little or none prior to that. Many of the disciples of John the Baptist likely abstained, imitating John, who was a Nazarite. After becoming Christians, they may have continued in that tradition. It is unclear how they partook of Christ's communion cup, which was filled with that alcoholic wine that He commanded ALL to drink. But really, do we aspire to the same level of maturity as John? John commended Christ to his followers, knowing that He would instruct them to partake. Or should we imitate pastor Timothy? As a first step perhaps, but our efforts to imitate should be toward the perfect mark of Christ.

That is, for those of us having come from a practice of alcohol abuse, it may be very wise to abstain altogether for a time. But any salvation or sanctification that occurs in our life will bring us closer to a likeness of Christ. And having our goal of Christ likeness as the end result, we should aspire towards Christ's ability to live in the midst of temptation without sin. Of course, it is both wrong and misleading to refer to a "temptation to drink," since drinking is not sin. That can be a difficult concept for Americans, having been falsely indoctrinated from our youth.

If the Hebrew words for wine products are confusing, we can be thankful that the Wine of the New Testament is, fortunately, much more straightforward. There are only two Greek words for wine in the Scriptures. "Gleukos," or very sweet wine may be translated according to Strong's, as either non-fermented wine or as extra-alcoholic fortified wine. It sounds like understanding this could be confusing. But thankfully, gleukos is only used once in Scripture (Acts 2:13), and the context specifically mandates that gleukos here is undeniably an intoxicating beverage. Some thought during the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, the disciples had become drunk. But Peter reassures the crowd that it is much too early in the day for them to start drinking!! While one may dispute over how often the disciples drank to the point of excess, it is pointedly evident that Peter did not say "These men are not drunk as you suppose, for we are followers of Christ."

But the normal and common word for wine in Greek is "oinos." Any time a less alcoholic variety of wine is implied; there will be an adjective to modify the noun oinos. This is clearly shown in Luke 5:37-39 as Christ discusses the old and new wines and skins.

And no one puts new wine into old wineskins, otherwise the new wine will burst the skins, and it will be spilled out, and the skins will be ruined. But new wine must be put into fresh wineskins. And no one, after drinking old wine wishes for new; for he says, "The old is good."

First, in case some might be unawares, wine bursts old skins for the single reason that fermentation evolves carbon dioxide gas, which bubbles out of the liquid, increases the pressure inside the wineskin. This pressure can build to the point where a previously stretched skin will rupture. Younger, pliable skin will expand to accommodate this stress. It would be impossible for grape juice to harm wineskins unless it is in the process of becoming alcoholic. Thus, when wine is so fresh that it has not yet completely fermented, the Bible adds an adjective to differentiate it from normal, alcoholic wine.

My dearest brothers in Christ would say "And no one, after drinking old wine would take any more; for he says, 'The old is a mind altering poison.' " But the Lord Jesus says that the alcoholic wine is better than the non-alcoholic wine!

Most of us are familiar with Jesus' first miracle:

On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus' mother was there, and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. When the wine was gone, Jesus' mother said to him, "They have no more wine." "Dear woman, why do you involve me?" Jesus replied. "My time has not yet come." His mother said to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you." Nearby stood six stone water jars, the kind used by the Jews for ceremonial washing, each holding from 20 to 30 gallons. Jesus said to the servants, "Fill the jars with water." So they filled them to the brim. Then he told them, "Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet." They did so, and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside and said, "Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now." This, the first of his miraculous signs, Jesus performed at Cana in Galilee. He thus revealed his glory, and his disciples put their faith in him.

Here in this Scripture we see irrefutably that Jesus Christ made and distributed alcoholic beverages to many people in abundance. Notice that this is both a good thing and a miracle! If, as some purport, making or serving alcohol were a bad thing, then it would not have revealed Christ's glory, but rather His shame. And if, as some purport, Jesus simply made watered down wine, this would have been no miracle. It would have been a simple addition, or "spike" to the already present water. He would have just "slipped a mickey" into their water. But Scripture forbids this interpretation. And far more important, if we hold Christ to be sinless, we need to consider how any biblical admonition to be careful about how we drink must never be confused with abstaining from alcohol. Otherwise we are obligated, as many have done, to deny the God-breathedness of the Scriptural word "wine," claiming that there are no accurate English translations of the Bible.

