The first order of business was to empower the Twelve to carry out their commission. Before sending these men, Jesus gave them the requisite abilities to succeed in their inaugural work. For example, the ability to perform miracles was consistent with God’s empowerment of His messengers going way back–think Moses in Exodus 4:1 when he anticipated the need for confirmation of the divine source of his message. This is also consistent with these same apostles in the Great Commission, the task of carrying the gospel to the whole world (Mark 16:15-20). In contrast, now we have the completed revelation of God as the sole and final source of our teaching authority.

Then there is the commission itself. It is commonly called the Limited Commission because it included only “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (v 6). It specifically excluded even those living among the Jews, namely Gentiles and Samaritans.

It is also interesting to see what they were not given. Specifically, they were not given any financial resources. Rather, the Twelve were to depend on the providence of God expressed through the hospitality of others to provide their basic necessities (vv 9-13).

Some perspective is in order here. These men were not sent out to essentially “cold call” the children of Israel. They were given the message to be proclaimed, namely, “The kingdom of heaven is at hand.” This was the message of both John the Baptist (Matt 3:1-2) and Jesus (Matt 4:17). So, it wasn’t as if their audiences were hearing this message for the first time, nor would they have been unfamiliar with the many miracles of their Master (cf Matt 4:23-25; 8:16; 9:8; 9:31; 9:35).

Finally, the remainder–and lion’s share–of this chapter contains a litany of cautions, that is, warnings of opposition, overt hostility, and physical persecution. Jesus began by warning that not everyone would be receptive to their preaching (vv 13-15). Second, He warned that they would be arrested and scourged (16-20). But He assuaged their potential fear with the promise that the Holy Spirit would speak through them as they gave their defense.

Matthew 10:21-39 continues by warning that the division wrought through their preaching would lead to family members having their own kinfolk put to death. Despite this, Jesus exhorts them to preach their message from the rooftops without regard for their own physical well-being, not fearing “those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul” (v 28).

The final exhortation to faithfulness is the one most commonly known among modern believers–taking up one’s cross and following after Jesus. This picture was one of a number of Messianic messages that would not be fully understood until after the Lord’s crucifixion and resurrection (cf John 2:19-22). The Twelve would eventually discover that their Master was willing to endure everything He warned them to expect.

There is no sound argument for oinos as a generic New Testament term meaning either fermented or unfermented grape juice. There. I said it... again. I said it in October 2025, and I’m still saying it. Moreover, I intend to demonstrate from the biblical text, the Greek language, and history that the arguments for oinos as a generic term encompassing fermented wine or unfermented grape juice—commonly called the “two-wine theory”—simply will not withstand scrutiny.

I wish the arguments were sound because I made them for decades. I wish they were sound because it would make my life a lot easier. But they aren’t, and I eventually had to come to grips with that fact. When given the opportunity, I also had to preach what I had learned before a powerful and unsympathetic audience if I was going to maintain my integrity.

But doing so came at great personal cost. I lost friends. I lost preaching appointments, resulting in significant financial loss. I lost the treasured time I spent with my kids at Polishing the Pulpit. I lost countless hours feeling compelled to answer every critic and keyboard warrior who believed that posting on my social media entitled them to an answer. I endured misrepresentations, whisper campaigns, and outright lies spread by elderships and preachers.

And I would do it again.

Because the question at hand is not what conclusion makes our lives easier, but what the evidence actually says. Unfortunately, the arguments commonly made rest not on the biblical text, the Greek language, or the historical usage of oinos. Rather, they invariably end up in an uninformed and emotional appeal to John 2 and the wedding feast at Cana.

Among these arguments is the one found in our subtitle, “You’re making Jesus a bartender.” Or, “Jesus would never make more than 100 gallons of alcoholic beverage, because the Bible says ‘Woe to him who gives his neighbor drink.’” The latter argument (the misuse of Habakkuk 2:15) was addressed in our previous article, “The Magisterium’s Wine-Filled Potholes,” viewable here.

Both arguments fail on at least two major misunderstandings: the nature of wedding feasts in the first century and the nature of the wine commonly consumed both in these feasts and in common meals.

With respect to the weddings and the attendant activities, the festivities lasted seven days, and “hosts invited as many people as possible” (IVP Bible Background Commentary: NT). Thus, the number of attendees could not possibly be known. Additionally, arguments to dismiss or minimize the number of attendees based on the supposed size of the town (Webster, Spiritual Sword, July 2026, 35) are foolish. Jesus, His mother, and His disciples were invited (John 2:1-2), and they were not from Cana.

I don’t know how many people were there. Allen Webster doesn’t either. I do think it would be safe to assume that Jesus created enough wine to satisfy the need of the bridegroom and his family so as to prevent them the embarrassment and public humiliation of running out of wine.

The second error is seen in the nature of the wine consumed in the first century. Ancient sources attest that both Romans and Jews commonly mixed water with wine, usually at a 3-to-1 ratio. The result would not be anything akin to the potency of modern wine and certainly not hard liquor.

There is another statement made by the Lord Himself on this matter. But before I present it, I want you to read the following statement:

John came neither singing nor playing the guitar, and you called him a mute and a music hater. Todd came singing and playing, and you called him clamorous and a showoff.

Now read it again.

Now answer this question, “What instrument am I playing?”

There is no question as to the instrument I am playing, even though it is not explicitly stated. I am playing a guitar.

Now, read Luke 7:33-34, “For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Look, a glutton and a winebibber’...”

Jesus contrasted His own practice with John’s complete abstinence from wine or strong drink. So what is Jesus drinking? The natural parallel makes the answer difficult to avoid: Jesus is drinking “wine.” But before you run to the unsustainable two-wine position, consider what was said of John the Baptist at the time of his birth: “For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink” (Luke 1:15).

Note the coupling of wine (oinos) and strong drink along with John’s abstinence from the same. This statement is reminiscent of the Nazirite vow of Numbers 6:3, where wine (yayin) and strong drink (shekar) are forbidden for the Nazirites, along with grapes or freshly pressed juice. “Strong drink” here is sikera, a transliteration of the Hebrew shekar, and is unquestionably an intoxicating beverage (BDAG, Abbott-Smith, Liddell and Scott, Thayer).

Finally in this regard, the hyperbolic accusation that Jesus was a winebibber makes no sense if Jesus and the rest of the first-century Jews were only consuming unfermented grape juice.

The Magisterium and its defenders are making the wrong argument. Rather than allowing the language and the natural reading of the text to produce a conclusion, they begin with their conclusion and attempt to force it back into the text.

This is both disturbing and ironic. While impugning the motives of brethren who hold the New Heavens New Earth doctrine, one PTP speaker made the following statement, “I understand the importance of seeking Greek words and the original languages and exegesis... so long as you don’t approach the Scriptures with an attitude that says, ‘This is what I believe, and let me see if I can find it in the Bible.’” Perhaps he and others should apply that statement to themselves.

