Damning Alcohol Use Damns Jesus

This article has been a long time coming. All I ask is that before you get upset and start spamming my Facebook page with all the verses I’m going to address in this article anyway, that you read the whole article and actually respond to what I’ve written. It is 99% likely that I’ve already addressed your point herein. If you come to me after reading the whole thing with a Galatians 5:22-23 attitude and want to discuss this, I’m happy to do so. If you decide to lead with emotions and eisegetical lectures, don’t be surprised if I just stoop down and write on the ground instead of responding.
I intend for this document to be a living document. That means that as more points come up through discussions, I will edit the document to either add points, enhance points already made, or make changes necessary to reflect the best effort to cover the topic fully. I am stating this up front so that there is no accusation later that I am trying to be underhanded or something similar.
Why is it important to write this, to discuss this? Because there are those who condemn and disfellowship others for believing that drinking alcohol is okay. It causes division in the church. It promulgates the authority of tradition, eisegesis, uninspired sources of information and denominationalism within the church. Ultimately it despises Jehovah God as our authority for all things and our sinless Savior Jesus Christ.
Now, this isn’t part of a formal debate so I most likely won’t get into the tedium of formal argument structure, though I may use some formal terms (like argument, premise, conclusion, etc.). If someone needs me to lay it out formally, I can do that.
== The Premise ==
The purpose of this article is to provide the most thorough, definitive defense of the following statement: 
* Drinking alcohol for non-medicinal purposes is authorized according to the Bible (specifically the New Testament) and is not inherently a sin.
All my life I have heard within the church of Christ (and outside too, for that matter) two sides to the argument about whether drinking alcohol is a sin. I want to be clear about some things from the start so that there is no confusion about what I’m defending and what I’m not.
First of all, I’m not defending getting drunk. Drunkenness is clearly condemned in scripture. If you get drunk, you sin according to the New Testament. Yes, I know, you probably think “one drop drunk”. I’ll get to that. For now, it is sufficient to say I distinguish between simply drinking alcohol and drunkenness.
Second, I’m not encouraging anyone to go drink alcohol. I don’t drink alcohol and have no desire to start. The motivation for me to defend this position has nothing to do with defending my own action out of a sense of guilt and more to do with taking the actual Biblical position on a topic instead of the traditional one. It also has a great deal to do with addressing the absurd position the ascetic crowd takes condemning their Lord and Savior of sin by implication. Yes, if you condemn drinking even one drop of alcohol as sin, you condemn Jesus as a sinner.
Third, if you believe drinking any amount of alcohol is a sin, don’t drink any alcohol. For you, individually, it is a sin according to Romans 14 no matter what I write here or, more importantly, what the Bible actually says about the topic.
* What I’m defending here is anyone who drinks alcohol but does not get drunk and does not drink alcohol in such a way as to purposefully cause someone else to sin.
So, now that that’s out of the way, let’s define some terms.
== Definitions ==
=== Sin ===
* violation of Biblical law. 1 John 3:4 states “Whoever commits sin also commits transgression of the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.”
=== Drink ===
* to consume a liquid through the mouth
=== Alcohol ===
* ethanol or its derived forms. The term alcohol is not used in scripture, so we must understand it by implication through the Bible’s use of the words such as wine and strong drink (Hbr. yayin and shekar; Grk. oinos and sikera). In modern times shekar/sikera would include beer, whiskey, rum, ale, wine, scotch, and other such fermented drinks not made from grapes. In the Bible shekar and sikera are always alcoholic in nature. Yayin and oinos are commonly used for the alcoholic wine and should be interpreted as such unless sufficient contextual reason not to is given. That is to say, the natural understanding of yayin and oinos is alcoholic.
=== Non-medicinal ===
* used in such a way that has no bearing on attempting to heal the body or assist in healing the body (such as using alcohol as an anesthetic). Non-medicinal includes recreational use and as part of a meal. Medicinal use will be mentioned more below.
=== Authorized ===
* permission or approval from God
=== Bible ===
* all 66 books inspired by Jehovah God that are His Word. It is understood here that the Bible is broken into two parts: Old Testament and New Testament. It is also understood here that the Old Testament has zero spiritual authority over anyone today and only spiritual authority over the Israelites/Jews before Jesus was murdered by them. The Old Testament is good for understanding the nature of concepts contained within both testaments, however, so we can reasonably look to it for definitions and the like. (Romans 15:4 - “For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.”) However, we can only appeal to the New Testament for authority for anything, including authority to condemn something as sinful.