Following up on that, among many other references, Ephesians 5:18 tells us specifically that wine, oinos, is capable of intoxicating, even to the point of deceiving our heart. In Luke 10:34 the good (not wicked) Samaritan took some of his wine to pour on the wounds of him who was beaten. For the unawares, only alcoholic grape juice could produce any beneficial results for the victim's wounds. Stomach problems? Once again, oinos to the rescue - 1 Timothy 5:23.

Let us also look at the apostle Paul. In Acts 18, we see that Paul founded the church at Corinth. In I Corinthians 3:10-11, he reiterates this to them in order to remind them that he was the one who instituted Christ Jesus into their midst. In chapter 11, verse 23, Paul reminds them that he himself instructed them how to take the cup of the Lord, that it was to be taken in sanctification. This cup of the Lord represents the New covenant in the blood of Christ. This cup of the Lord contains wine, alcoholic grape juice. Therefore, some members in the Corinthian church were carelessly partaking of the Lord's cup and becoming drunk. If the cup of the Lord's Supper did not contain alcohol, it is clear that it would not have caused them to become intoxicated. These Christians were rebuked for their greediness. In one of the more amazing statements in the Bible, the apostle Paul then states plainly that drinking too much in one’s own home is acceptable, but not in church.

In light of today’s teachings on drinking, one must ask the question, "Why was the Corinthian Church not rebuked for serving alcohol to the entire church?" The answer should be clear: it was the Lord Jesus Christ Himself who commanded Paul to entrust to them the sacrament of the Lord's Table. And Jesus Christ ordained unleavened bread and (alcoholic) wine as the only authorized ingredients for that table. The Corinthian church served fermented grape juice for the Lord's Table because it was commanded by and passed on from Christ through the apostle Paul. Again, mixing alcohol with immaturity is rebuked, but never consuming alcohol with a sincere and obedient heart.

Consumption of wine, Biblically is absolutely acceptable in the sight of God. Lack of self-control, however, is not Biblical whether pertaining to wine, food, sex, money, or any other endeavor in life. If we condemn things subject to abuse, then by all means we should forbid sex. This, some have done. And that is another topic.

And finally, there are the countless American Christians (I say it this way because Christians in almost every other nation have no such bizarre prejudice against alcohol) that say, "Yeah, but you couldn't trust the water. That's the only reason they were forced to drink wine." Whoa, chapter and verse? Was God trying to kill Nazarites by feeding them poison water? How could the Pharisees and the disciples of John the Baptist escape the "bad water?" Did Jesus condemn those who would dare offer a drink of dangerous water to the least of one these little ones that believe in His name? What outright denial to pretend that the only reason people drank wine was because the water was bad! Did Jesus Christ Himself compromise holiness for fear of a stomach ache? He is the spotless Lamb of God. Otherwise, He would have been disqualified from giving Himself as a ransom for our sins. Either give chapter and verse that says the water was bad or believe the Scriptures!

We can see the two extremes to which some take this topic. On the one hand, we see an interdiction in the Bible (I Cor. 6:9 for example) against a continual return to drunkenness. Any doctrine that accepts habitual excess of alcohol is false. And to the opposite extreme, any teaching that refuses to acknowledge Jesus Christ as one who drank, made, and distributed alcohol on a significant basis is false doctrine, as is one that refuses to accept the Christian mandate of imitating Christ's behavior.

Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, "When either man or woman shall separate themselves to vow a vow of a Nazarite, to separate themselves unto the Lord: He shall separate himself from wine and strong drink, and shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat moist grapes, or dried. All the days of his separation shall he eat nothing that is made of the vine tree, from the kernels even to the husk..."
Num. 6:2-4

"Ah Ha!" some say? If this is evidence that Christians shouldn't drink, then how can any Christian eat raisins, drink grape juice, or use vinegar? "Well, let's not get legalistic!" would be the typical response. Interpretation of the Nazarite vow as an endorsement of abstinence is exactly as legalistic as saying these ridiculous things. Interpret scripture at your own risk, but be consistent. Don't believe what fits your doctrine and reject what doesn't!