It must be noted that the Greek language had a word to represent unfermented grape juice or must: tryx. Significantly, that word never appears in the New Testament.

Researching the lexicons for the usage of oinos in the New Testament, here’s what one will find:

1. BDAG (3rd ed): “fermented juice of the grape, wine,” and then adds that the word for unfermented grape juice is tryx (701);

2. Liddell–Scott–Jones: “wine, the fermented juice of the grape,” and also gives tryx as the unfermented sense;

3. Thayer, Mounce, & Strong’s: “wine, the fermented juice of grapes.”

The Lord’s illustration in Matthew 9:17 of putting new wine in old wineskins presupposes fermentation. The process was so familiar that the Lord used it without explanation. The danger of the old skins bursting arises from the continued fermentation of the new wine within them. The misfortune of losing the fermenting product hardly comports with the Magisterium’s “throw it all into the sea” attitude.

Finally, consider the lack of historical support for the two-wine theory for oinos. The Magisterium’s arguments arose from the 19th-century temperance movement. The history of Welch’s unfermented grape juice was itself a part of this development and attests to the centuries-long use of fermented grape juice in the ordinary observance of the Lord’s Supper.

When reading the writings of the Ante-Nicenes and other church fathers, one finds no prohibition against the consumption of wine in moderation, only in excess and drunkenness. Clement of Alexandria wrote often of drinking wine: commending abstinence, condemning drunkenness, but permitting moderate use, even to the point of noting that Jesus consumed wine (A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, David Bercot, 685-687).

Also, Jerome accused Tatian of building his heresy upon the claim that total abstinence from wine was demanded in Scripture, joining it with his errors of forbidding meat and marriage (Against Jovinianus, Book 1, see also A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, Bercot, 687).

Even these men recognized what the Bible teaches in both Testaments—and what we have previously affirmed—there is a distinction between moderate consumption of alcohol and drunkenness.

This is the argument of this series from the beginning. Not to “endorse social drinking” or “advocate for drinking alcohol in private” as has been falsely accused. Rather, we are advocating for honesty with the biblical text and against unrighteous judging where God has clearly given some liberty (Rom 14:20-23).

The danger of the Magisterium’s position is not that they practice and encourage abstinence. So do I, and so does every preaching brother I know who shares my position. The danger comes when they elevate their conclusion to the level of divine law and twist the lexical, textual, and historical evidence to preserve their rule.

In so doing, they unrighteously judge fellow servants of God for whom Christ died, making the word of God of no effect in order to keep their tradition.

We see this sanctimony in the use of the word“sinners” in the text. These “sinners” (as commonly paired with publicans, cf Matt 11:19; Luke 15:1) were those regarded by the religious establishment as morally or religiously disreputable. It included those who did not keep the traditions of the elders nor were mindful to observe the various ritual observances. Thus, the Pharisees regarded it as incompatible with religious purity to associate with them (McGarvey).

We also see some degree of modesty on Matthew’s part. In verse 10, Matthew simply notes that Jesus entered an unidentified house where many tax collectors came to sit and eat with Jesus and His disciples. But Luke tells us the house belonged to Matthew and that the future apostle had made a great (large) feast (Lk 5:29).

Being merciless and hypocritical faultfinders, the Pharisees berated Jesus’ disciples because their Teacher (and, by extension, them) would associate with those of such low estate.

The Lord’s response is immediate and intentional, the perfect retort to the self-righteous accusers: “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick.” This statement was not intended to affirm that the Pharisees were spiritually healthy while the tax collectors and sinners were sick. Rather, it addresses one’s view of himself and, consequently, how he sees others. It is one thing to recognize the state of the sinner; it is altogether another to treat him as untouchable.

Jesus was teaching His disciples the very thing Paul would later instruct the brethren at Rome: “Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited” (Rom 12:16 NIV). Paul would also write to the church at Philippi, “Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself” (Phil 2:3).

Then Jesus added this dagger, “But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice.’ For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance” (Matt 9:13). “Go and learn!” Those words must have fallen hard on the ears of the religious know-it-alls of the day. Those who purported to instruct others were themselves sent back to school.

Jesus was not implying that the Pharisees were whole or righteous. Rather, He was pointing out their blindness to their own spiritually bankrupt condition. Jesus cannot help those who don’t recognize their need for what He offers.

In the same vein as John the Baptist in Matthew 3, the common man had a compassionate champion in Jesus. No wonder Mark said of Him, “the common people heard Him gladly” (Mark 12:37). Jesus was a man for every man then; He is a Savior for every man now.

But I want our primary focus to be on the actions and attitude of the centurion, a Gentile outsider, contrasted with another character found in Matthew 19 commonly known as the Rich Young Ruler.

Consider the situation: The centurion has a servant in his house who is paralyzed and greatly tormented. Luke adds that this servant was dear to the centurion and ready to die (7:2). Hearing of Jesus, the centurion enlists the help of the local Jewish elders to plead his case for him (Luke 7:3).

Being persuaded, Jesus agrees to go to the centurion’s house to heal him. But as approaches the house, He in intercepted by friends sent from the centurion, telling the Lord that he is not worthy for Jesus to even come inside his house, nor did he consider himself worthy even to approach Jesus, but to just say the word to heal his servant.

He explained the source of his faith, “For I also am a man under authority, having soldiers under me. And I say to this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes; and to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.”

The Lord then declares the faith of this outsider as greater than any He had seen in Israel, then held up this Gentile as an example of those outside of Israel who would enter the kingdom and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, while the sons of the kingdom would be cast into outer darkness wherein is found weeping and gnashing of teeth. The outsider possessed the very faith Jesus should have found among the insiders.

Finally, the Lord grants the centurion exactly that for which he asked. “And his servant was healed that same hour.”

Contrast this man’s faith with that of an insider–the Rich Young Ruler of Matthew 19:16-22.

Both men came to Jesus. The outsider called Jesus “Lord;” the insider called him a “Good Teacher.” Many imposters and insincere unbelievers disingenuously called Jesus “Teacher” or “Master” (cf Matt 22:16, 24, 36). None ever addressed Him as “Lord.”

The outsider placed his faith in the authority of Jesus and the power Jesus had to grant him what he wanted. The insider placed his faith in his own ability to keep the Law.

The outsider received from the Lord exactly what he asked because he believed in Jesus. The insider went away sorrowful because of his love for his possessions and a lack of faith in Jesus to provide a life greater than the one he was asked to abandon.

The centurion knew that he was unworthy and that Jesus possessed an authority he could only trust. The rich young ruler believed himself obedient, but when Jesus demanded faith, he walked away. Being near the people of God is no substitute for trusting the Son of God. Sometimes those we consider outsiders possess the very faith God desires to find among those of us who consider ourselves insiders.

Some years ago, I heard brother Alan Highers broach the intellectual dishonesty of denominational preachers regarding the Scriptures that teach the necessity of baptism for salvation. As an illustration, Highers made the following statement, “When a man drives down a dark road filled with potholes and manages to miss every one of them, you know that he knows where they are.”