=== New Testament ===
* Spiritual Law to which all men are equally amenable today; authority began at the death of the testator. Hebrews 9:16-18 - “And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator lives.”
=== Drunk ===
* since being drunk (drunkenness) is a sin according to the Bible, it is only appropriate that we find our definition of drunk from the Bible. 
* Proverbs 23:29-35 - “Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has contentions? Who has complaints? Who has wounds without cause? Who has redness of eyes? Those who linger long at the wine, Those who go in search of mixed wine. Do not look on the wine when it is red, When it sparkles in the cup, When it swirls around smoothly; At the last it bites like a serpent, And stings like a viper. Your eyes will see strange things, And your heart will utter perverse things. Yes, you will be like one who lies down in the midst of the sea, Or like one who lies at the top of the mast, saying: “They have struck me, but I was not hurt; They have beaten me, but I did not feel it. When shall I awake, that I may seek another drink?” 
* Being drunk or drunkenness then is defined as an effect of alcohol when someone has “lingered long at the wine”, when you are staring at it blankly because it controls you. It’s when they’ve drank an excessive amount so that they fight for no reason, bumble about and get hurt, have a redness of eyes not from tiredness. They’re drunk when their sight gets so blurry they can’t tell where they are, what’s going around them. Their senses are so dulled they get punched and do not feel it. Drunk, by this definition, is what is typically called “totally wasted”, one who has lost their senses and self-control because of the alcohol. In short, it is obvious when someone is drunk.
== Affirmative Arguments ==
=== The Old Testament Argument ===
I’ll address the broader scope of why using the Old Testament to condemn someone for drinking alcohol is wrong below, but since the ascetics will use the Old Testament, I am going to make a case from the Old Testament in favor of drinking to show their efforts are misguided.  Since I’m not one for dallying or pulling punches, let’s get to the most powerful argument first.  It’s the only one I need.
* Deuteronomy 14:26 - “And you may exchange that money for whatsoever your soul prefers, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever your soul desires: and you may eat there before Jehovah your God, and you may rejoice, you, and your household,”
The context here is when the Israelites made their pilgrimages to Jerusalem to the Temple to make their tithes and offerings, if the trip was too long, they could sell stuff at home for money, then use that money to tithe and buy sacrifices when they got to Jerusalem.  Whatever money was not required for worship, God authorizes them to exchange in Jerusalem for whatever they want.  Now, pay attention to what God permits them to buy and consume there “before Jehovah your God”.  In this list of things God says people can eat when they come to worship him are wine and strong drink (yayin and shekar).
Some have made the case that yayin/oinos, which is translated as “wine”, can be non-alcoholic.  However, shekar is always alcoholic.  No one can argue successfully otherwise from scripture since it is always alcoholic in scripture (Lev 10:9; Num 6:3; Num 28:7; Deu 29:6; Jdg 13:4, 7, 14; 1Sa 1:15; Psa 69:12; Pro 20:1; Pro 31:4-7; Isa 5:11, 22; Isa 24:9; Isa 28:7; Isa 29:9; Isa 56:12; Mic 2:11).  Because of this, whenever yayin is listed with shekar, yayin is contextually also alcoholic.  God explicitly says they can buy alcohol and drink it before Him when they come to worship Him and rejoice.
At best, the ascetic apologists have not made actual arguments against this passage.  For example, in the Christian Courier, the famous Wayne Jackson himself only offers rhetorical questions and the shekar-isn’t-always-alcoholic argument I’ve already dealt with.
~~”Do those who argue this as a precedent for us contend that we may eat meat and drink liquors as a part of our worship today?”
No.  That’s not what is being argued at all.  We are not under this Testament so this would not apply to New Testament worship either way.  The point is that if the ascetic crowd wants to go to the Old Testament to condemn the use of alcohol wholesale, they have to contend with this passage.  Rhetorical questions like this are sidestepping it by bringing the emotion of incredulity into it, a kind of bandwagon form of rejection of the idea rather than an actual logical analysis of the verse.
~~”Moreover, at the end of every three years, the Hebrews were to make these festivities available for the “sojourner, and the fatherless, and the widow' ('Deut. 14:28, 29). Shall we care for the fatherless and widows today by providing them with inebriates (cf. Jas. 1:27)?”
Another emotionally charged rhetorical question.  “I can’t believe you want to give alcohol to kids!!!”  First of all, there is nothing in the context that demands that the shekar was given to orphans and widows.  That has to be read into the context.  Second, so what if it was?  If you have a case to make against this from scripture, make it.  If all you have is emotion and leading questions, you have nothing.