"It is not for kings to drink wine, nor for princes strong drink" Prov. 31:4
This is an interesting verse, for the man who wrote it, Solomon, was king and a man who called drinking good (Eccl. 2:3). The context clearly states that the danger is not in the wine, but in becoming fascinated with it to the point of neglecting royal duties (Prov 31:5-9). King David also, a man who lived perfect before the Lord, except for his killing of Uriah, established royal vineyards and wine cellars (I Chron. 27:27). Other kings were drinkers without guilt as well.

"Woe to you him who gives drink to his neighbor, pouring it from the wineskin till they are drunk, so that he can gaze on their naked bodies." Habakkuk 2:15 (NIV)

There are some who would take this as an interdiction from ever serving alcohol to others at all. However, their sincerity must be questioned, since that is not at all what this scripture says. Nor do we have the right to interpret a "woe" as equal to sin (James 5:1, Amos 6:1, etc.), but there is a clearly immoral motivation behind serving drinks that cannot be ignored.

"Do not drink wine or strong drink, thou nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of congregation..." Leviticus 10:9 "Ah Ha!" say the anti-drinkers. "There it is: the only chapter and verse in the Bible! Case closed, next teaching." If you believe the Bible must be interpreted in context, then read on. This scripture applies to the Levitical priests during their service in the holy place of the Jewish tabernacle. And reading before, it came in response to Aaron's two sons, who were killed by the Lord's holiness, after they offered "strange fire" to the Lord. Scripture doesn't say exactly what they did wrong, but it definitely insinuates that had they not been drinking too much, they would not have made such a mistake in His service.

But to the point, if this is a precedent for the New Testament, then we should re-institute the tabernacle, the Levitical priesthood, ceremonial washings, the animal sacrifices, and the belief that God's presence dwells only in certain portions of a temple made with hands. Unless other references imply that this should be continued into the New Testament (making Christ a sinner), we must restrict this command to its specific context. I know of no other way the Bible can be taken as infallible; it would be contradictory.

"But doesn't the Bible say that wine was forbidden on the Passover?" Well, that's an interesting hypothesis. And in fact, there is a vague reference that (if it could be found in any other scriptures) might conceivably be interpreted that way. Here it is:

"Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread, but on the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses; for whosoever eats anything leavened from the first day until the seventh day, that person shall be cut off from Israel."
Ex. 12:15

The concept is this: "Well fermentation is accomplished with yeast. And gee, leaven is another form of yeast. So, Jesus couldn't have had wine on the Passover, because that would be a form of leaven."

Wow, OK. Let's first let's check out that old context again.

You shall also observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread, for on this very day I brought your hosts out of the land of Egypt; therefore you shall observe this day throughout your generations as a permanent ordinance ... You shall not eat anything leavened; in all your dwellings you shall eat unleavened bread ... So the people took their dough before it was leavened, with their kneading bowls bound up in the clothes on their shoulders."
Ex. 12:17,19,34

It's pretty obvious that this Old Testament "unleavened" ordinance is really pretty clearly bread leaven. There is never a reference to the yeast that naturally occurs on and in the fruit of the vine. Furthermore, I repeat my above complaint, "Why does the Bible (all versions) say Jesus drank wine on the Passover?" And why would the apostle Paul prescribe the type of wine for the Lord's Supper that caused the Corinthian church to become drunk? (I Cor. 11:21)

But let us presume we still refuse context. Then consider that unfermented grape juice is chock full of that "nasty" leaven. However, wine, having naturally purged all the leaven through its alcoholic content, is completely in accordance with Ex. 12:15! Under their logic, wine would be OK, but grape juice would be absolutely forbidden!!!