The same may be said of the most recent issue of The Spiritual Sword (Vol 57 No 4, July 2026). When one publishes a magazine presenting itself as “An Examination of Alcohol from the Bible” but gives no treatment of the texts that challenge their conclusions, you know that they know where those texts are. There was absolutely no attempt to examine or contend with the texts and language that are problematic to their unyielding conclusion that drinking even one drop of alcohol constitutes sin (Webster, 59).

This article will present some of the texts that The Spiritual Sword omitted. This is not an argument for drinking alcohol. Nor is it an attempt to “advocate for alcohol in private,” as Allen Webster falsely accused on March 8 of this year. I don’t drink; I teach people not to drink, and I don’t endorse social drinking. It is an attempt to be intellectually honest about everything the Bible says about alcohol.

We do not take issue with anything in the issue that speaks to warnings against drunkenness or the abuse of alcohol. As was stated in the previous article, we know them and believe them. But the issue did not paint anywhere near a complete picture of the pertinent biblical texts. We will not attempt an exhaustive study of the words and texts, but simply want to present a more balanced view of what the Bible actually teaches about alcohol.

Oft-cited Old Testament “Prohibitions”

The Old Testament passages most often used to bind total abstinence are frequently cited without consideration of the contingencies contained within them. For example (all emphasis mine):

Leviticus 10:9 – “Do not drink wine (yayin) nor strong drink (shekar), you, nor your sons with you, when you go into the tabernacle of meeting, lest you die.” See the qualifier? This is not a general or absolute prohibition.

Proverbs 31:4-5 – “It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine, nor for princes intoxicating drink; lest they drink and forget the law, and pervert the justice of all the afflicted.” Why the specificity in regard to rulers in the discharge of their duties rather than a general prohibition for all?

Habakkuk 2:15 – “Woe to him who gives drink to his neighbor, pressing him to your bottle, even to make him drunk, that you may look on his nakedness.” Again, another specific qualifier. Two in fact. The first is to make one’s neighbor drunk, which is a sin. The second is to see his nakedness, that is, to sin against the neighbor himself. Habakkuk 2:15 is often quoted by brethren much as Matthew 7:1 is quoted by the world—the opening words are detached from the qualifications supplied by the remainder of the statement.

Wine and Strong Drink in the Old Testament

Genesis 9:21 contains the Bible’s first reference to wine and drunkenness. In this text, Noah had planted a vineyard (v 20), “then he drank of the wine and was drunk.” The word rendered “wine” is yayin. Yayin occurs about 140 times in the Old Testament. In its ordinary usage, yayin denotes wine and frequently appears in contexts where its intoxicating character is indisputable.

The following are a few Hebrew reference works that provide the definition and usage of yayin:

The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (TWOT) gives the primary and general definition of yayin as an intoxicant: “Wine was the most intoxicating drink in ancient times”;

Brown-Driver-Briggs associates it with drinking and intoxication, and its general treatment of the word assumes fermented wine. It gives no definition for unfermented grape juice;

Without belaboring the point by providing a plethora of definitions, none of the following provide “unfermented grape juice” as a definition for yayin: Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT); Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament; Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (DCH); or the New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis.

In an attempt to define yayin as unfermented grape juice, those demanding total abstinence consistently appeal to one text, Isaiah 16:10. Describing the destruction of Moab, the text says “No treaders will tread out wine in the presses.” So we ask, does this singular occurrence establish a separate meaning of “unfermented grape juice,” contrary to the ordinary usage, or is there another explanation?

The answer is the latter. The usage is reasonably explained as prolepsis. Prolepsis is a literary device wherein a thing in the future is spoken as if it has already happened. Such is common, especially in prophetic literature. In this case, what is treaded out in the press is spoken of in terms of what it would become in the future. It is simply not good hermeneutics to take a single occurrence and interpret it in such a way so as to create a doctrine contrary to the overwhelming usage.

Consistency with definitions is important in any discussion, but especially this one. Consider the text of Deuteronomy 14:23-26 and the harvest tithe. The command is to tithe all the year’s produce, and specifically wine in verse 23. However, in verses 24-26, if the journey to the place of offering was too far to carry one’s tithe, it could be converted to money and purchased upon arrival at the place of offering. But look at what the Lord instructed to be purchased and consumed: “And you shall spend that money for whatever your heart desires: oxen or sheep, for wine or similar drink, for whatever your heart desires; you shall eat there before the Lord your God, and you shall rejoice, you and your household” (NKJV).

The word for “wine” is yayin. The word for “similar drink” is shekar, and appears in other places as “strong drink” (cf Lev 10:9; Prov 20:1). The definition of shekar is also critical to this discussion. The word shekar occurs 23 times in the Old Testament and is coupled with yayin 21 times. The standard Hebrew lexicons identify shekar as an intoxicating beverage. The HALOT, TWOT, DCH (all earlier referenced) and the Anchor Bible Dictionary are consistent in defining shekar as an intoxicating or fermented beverage.

The text therefore presents three questions that must be answered: What is yayin? What is shekar? And what does the text say Israel was to do with what they purchased? Any interpretation of Deuteronomy 14:26 must account for all three.

Both of these beverage types were permitted to be purchased with tithe money and consumed at the place chosen by the Lord. Incredibly, some among us have affirmed that these beverages were to be poured out as an offering and not consumed like the text says. This type of textual distortion is unbecoming, especially among men who train gospel preachers.

Additional Ignored Texts in the Old Testament

Psalm 104:14-15 also received no mention in the issue. In a section of text which praises God for his goodness and provision, the writer penned: “He causes the grass to grow for the cattle, and vegetation for the service of man, that he may bring forth food from the earth, and wine that makes glad the heart of man, oil to make his face shine.”

“Wine” in this text is yayin, and it is specifically mentioned as making the heart glad. The text does not describe the use of yayin as producing drunkenness, but as making glad the heart of man. The standard lexical meaning of yayin provides no basis for identifying this as unfermented grape juice. Most importantly, God is praised for providing yayin and the associated gladness it brings when consumed in moderation (cf Ecc 9:7). Therefore, there must exist a state of gladness produced by yayin that does not violate God’s prohibitions regarding drunkenness or abuse.

Finally, there is Isaiah 25:6, wherein we read: “And in this mountain the Lord of hosts will make for all people a feast of choice pieces, a feast of wine on the lees, of fat things full of marrow, of well-refined wine on the lees.”

“Wine on the lees” describes wine allowed to rest or mature on the sediment produced during fermentation. The expression in Isaiah 25:6 is commonly understood of aged or matured wine. The standard Hebrew reference works offer no basis for identifying this as fresh, unfermented grape juice. Most importantly, the imagery is entirely positive: the Lord Himself prepares the feast in which this aged wine appears.