It is important to note that Jackson goes on to give up the case altogether in the article.  Under the section entitled “Consider the Times” he writes this admission:
~~”Third, though it is conceded that total abstinence was not demanded under the Mosaic regime, such affords no comfort to the modern social drinker.”
One, nobody is making the case from the OT to authorize social drinking.  Those of us who defend what Jackson and others call social drinking know that we, Gentiles, were never under the OT to begin with and it certainly has no authority over us now.  We address the OT only because the ascetics bring it up and we have to show that they don’t know what they are talking about.
Two, Jackson admits that total abstinence was not demanded under Moses.  Well then, what’s the point of everything else Jackson argued against alcohol from the Old Testament for?  If only others were ultimately so honest, this article would be a lot shorter.
Conclusion
I rest my case from the Old Testament.  No really.  That’s all I need to say.  One verse.  The host of negative arguments from the Old Testament will be addressed below.
=== The New Testament Argument ===
The New Testament Argument is based on one simple fact: 
* Jesus drank alcohol.
 Once this is shown to be the case, all other scripture must be interpreted based on this understanding.  If it can be shown that Jesus drank alcohol and it is known that Jesus did not sin (Hebrews 4:15), then drinking alcohol cannot be sinful.
This argument concerns just two passages from Dr. Luke’s eponymous letter (that means from the book of Luke).  Stay with me, though, because this requires a little bit of inductive reasoning and folks tend to not be as good with this as they are with the explicitly stated stuff or they disallow it when it's devastating to their case.
Luke 1:15 - “For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and will drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he will be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.”
Luke 7:33-34 - “For John the Immerser came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and you say, ‘he has a devil’. The Son of Man is come eating and drinking; and you say, ‘behold a gluttonous man, and a wino, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’”
Please note, my argument has nothing to do with what the Pharisees and lawyers called Jesus in Luke 7:34.  Jesus was neither glutton nor wino.  What they said has no bearing on the reality of what Jesus actually did and to base an argument off of them is ignorant at best.  It’s focusing on what Jesus’s enemies said not what Jesus actually did.
My argument stems from what Luke, the good doctor, said Jesus actually did.  What Jesus did in Luke 7:34 is exactly what his cousin, John, did not do in verse 33.  Verse 33 says that John did not drink wine.  If John did not drink wine, then Jesus did drink wine.  If the wine John didn't drink was alcoholic, then the wine Jesus did drink was alcoholic. If Jesus drank alcoholic wine, then drinking alcohol is not inherently sinful.
~~“But wait, oinos (wine) could be nonalcoholic so Jesus could have been drinking non-alcoholic wine.”
That’s where Luke 1:15 comes in.  The doctor tells us exactly what kind of wine John did not drink.  As with yayin and shekar in the Old Testament, sikera is only alcoholic and oinos is therefore contextually alcoholic in nature.  What Luke says John did not drink is alcoholic wine.  Whether John didn’t drink non-alcoholic wine is never stated in the Bible anywhere.
~~“But John was a Nazarite and the Nazarite explicitly did not touch anything related to the grape, even the vine.  That’s what Numbers 6 says.”
Numbers 6 does indeed teach that those who took the Nazarite vow were not permitted to eat or drink anything related to grapes.  The Bible nowhere indicates that John took this vow.  That is assumed and put into the verse by a host of people.  I.e. it’s eisegesis.  That John was a Nazarite is not a premise that can be sustained logically from scripture.  Doctrines cannot be based on assumptions and eisegesis.  They can only be sustained based on what the Bible says and implies, on proper conclusions drawn only from the text.
We absolutely know that wine is alcoholic when in the same context as ‘strong drink’.  We know that John explicitly did not drink wine and strong drink, so we know that John did not drink alcoholic wine.  Since it is only explicit that John did not drink alcoholic wine, then it is logical to conclude that Jesus did from Luke 7:34.  If Jesus drank alcoholic wine and Jesus did not sin, then it cannot be a sin to drink alcohol.
=== Affirmative Conclusion ===
That’s it.  That’s all I need to show to prove my premise.  God explicitly says an Israelite had permission to drink alcohol when they came to Jerusalem to worship Him.  Jesus, a Jew, drank alcohol against which there is no prohibition in the Old Testament.
Against these, there is no argument that can be made that does not contradict scripture or the very sinlessness of Jesus.  Yet people since Prohibition at least have attempted to condemn any amount of drinking of alcohol using scripture.  Therefore, I will address each of their arguments below.