Without time or motivation to enumerate the many warnings in the Bible about drinking in an obsessive or immature manner, we readily admit a clear and repeated warning on misuse of alcoholic beverages in Scripture that applies to every soul. Yet in spite of all these dangers, Jesus Christ chose to willfully make, distribute, and drink alcohol on a surprisingly frequent basis. He refused to be intimidated or controlled by the legalistic abstaining doctrine of the Pharisees, even though He Himself was accused by them of being a drunkard. (Matt. 11:18-19)

"Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this- not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's way. I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. For if because of food your brother is hurt, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died. Therefore do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil; for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. For he who in this way serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. So then let us pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another. Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are clean, but they are evil for the man who eats and gives offense. It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles." Romans 14:13-21

Nice try, check the context (believe it or not): that we should not be judging one another about what others eat or drink! Yet for the sake of our weaker (abstaining) brothers, to be sensitive to their lack of faith in order to help bring them to maturity, we should avoid exercising in our liberty in a way that might jeopardize their salvation. Notice also the biblical command not to permit anyone to call a good thing (meat or wine) evil.

Concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies. If anyone supposes that he knows anything, he has not yet known as he ought to know; but if anyone loves God, he is known by Him. Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.
However, not all men have this knowledge; but some, being accustomed to the idol until now, eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. But food will not commend us to God; we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat. But take care lest this liberty of yours somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol's temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols? For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died. And thus, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. Therefore if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, that I might not cause my brother to stumble. 1 Cor. 8:1-13

First, let's mention that if one is apt to retreat from the entire Bible and find refuge in tradition, this is the only bastion of hope they will find. In order to prevent incriminating Jesus Christ for His practices, such a one will be forced to change the meaning of the Greek word oinos from wine to watery grape juice, pretend that none of the patriarchs really drank wine, save for the times their misconduct instructs to do better, etc. But if we hope to be even marginally sincere, let us also admit that wine is not even found in this section of Scripture! This applies to eating the flesh of animals, having been ceremonially dedicated in the name of false gods. And for the sake of the sincere, let's talk more about it.

Frankly, when Americans today speak of "causing another brother to stumble" it has nothing to do with idolatry or the Biblical loss of salvation. They will even affirm that to them, it means "causing another person to sin by thinking it is OK to drink alcohol." It means we have developed a doctrine where alcohol in and of itself is not good. Stumbling nowadays means denying that we are more righteous by abstaining than those who drink. I submit that Christians today are NEVER caused to stumble due to someone else's drinking. Some are diverted from more productive activities by their lack of self-control. But the vast majority is offended (at risk of losing their perceived faith) when their self-righteousness based upon abstinence is challenged. This is truly a different situation than supporting an industry of idolatry. And it is a shame.

"Yeah, but isn't it safer just to abstain? Now there are so many safe alternatives to wine."

"Shouldn't anyone in leadership positions in the church be moderate enough to abstain from alcohol altogether?"

Well, these are very popular opinions. I tend to understand moderation as not embracing extremes (either abstinence or drunkenness). But when developing a church leadership policy, keep in mind that limiting directors to non-drinkers, excludes Abraham, David and Paul of Tarsus (not to mention Jesus Christ) from your little group as not qualified to hold positions of authority.

"If the Bible says that wine is good, why does my preacher say it's bad?"

Tradition. He has been trained for years that righteousness is partially obtained by those things that he eats or drinks. That is the gospel he has been handed from his predecessors in the faith. Or perhaps his personal experiences with alcohol have been associated with gross lack of self-control. And there are some who presume if they are weak in an area, then obviously the entire world is at least as weak. Wouldn't it just be safer to listen to the Bible to determine what is good and what is bad, rather than base it upon on our own ideas and preconceptions? Here is what the Bible says about wine and church:

The Lord hath sworn by his right hand, and by the arm of his strength, Surely I will no more give thy corn to be meat for thine enemies; and the sons of the stranger shall not drink thy wine, for the which thou has laboured; but they that have gathered it shall eat it, and praise the Lord; and they that have brought it together shall drink it in the courts of my holiness. Is. 62:8-9

This issue is not about interpretation, making others stumble, Hebrew grammar, or abuses. The issue boils down to three things:

I personally believe these three statements to be true.

So why do I drink wine? For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 'He has a demon!' The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Behold a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax-gatherers and sinners!' Yet wisdom is vindicated by her deeds. Matt. 11:18-19.

I drink wine to be like Jesus.