None of these passages requires a Christian to drink alcohol, nor do they diminish the Bible’s clear warnings concerning drunkenness, addiction, or causing others to stumble. But that is not the question presently under consideration. The question is whether Scripture teaches that the consumption of any amount of alcohol is inherently sinful. If that proposition is true, it must account honestly for texts in which fermented beverages appear without condemnation—and, in some cases, within contexts of divine provision and rejoicing.

Lord willing, our next article will focus on what the New Testament says concerning alcohol, with a focus on both the life of Jesus and the modern two-wine theory for the Greek oinos.

I’ve often thought about his comment and pondered it from numerous angles over the years.

At first I thought. “He’s got it backwards; I think a lot people are going to be surprised at who’s not there, including themselves.”

I fully realize this sounds judgmental in the thinking of many, but it is exactly what Jesus said in Matthew 7:21-23, when he said, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’”

There are similar examples from the Lord regarding mistaken or false familiarity, particularly in Luke 13:22-30. In this text, the Master comes and the door is shut to those outside. Standing outside and knocking at the door, the outsiders claim familiarity with the Lord: “We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets.” However, the Lord denies any knowledge of them, sending them away unto weeping and gnashing of teeth.

But at the end of the text in Luke is another view, namely that some will be surprised at who is admitted while they themselves are thrust out (cf Luke 13:28). Verse 29 speaks of those from all directions (east, west, north, south) who will sit down in the kingdom of God.

I believe it is safe to assume that these represent the inclusion of the Gentiles in the kingdom of God, the church (but also ultimately, heaven). So then, there is a sense in which my friend was right, but not in the sense in which I believe he intended. The Jews were not keen on the idea of the Gentiles being their equals in the kingdom, and in so thinking, many of them drew their lines so narrowly so as to leave themselves outside.

Heaven is a prepared place for a prepared people (cf John 14:2-3; Matt 25:10). No one will be surprised to find themselves there, but some will certainly be surprised to miss. The question is not my own claim to know the Lord, but “Does the Lord know me?” (2 Tim 2:19).

A perusal of the Table of Contents of the July 2026 issue of Spiritual Sword (Vol 57, No 4) reveals an exercise in topical gerrymandering. That is, many of the assigned titles are framed to produce a particular conclusion rather than generate a true examination of the relevant texts and arguments.

The problem manifests itself in several ways: some assignments avoid the disputed texts, others frame the available conclusions too narrowly, and still others resolve difficult texts by assuming the very conclusion under discussion. Finally, some topics are so vague that they contribute little or no substance to the larger discussion.

This is not to lay blame at the feet of the contributors. A contributor can only address the topic assigned to him. The problem lies in an editorial process that assigns topics in a way that produces a predetermined outcome.

With only a couple of exceptions, I have known and/or worked alongside every single author in this issue. A number of these relationships go back more than a quarter century. So, when I criticize particular assignments or arguments, no personal attack against the writers is intended.

I begin with what I believe is the most egregious assignment of the entire issue, “Old Testament Warnings Against Intoxicating Drink,” given to Justin Rogers. I love Justin Rogers. My kids still love Justin Rogers from their days at Freed-Hardeman. Justin’s brilliant mind, communication skills, and his familiarity with the Old Testament text make him a rare commodity in the brotherhood.

But here is the problem–why assign a highly capable scholar a topic on which everyone agrees? Everyone in this discussion is already familiar with the Old Testament warnings about drunkenness and the abuse of alcohol, and we all believe them. These texts are not where the disagreement lies.

A genuinely comprehensive discussion of the use of alcohol in the Old Testament must include texts such as Deuteronomy 14:23-26 and Psalm 104:15. These are the texts that need to be examined and explained. But neither received substantive treatment apart from Allen Webster’s unproven claim concerning the Hebrew shekar on page 39. Even then, Webster only added it as a reference without giving it any examination. It was as if he stuck it in the text to make sure it was mentioned.

Again, this is no attack or reflection on Justin. As I mentioned earlier, a man can only address the subject assigned. Justin did this. I have only one critique of what was written: If one looks closely at the biblical texts in the opening three paragraphs, he will see numerous qualifiers and contingencies regarding the consumption of alcohol. These alone are sufficient to cast doubt on his conclusion that the biblical teaching on alcohol “seems clear that total abstinence is the aim” (8).

The issue’s very first article, by Mike Hixson, illustrates another problem. It is a loaded question that creates a false dilemma. The title of the article prejudices the reader from the start, “Is Drinking Merely Unwise, Or Is It A Sin?” Before reading a single word, one already knows brother Hixson’s conclusion. The title presumes only two options: that all drinking is inherently unwise or that it is a sin, assumptions that have not been proven. But what if the Bible presents evidence that neither assumption is correct? One should not expect a balanced examination of the subject when the conclusions have been revealed in the title.

In an attempt to prove that even a single sip of alcohol is sinful, Hixson appeals to W.E. Vine, who identified methusko as an inceptive verb in Ephesians 5:18. But even granting Vine’s classification, Hixson’s conclusion does not necessarily follow. An inceptive verb describing the process by which one becomes intoxicated does not prove that the prohibited state of drunkenness begins with the first drink. Other contributors also make this claim but fail to demonstrate it.

Moreover, consider the historical question raised by the Magisterium’s application of methusko. If Ephesians 5:18 plainly teaches that the first drink of alcohol is sinful, one should reasonably expect to find a discernible history of that interpretation, especially in the early writings. Where is the historical evidence that the early Christians agreed with the Magisterium’s conclusion that even a single drink of alcohol is sinful?

A final example was the inadequate treatment of Romans 14 by Luke Griffin and David Sproule. Another personal note—I worked side by side with Luke for 25 years at House to House - Heart to Heart and many years at Polishing the Pulpit. He and I do not agree here, but there is absolutely no animosity on either side.

The authors began their article by stating their personal conviction about drinking alcohol. No problem there. But Justin Rogers has already shown that the common consumption of wine in the New Testament included some alcoholic content. This is important, because there is nothing in Romans 14:21 that requires the wine to be understood as unfermented. Yet these brethren wrote that “it is necessary to conclude that it is unfermented” (23).

If the common consumption of wine in the first century included some alcoholic content, what evidence makes it “necessary” to conclude that the wine of Romans 14:21 was unfermented? Where is the evidence requiring unfermented grape juice in this text? As presented, the conclusion appears to be required by the authors’ opening position rather than demonstrated from the biblical text.

Matters such as these are the purpose of this entire series of articles. I don’t drink. I teach people not to drink. I don’t endorse social drinking. But the liberties of another don’t end where my pang of conscience begins.

The Magisterium’s echo chamber has demonstrated that it has no room for scruples or personal liberty. Those in that room lose credibility when dissenting arguments are neither desired nor entertained.

Lord willing, more will be said on Deuteronomy 14, Psalm 104, Luke 7, John 2, and Romans 14.