== Addressing Negative Arguments ==
Many of the negative arguments at the initial writing of this article are taken from the seminal ascetic book The Bible and “Social” Drinking by W.D. Jeffcoat. (The edition I used is older than the one in this link.)  As I use other arguments or they present themselves not covered in that book, I will add them here and cite them accordingly.
=== Arguments Against Alcohol from External Sources ===
I have long held that using external sources does nothing but muddy the waters.  The church of Christ teaches often that the scriptures alone are the authority for spiritual matters.  We quote verses such as 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and Revelation 22:18-19 to rightly support this idea that only the inspired Word of God should hold any weight with us with regard to sin and our eternal destinations.
Yet far too many do this only as lip service.  The moment they cannot sustain a position from the Bible alone, they seek outside information, help from uninspired sources.  Not only is this hypocritical, it dishonors God.  To seek authority for spiritual matters outside of the Bible when the Bible itself claims that all inspired scripture “thoroughly furnishes us to every good work” is to reject God as the authority altogether.  The person who does this is saying “God, you’re wrong.  The Bible alone is not sufficient.  I need the opinions and perceptions of finite man because your omniscient perspective and divine will is not enough for me”.
~~”But wait, aren’t you an uninspired writer?  How can you argue against using external sources when you are an external source?”
I’m not an authority on anything.  I’m not posing as one or trying to get people to perceive me as one.  I’m just explaining my position according to scripture as best I can.  My website explicitly forbids citing me as an authority on anything, especially if you agree with me.  If my arguments are sound, Biblical arguments (as I believe they are or I would not make them), then people should learn those arguments from scripture and make their case from the Bible...like I’m doing, not quote me as if I’m anything.
In his book, Jeffcoat spends a good eight pages at the beginning of his affirmative case against ‘social drinking’ referencing external authorities.  A massive amount of the whole affirmative argument, even the whole book is based on these external sources and little actual argumentation from the scriptures themselves   Many of the verses quoted are peripheral to the topic and only valuable if the conclusion he wishes his readers to draw is true.  However, he has to assume that it is true first for those verses to be valid since he never actually proves his point from scripture.  He only asserts that he has by the voluminous use of external sources.  That he puts this first, ahead of his Biblical attempt at a defense, and that it takes up the most of his argumentation speaks volumes.
I’m not saying that there aren’t tools for personal study that can be useful.  Translations, lexicons, interlinears, concordances and all that goes into them, for example, are not inspired.  However, they are actually strongly authorized since Jesus and the inspired writers used them (e.g. Septuagint translation of the OT).  What I’m saying is that referring to these tools as if they have any kind of authority on matters is wrong.
What the Greeks and Romans had to say about alcohol is irrelevant.  They had some ‘alternative’ views on theology and homosexuality, but we don’t quote them on those as having spiritual authority over us.  What a medical doctor has to say today is 1900 years or more removed from the writing of the Bible.  How could they possibly be useful in interpreting what God has laid out for us in the everlasting gospel?
I reject all external arguments out of hand and other than this section, will not respond to them in this article.  They are a waste of time and frankly make the person appealing to them look faithless.
=== Arguing Against Alcohol from the Old Testament In General ===
As stated above in the definitions, nobody is under the authority of the Old Testament today.  It has no capacity to condemn anything having been replaced by the new and better law that we call the New Testament.  Even if the Old Testament did condemn any and all use of alcohol and we lived back in that time period, it would not apply to most of us since most of us are not Israelites or Jews in any sense of those words.  What that means is, anyone attempting to condemn someone today for drinking alcohol by appealing to the Old Testament for authority is wrong, even sinful for doing so.  The New Testament is replete with condemnation of attempting to justify oneself by the Old Law.  
* E.g. Galatians 5:4 - “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; you are fallen from grace.”  
That easily eliminates most of the Bible that the ascetic people can appeal to for condemning someone who drinks alcohol.
However, they will invariably go there anyway, so it behooves us to examine the case they make from the Old Testament simply in the interest of being thorough and to show those who are less knowledgeable about such things that the Old Testament authorizes it more obviously than even the New.  The ascetic folks make their case much harder, not easier by appealing to the Old Testament.  As I said above, it is authorized by the New Testament (Romans 15:4) to use the Old Testament for definitions and the like, just not for justification of any actions (like condemning someone for something).  The Old Testament teaches us about things but holds no authority over us in terms of what we must or must not do.  Those who appeal to the Old Testament as a case against alcohol will do so in order to condemn by the Old Testament.  They will do this by only showing part of the picture.  That is dishonest.