My people love rules. Not for the sake of rule-keeping or the false security of cold legalism, but because they diligently pursue holy living. They earnestly desire to be separate from the world. They are admirably zealous to sanctify the Lord in their hearts and declare to the world the reason of their hope...

And rules make us feel safe in that pursuit.

As noted previously, problems arise when personal judgments in matters of conscience and liberty are elevated to the status of divine law. And when our desire is to remain as far from sin as possible, those rules can feel reassuringly safe. But when these rules are treated as biblically defensible doctrine, a serious change occurs. Consider the following example:

In recent years, I have heard brethren attempt to make a biblical case on the acceptable length for dresses and shorts. The argument is based on Exodus 28:42 and the linen trousers (“breeches” - KJV) God commanded Moses to make for the priests to wear in the course of their service. The text reads: “And you shall make for them linen trousers to cover their nakedness; they shall reach from the waist to the thighs.” NKJV

From this single verse, many have argued that clothing must reach all the way to the knee to be biblically modest. Anything above the knee has been deemed immodest among our people. But Exodus 28:42 is not prescribing the length of ordinary outer clothing. It is prescribing linen undergarments for Israel’s priests beneath their robes.

But there’s a problem. The Hebrew word translated “thigh” doesn’t establish the knee as the boundary. In the near context, the word describes the upper leg where a man would strap a sword (Ex 32:27) or hide a dagger (Judg 3:16-21). In more remote usage, it refers to Jacob’s hip which was dislocated when Jacob wrestled with the Lord in Genesis 32:25. Nothing inherent in the word establishes the knee as the divinely prescribed boundary.

The question is not whether Christians should dress modestly. Scripture plainly says they should (1 Tim 2:9). The question is whether Scripture establishes the knee as God’s objective boundary between modest and immodest dress.

Consider this: In February, 1988, 97-year-old farmer Merritt Heaton appeared on The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson. Carson asked him a number of questions about the changes he’d witnessed since his childhood. After a discussion of the secrets to Heaton’s 64-year marriage, Carson asked him about changes he’d seen in women. Heaton responded,

“When I was a kid, I was tickled to see a girl’s ankle. That was pretty rare. We’d stand around town maybe on a muddy day, ladies have to come along and raise up their skirt a little. We’d see their ankle!”

Question: If Exodus 28:42 establishes an objective line for modesty, how did generations of sincere believers arrive at substantially stricter standards while reading the same Bible? Would the current “biblical” position on modesty withstand the scrutiny of Mr. Heaton’s generation?

This illustrates how easily any generation can mistake its cultural judgment for a divine universal standard and misuse Scripture to create a rule where God has not legislated. Such rules are uncritically accepted because they give one a sense of security. “Here is the line! It’s right here in the biblical text!”

But, lest I be misrepresented, I am not opposed to some dress codes. Sometimes they are necessary. Schools have dress codes for students and staff. Prisons have dress codes for visitors. I am not opposed to dress codes for church camps or other spiritually-related events. But I am opposed to misusing the biblical text to declare a hard and fast rule on what is immodest. A rule may be prudent without being divine, and an application may be wise without being universally binding.

So, rules make us feel good. But uncritically following the magisterium is lazy because it removes the need for independent study.

Recall the earlier reference to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It was once common for brethren to describe their view by the brother associated with it—the Guy N. Woods/Franklin Camp view, or the Gus Nichols view—rather than articulating a reasoned defense of one’s own study and conclusion. It is far easier to repeat the conclusions of respected men than to examine whether Scripture draws the same line.

Following the magisterium is easy. Opposing it can be costly—and therefore frightening. But, as a beloved preacher-friend said to me last week while encouraging me in this present problem, “We cannot go back to the days when editors of papers and lectureship directors set the doctrine for the church.”

The influence once wielded by brotherhood papers has largely diminished, but the temptation has not disappeared. Schools of preaching, lectureships, publications, and influential personalities can still exercise enormous influence—and influence itself is not wrong. The danger comes when influence becomes authority, applications become laws, and disagreement with respected brethren is treated as disagreement with God.

The church needs teachers. It needs wise men. It needs respected voices. What it does not need is a magisterium.

More to come.

In Matthew 6:1-4, Jesus condemns the elites for their supposed acts of benevolence. By definition, benevolence requires a desire to do good for others; it seeks another’s well-being rather than personal glory. But these requisites were absent from the deeds of these self-centered do-gooders. Their only objective was to draw attention to themselves that they might receive the praise of men. Jesus confirmed that they were successful in this pursuit, but they separated themselves from any divine blessing that comes from genuine benevolence. There will be times when our good deeds cannot be hidden (cf Matt 5:13-16). Just because they are seen doesn’t mean we did so with that intent. Therein lies the difference.

Verses 5-6 continue with another condemnation of those who would stand and pray on the corners of public streets. If the public prayers of first-century Jews resembled what we see today at Jerusalem’s “Wailing Wall,” that was quite a display! Men may be impressed by such, but God certainly is not. In this context, Jesus again speaks in hyperbole in exhorting his disciples to go into a room or closet to pray. This should also be understood in the context of the public displays earlier condemned.

A second warning in prayer is found in verses 7-8, where Jesus admonishes his followers not to mindlessly or mechanically repeat prayers by rote. This was apparently a practice of the heathen (idolaters) which eventually found its way into Christendom, perhaps most notably in Roman Catholicism’s repetitive use of the rosary.

As a guard against the practices of both hypocrite and heathen, Jesus provides a model prayer marked by a humble dependence on God with beautiful simplicity and brevity.

Finally, in verses 19-24, Jesus warns against the hoarding of goods and the lust for riches. The good and bad eye of verses 22-23 must also not be separated from the laying up of temporal treasures in verses 19-21 and being a servant to money in verse 24. My eye determines my perspective. A good eye views possessions as a means to advance the kingdom, while a bad eye is filled with greed and the lust for gain. The Pharisees were noted lovers of money (Luke 16:14).

Matthew 6 closes with a lengthy exhortation against worrying about the necessities of life. Followers of Jesus should not covet the praise of men (Jn 12:43), envy the rich (Ps 73:2), or worry about the present. Our confidence belongs in the Father who sees in secret, hears sincere prayer, and faithfully provides for His children. TC

“And seeing the multitudes, He went up into a mountain, and when He was seated His disciples came to Him. Then He opened His mouth and taught them...” (Matthew 5:1-2).

One thing at the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount that usually escapes our notice or consideration is that Jesus sat down to teach. Given some thought, this seems unusual to the modern student. When we think about teaching and preaching today, the obvious mental picture is of a teacher or an orator standing before his audience.

This was not the custom of former times. In the days of itinerant preachers and rabbis, their disciples, interested learners, detractors and others would come to the place where the teacher was seated to hear what he had to say.

Apparently this was also standard posture in more formal settings as well. In Luke 4, after Jesus stood in the synagogue to read from Isaiah, the Bible said he “sat down, and the eyes of all who were in the synagogue were fixed on him.” They were watching Jesus because it was customary for those who read to also give an explanation or application from the text they’d just heard.

These are not isolated examples. The Gospels often picture Jesus teaching while seated (cf Matt 13:1-2; Mark 4:1).

This may explain the origin of the common expression “sitting at the feet” of some respected brother or teacher. In Luke 10:39, Mary was said to be sitting at the feet of Jesus and hearing his words. Similarly, Paul said he was “brought up... at the feet of Gamaliel” (Acts 22:3).

There is a warmth and an openness associated with sitting with someone and speaking with them. Think of how a mother teaches her child, sitting down with the child in her lap. Books are read; stories are told; questions are welcomed. Truth and wisdom pass from one generation to the next in these beautifully serene settings.

Perhaps we should rediscover the art and effectiveness of sitting and teaching. I don’t mean from behind a computer screen and keyboard, though there is certainly a place for that today. I mean opening our homes to people. Old-timers used to refer to cottage studies, which were nothing more than people sitting together and studying the Bible. Paul’s effectiveness in teaching came in part by going from house to house (Acts 20:20).

Think of all the goodwill earned and teaching done in these settings. Sitting together exudes genuine consideration and interest. It encourages warmth and dialogue. It’s one of the simplest things we can offer yet one we seldom think to give.

Let’s try sitting a little more often!

A dilemma similar to that of Jeremiah’s day afflicts God’s people today. Increasingly, questions of liberty and conscience are no longer treated as matters in which faithful Christians may differ. Instead, within the church there has developed what amounts to a de facto magisterium.

Significant portions of our brotherhood exist under the sway of a small group of men who wield inordinate influence over the church in matters of doctrine, faith, and morals. Christians are no longer encouraged to study and arrive at their own conclusions, unless the results of their study comport with the magisterium’s orthodoxy. Any diversion often results in the silencing of voices through editorial gatekeeping, cancellation, blacklisting, and similar measures. Because this is demonstrably true, many faithful brethren–and even well-known brethren–are hesitant or downright fearful to preach or publish their views in the public forum.

Scruples are conscience-based reservations regarding matters of liberty, leading a believer to avoid something for the sake of a clear conscience. Because scruples involve matters where God has not bound, Christians should seek to honor God without binding their own convictions on others.

Paul’s primary treatise on scruples is seen in Romans 14:1-15:7, where Paul identifies a number of actions that are not sinful in and of themselves. The problem was that some Christians were condemning their brethren for practicing what God permitted, because their own conscience did not allow them to practice it without a sense of sin and guilt. Ultimately, Paul encouraged those whose consciences were not violated to forgo their liberty, lest their practice cause a brother to sin by violating his own conscience (cf Rom 14:21).

But Paul’s admonition should not be carried beyond its intent. Verse 22 acknowledges that those same things may be practiced in faith when the weaker brother is not tempted to violate his conscience. If a Christian may be encouraged to forgo his liberty in one context, he must also be free to exercise it in another. Otherwise, the matter of conscience ceases to be a matter of liberty and instead becomes a matter of law.

The issue is not whether truth matters. It does. Nor is the issue whether error should be opposed. It should. The issue is whether faithful brethren may disagree in matters where God has not spoken with the clarity necessary to bind every conscience. Romans 14 teaches that there are such matters, and when they arise, charity—not coercion—is the biblical response.

Personal liberty in Christ allows believers to arrive at different conclusions through the honest study of Scripture where God has not spoken explicitly. The difference between scruples and Christian liberty is that scruples concern what one’s conscience will permit. Christian liberty concerns what God permits when Christians arrive at varying conclusions in their study.

An example of this is seen in the two longstanding views regarding the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Some good and faithful brethren believe the Holy Spirit indwells the Christian in word only. Other good and faithful brethren believe in what is known as the personal indwelling. Both groups agree that the Holy Spirit indwells the Christian; they simply disagree on how that indwelling occurs. With few exceptions, brethren holding these differing views have coexisted with mutual respect and harmony.

Unfortunately, other areas of harmony amidst disagreement are rare in the present brotherhood. Tragically, those who diverge from the magisterium’s orthodoxy are not granted such goodwill.

A case in point is the doctrine commonly identified as “New Heavens New Earth” (NHNE). The essence of the doctrine is that Bible references to that phrase are interpreted more literally than by those who hold the “traditional” view. Both groups believe that all the saved will dwell with God forever. They differ in their understanding of those and similar texts.

On September 19, 2019, I authored an article/Facebook note titled “New Heavens and New Earth: An Appeal for Charity and Reason” (https://www.facebook.com/notes/10158739287808187/). This article was written because of what I perceived to be increasing hostilities between the two groups. I expressed my belief in the traditional view, but I encouraged brethren on both sides to be charitable with one another over this matter.

I also believed the article was needed because, just a month earlier, a keynote speaker at Polishing the Pulpit cast suspicion upon the motives of every single preacher who held to the NHNE doctrine, saying “I don’t know why they’re doing it.” Additionally, the presenter went on to claim that the NHNE doctrine: 1) is false and fanciful; 2) is a recent/current problem; and 3) would jeopardize people’s faith in the word of God.

At this point, it should be noted that several prominent figures of the Restoration Movement held this view, including Alexander Campbell, David Lipscomb, Moses Lard, J.W. McGarvey, and G.C. Brewer. I mention these men not to prove the position is correct– I don’t agree with it–but to show the idea of NHNE cannot be so casually dismissed as false, fanciful, or new.

I mentioned G.C. Brewer specifically because brother Alan Highers often noted that G.C. Brewer was his preaching hero. Whether or not Highers agreed with Brewer on this question is irrelevant. The point is that G.C. Brewer believed NHNE, and Alan Highers held him up for decades as his preaching hero, and I never heard anyone condemn or cancel brother Highers. Neither is there any evidence that Brewer or any of these other men jeopardized anyone’s faith in the word of God through the public declaration of their NHNE views.

Christian unity does not require conformity on every passage of Scripture. Our unity will be enriched when we allow others to speak freely in matters, especially those wherein we disagree. Lord willing, more will be said about scruples, Christian liberty, and the brotherhood magisterium. In the meantime, “let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which we may edify one another” (Romans 10:19).

Matthew 4 is a marvelous chapter. Most discussions and sermons on it focus on the devil’s temptation of Jesus, with Jesus battling inwardly with himself (the discipline of fasting) and outwardly with the devil. The secondary focus usually centers on Jesus calling the first of his four disciples: Peter, Andrew, James and John.

But in the middle of the chapter is an overlooked gem, namely, the beginning of the public ministry of Jesus and his influence on the Gentiles. There are a couple of things about Jesus’ public ministry that I hadn’t thought much about until some of my recent studies.

First, there appears to be very little overlap of the ministries of John the Baptist and Jesus. Matthew connects the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry in Galilee with John’s imprisonment (4:12) as did Mark (Mark 1:14). However, John 3:22-24 notes that both men preached and baptized concurrently. The span of time between Matthew 4:11 and 4:12 was likely a few months at most, and includes the works of both men from John 1:29 and the end of John 4. It is almost as if John’s imprisonment occurred shortly after his “He must increase, but I must decrease” declaration in John 3:30.

Second, we see Jesus leaving Nazareth and moving his home base to Capernaum. Incidentally, in Hebrew, Capernaum means “the village of Nahum.” The name Nahum means “peace.” How fitting that the Prince of Peace made his headquarters in the town of peace!

The text tells us that this new location “in the regions of Zebulun and Naphtali” was no accident: “And leaving Nazareth, He came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is by the sea, in the regions of Zebulun and Naphtali, that it might be fulfilled by Isaiah the prophet, saying, ‘The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, by way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles; the people who sat in darkness have seen a great light, and upon those who sat in the region and shadow of death Light has dawned.’”

While we usually think of Jesus’ public ministry as being primarily among the Jews, the prophecy of Isaiah 8-9, fulfilled in this text, shows us that the preaching and miracles of Jesus did not go unnoticed by the Gentiles. In fact, this same prophecy was among the first words out of Zacharias’ mouth when John was born (cf Luke 1:79).

Think of that! A man of God who, having given up hope of ever having a child and being a mute for nine months, used his first words to speak of a child not yet born, who would be the focus of his own child’s life and ministry!

Given what Matthew also says of Jesus’ fame spreading throughout all Galilee and Syria (cf Matt 4:23-24), we can see how the life and ministry of Jesus were for all men for all ages from the very beginning!

In Matthew 2, upon their arrival in Jerusalem, the wise men begin making public inquiry concerning one who has been born King of the Jews (vv 1-2). This soon finds its way to Herod, who is greatly disturbed by this news. But not only Herod, also all of Jerusalem (v 3). News of a new king would have shaken the residents of Jerusalem, as Herod reigned in a state of murderous paranoia. The thought of a challenger to the throne certainly struck fear in the hearts of the populace.

So ruthless was Herod’s reign that the Roman Emperor Augustus is attributed as saying, “it is better to be Herod’s pig than his son.” The quip was based on Herod’s observance of Jewish food laws with a bit of a word play, utilizing the similar sounding Greek words for “pig” (hus) and “son” (huios). But the meaning was clear enough and borne out by history–Herod murdered his “favorite” wife Mariamne (he had ten) and three of his sons out of paranoia of treason.

With the intention of eliminating any new claim to the throne, Herod convened a secret meeting with the magi to determine the time the star had appeared. This knowledge would provide him with some idea as to the age of this new king. Herod sent the magi on to Bethlehem with instructions to return and provide him with the location of the child king, all under the guise that he himself might go “and worship him also” (2:8).

Following their discovery, worship, and presentation of gifts to the Christ Child, the magi are divinely warned to go home another way, which thing they did. It was also at this time that Joseph was warned to take Mary and Jesus and flee to Egypt until such time as word would come that they might return to the land of Israel.

After some time had passed, Herod realized the magi were not coming back. Enraged, he commanded all the male children in Bethlehem and its surrounding districts from two years old and under to be put to death. This event is known as the Slaughter or Massacre of the Innocents. Moreover, Matthew attributes this gruesome scene as the fulfillment of Jeremiah 31:15.

Shortly after this, the Bible simply records that “Herod was dead” (v 19). Shortly before his death, Herod knew that he, like Jehoram, would die to no one’s regret (2 Chr 21:20). So, he arrested a number of prominent leaders in Judea and ordered his sister Salome execute them at his death. His stated purpose was that someone sho

uld weep at his death, even if it was not on his behalf. Josephus records that Salome did not execute the men, choosing rather to release them.

And thus, the last page of a madman’s biography is written.

I don’t have the time or inclination to address the magnitude of errors, misrepresentations, false claims, and snide personal attacks contained in the article. I will address a few cases to illustrate how poorly these men conducted themselves in their futile efforts.

The article opens with expressions of love for various things, including me. But when one reads past these opening lines, it will be hard to see the professed love of my loving correctors.

In attempting to deal with my treatment of Deuteronomy 14:26, my loving correctors said I attempted “to place God in the position of promoting alcohol consumption in the Old Testament.” I have done no such thing. Rather, the text itself makes clear that moderate wine use was common in the Old Testament. For example, wine is mentioned among God’s many blessings insofar as it “makes glad the heart of man” (Ps 104:15, cf Ecc 9:7).

They then spoke of “things that must be noted – noted and not denied or ignored.” Among these was “content.” Well, they completely ignored the Hebrew yayin, which appears in Deuteronomy 14:26 and more than 140 times in the Old Testament. It is the most common Hebrew word for wine and generally refers to fermented grape wine. It is what Noah drank and became drunk in Genesis 9:21. It is what is called a mocker in Proverbs 20:1. It is also the aforementioned blessing that makes glad the heart of man. And in this discussion, it is what God permitted the Israelites to purchase and consume, as stated in Deuteronomy 14.

Another thing my loving correctors said must be noted was “context.” But they failed to note (or ignored) that Deuteronomy 14:26 is not the primary command in this immediate context. Rather, it is an exception to the primary command found in verse 23, “And you shall eat before the Lord your God, in the place where He chooses to make His name abide, the tithe of your grain and your new wine and your oil, of the firstborn of your herds and your flocks, that you may learn to fear the Lord you God always.”

This is the command. However, God makes an exception and provision if the place God chooses “is too far from you” (v 24). In such a case, the exchange for money to purchase the items in verse 26 is permitted. Whatever is commanded of the wine and strong drink in verse 23 is also to be done in verse 26. The text says to drink, not pour out.

There is not one syllable in this context, nor is it hermeneutically feasible, to teach or even imply that this wine was to be poured out. These things should have been noted by my loving correctors – noted and not denied or ignored. The text says what it says, but my loving correctors compassed land and sea to deny the clear and natural reading of Deuteronomy 14:26, when they could have stayed at home, read verse 23, and properly exegeted the text.

My loving correctors also made claims about some classic Hebrew helps that are demonstrably false. They claim that the Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT), the Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (TWOT), and the Yale Anchor Bible Dictionary are of no real help in determining the meaning of shekar. But in reading the TWOT entry for shekar, one finds that the verb form appears nineteen times in the text, with fourteen of those renderings as “be drunk” or “make drunk.” In fact, Genesis 9:21 says that Noah consumed wine (yayin) and became drunk (shekar).

Additionally, as a noun, shekar is found 23 times in the Old Testament, being coupled with yayin in 22 of those 23 appearances, the only exception being the drink offering in Numbers 28:7. Look up the TWOT entry for shekar online. It’s on page 926. Go read it for yourself; they obviously didn’t. See if my loving correctors dealt honestly with this word.

A reading of the definition for shekar in HALOT, (which is probably no more than 100 words in length), finds the phrase “intoxicating drink” some five times in the first paragraph. Other descriptions include “fermented alcoholic beverage,” “mead,” and four references to “beer.” In the list of occurrences, “usually mentioned together with yayin (wine TC) parallel with fermentation of wine, wine (or some other) vinegar.” Also, “a libation of intoxicating drink.”

The ChatGPT summaries of the Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary and Dictionary of Classical Hebrew  (I do not have access to these works) entries for shekar read essentially the same, though the latter work adds that shekar is “an intoxicating fermented beverage distinct from wine and used broadly in the Hebrew Bible.”

Perhaps this is why NOT ONE of these four reference works is listed at the end of the article as “Works Cited”. There was nothing to be cited to substantiate their false and misleading claims. It seems unlikely that they did even a minute of research in these reference works, but instead just parroted or plagiarized something they read elsewhere without checking the validity of the claims. It is probably to their benefit that they ignored yayin, given their shoddy treatment and conclusions of shekar.

My loving correctors not only misrepresented the meaning and use of shekar, but they also misrepresented the priestly prohibition in Leviticus 10:9, wherein the prohibition is not universal, but is specific to the time they served in the tabernacle. More texts being ignored rather than noted. At this point, one should question my loving correctors’ scholarship and honesty in dealing with the sacred text.

In an attempt to show a historical basis for their two-wine theory, my loving correctors cited a poem by Anacreon. Their lack of understanding and poor scholarship again reared its ugly head. Part of this poem appeared to support their argument... until it didn’t. Apparently, they don’t even know the meanings of the words they printed. The line “foaming into butt” is a reference to the process of fermentation (Grok review of Blackwell-Dindy article, Google Gemini AI). Moreover, the “jolly must” refers to grape juice that is in the process of fermentation, thus giving it its cheerful influence (Google Gemini AI).

(Speaking of AI, multiple individuals copied my loving correctors’ article into ChatGPT and Grok to see an unbiased review and summary. The results are damning to them, and I remain undefeated.)

It comes as no surprise how they casually and caustically dismiss the idea of prolepsis, as that figure of speech would only serve to further cripple their already legless position. Without prolepsis, they are impotent to explain or justify even one biblical appearance of the word “winepress.” This is especially true in the New Testament occurrences, as the Greek language included the word trux, a well-used word to describe grape juice. Since the Greek language contained this well-known word, why is there no appearance trux anywhere in the New Testament? The matter of Romans 14:21, not to mention the wine of the wedding feast John 2, could have been easily and forever put to rest had trux been chosen by the Holy Spirit.

This whole debacle can be resolved by answering two simple questions: 1) What is the wine of Romans 14:21? and 2) Upon what basis were Christians to refrain from drinking it?

The answers to these questions are quite simple: 1) The wine of Romans 14:21 is fermented grape juice; and 2) Christians were to refrain based on the conscience of weak brethren, not because it was a sin to consume it.

Let me be clear... No one is more anti-alcohol than I. I do not drink. By personal scruple, I believe it would be sinful for me to do so. I do not endorse drinking alcohol; I teach and encourage people not to drink, given all the problems associated with alcohol, especially my own experience with my dad, who was an alcoholic. I am not a proponent of social drinking. I know what the Bible says about the misuse of alcohol. My position has been clearly and repeatedly stated in public.

However, Paul clearly places moderation as a matter of conscience. The entire point of Romans 14 is that one is not at liberty to condemn a brother as a sinner in any matter of conscience that he approves. Neither is a Christian at liberty to impugn his brother’s integrity or faithfulness to God in this matter. My loving correctors (and other brethren) failed miserably in this matter.

That same month, on March 8, 2026, I was publicly accused of having “advocated publicly for drinking alcohol in private.” This is patently false. The matter was brought to my attention on March 11. On March 12, after watching the video for myself, the brother who said it was contacted, corrected, and granted the benefit of the doubt and grace to simply say that he misspoke. It is one thing to advocate for a thing to be practiced. It is altogether another to refuse to condemn a brother for practicing what Paul clearly placed in the realm of scruples. Today, more than 6 months later, all I have received in return is the deafening sound of silence, and the video still remains online.

Another well-known brother has been the instigator of a disgusting whisper campaign against me in an attempt to have me canceled throughout the brotherhood. He has been contacted, rebuked, and encouraged to do what is right. He has chosen the same path as the aforementioned brother… silence.

Brethren need to do better. And these particular brethren need to understand that their sins and their refusal to deal with them will not be swept under the rug in the name of “keeping the peace.” There is no real peace where unrighteousness reigns. Be sure your sins will find you out.

Subscribe now

If you’ve ever flown on a clear day over a familiar landscape, towns that are miles away are clearly visible, and the altitude allows one to see the whole journey in just a few moments.

There are many Bible texts where a problem is presented, played out, and resolved in just a few minutes of reading time. The account of Job immediately comes to mind. All the financial and familial calamities Job endured in chapter 1 are covered in just a minute’s time. How long he suffered before Satan came calling again in chapter 2 is unknown, as is the amount of time he suffered before the arrival and seven days of seated silence by his friends at the end of the chapter.

The events surrounding the birth of Jesus fall in this category. Matthew 1:18-25 is a less than 60-second summary of what was certainly one of the most difficult periods in the lives of Jesus’ parents. Even if we were to include Luke’s more chronologically-detailed record, this whole account can be read in well under five minutes. Like a 1970s or 80s TV sitcom, a problem is presented with the pain and the resolution coming in less than 30 minutes.

And therein lies the danger for us as Bible readers. If we aren’t careful, we miss the struggle, the implied accusations and disbelief, and the pain that were no doubt a vital storyline through this entire narrative.

Try to consider this story as it unfolded in real time. Mary is engaged to Joseph, and by engagement we mean a legally binding relationship that required a formal dissolution, not just “giving back the ring” (Matt 1:18).

At some point in verse 18 are the events of Luke 1:26-56, where Gabriel informs Mary of her selection to be the mother of Jesus, Immanuel, i.e., “God with us.” Moreover, in Luke’s account we see Mary leaving town to visit Elizabeth in the third trimester of her own pregnancy, staying with her three months, then returning home... herself now with child.

Think about Mary and her return home. What was going through her mind? Did she think Joseph’s love would cause him to accept her testimony? How many scenarios played out in her head? Did she think Joseph’s acceptance would clear her name (John 8:41)?

Try putting yourself in Joseph’s shoes. If you were living in Nazareth when Mary returned after three months away with her “baby bump,” what would you think? The exact same thing Joseph did! How would you respond to her story about the appearance and message of an angel? Again, the exact same response as Joseph! But, because we get to read the entire account from start to finish in just a couple of minutes, any real tension and pain of this narrative, (none of which is detailed in Luke), is glossed over by a “quick” happy ending.

This should serve to encourage us to slow down and be more deliberate and contemplative of the biblical texts as we read going forward.