~~”Although Jews had the lowest number of abstainers among the groups, they had a very large proportion of light imbibers and the lowest proportion of heavy imbibers.”  (Jeffcoat, pg. 158)
I had to chuckle when I read this.  Perhaps it's because the ‘Jews’ understand what God meant about alcohol and since they respect it, they are the best example of how it should be done.  I mean, if you are going to go with outside, uninspired evidence, this is some powerful stuff, eh?
=== Arguments Against Alcohol from Specific Verses in the Old Testament ===
==== Proverbs 23:31-32 ====
* “Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright.  At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder.”
~~”In the Old Testament the very look of approval upon strong drink is prohibited.”  (Jeffcoat, p144)
Talk about taking something out of context!  Why not use the whole passage about alcohol?  That part about “tarries long at the wine” might give some depth to the meaning of this one verse (because 32 is only included for emotional weight and isn’t actually used in the argument).
Proverbs 23 does not condemn merely looking at wine.  This is such a stupid argument it’s hardly worth addressing, but since it’s actually been made, I must.  If it is sinful to look at wine in the Old Testament, then God made something sinful which is absurdly hard to avoid.  Every Israelite that went to a foreign market or even dinner with foreign dignitaries sinned if there was wine present and they looked at it.  If it is sinful to even look at wine, then no ascetic should ever enter any grocery store ever again because they might look at wine.
Proverbs 23 does not prohibit “the very look of approval upon strong drink”.  The word shekar “strong drink” isn’t in Proverbs 23.  And the phrase “look of approval” is not in verse 31.  This is a blatant example of eisegesis, of someone who has formed a conclusion and then reads into any and every verse whatever is necessary to come to that conclusion.
In the larger context of Proverbs 23, Solomon is urging his son to avoid those who have become enslaved to alcohol.  To those who drink so much they are stumbling about, getting hurt and don’t know how, who stare into their wine because they’re in a daze.  Proverbs 23 is a very good definition of what drunkenness looks like.  It is a very bad place to try and argue that even small amounts of alcohol make you drunk.
==== Proverbs 20:1 ====
* “Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.”
A lot of the commentary I’ve read condemning alcohol refer to this verse, but their use of it is not proper analysis and leans heavily on emotion and requiring the reader to draw the conclusion they want without actually making an argument from this verse.  They assert “But there are also many other passages which condemn the drinking of wine” and list this verse among them (e.g. this article).
Read the verse.  Very carefully.  Does it actually condemn anything?  No.  What does this verse actually say?  It says that wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging.  Perhaps Solomon is writing about unfermented yayin and shekar here since that is so often asserted.  No, these are alcoholic drinks.  But does this verse condemn drinking them?  No.  It’s a warning that says that those who are deceived by these drinks are not wise.  In other words, if these drinks are not used with respect and the users let the drinks take control of them, they are foolish.
This verse cannot be used to condemn drinking alcohol under the Old Testament.
==== Proverbs 31:4,5 ====
* “It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes strong drink: Lest they drink, and forget the law, and pervert the judgment of any of the afflicted.”
~~“See?  Kings aren’t supposed to drink fermented[?] wine and strong drink.  When they do, they could do all kinds of bad stuff.  Surely this passage condemns the use of alcohol”
No.  It doesn’t.  It’s essentially the same as the warning against using alcohol while operating heavy machinery.  Once again, the use of this passage by the ascetic crowd is to not properly analyze the passage, nor use the entirety of the context.
First, this is about kings and princes, particularly when they are involved with executing their office with regard to the law and judgment of the people.  It says nothing of general drinking by the common people in a generic setting.  That there is a specific injunction for rulers executing their office is further indication that there is no general prohibition because if there were, the specific injunction against kings and priests executing their office would be redundant, superfluous.
Second, if we look at the rest of the context, there is a huge problem for those arguing against alcohol from the Old Testament.  
* Proverbs 31:6-7 - “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.”
This verse literally says to give shekar to someone who is dying and oinos to someone who is sad.  Furthermore, of the sad person it is said that the purpose of this oinos is to help him forget his poverty and forget his misery.
~~”But surely you aren’t suggesting giving alcohol to someone right before they die or to someone who is already depressed?!”
No.  I’m not.  The Bible is.  Unless you are prepared to defend that in this context the shekar and oinos are non-alcoholic.  If you do, though, be prepared to address the absurdity of telling kings and princes they can’t have grape juice or to explain the purpose of giving unfermented shekar to a dying man or how grape juice is going to help someone forget their poverty and misery.
~~”Well, this is just medicinal use, though.”
Fair enough.  Next time I’m feeling depressed from all the horrible arguments being made from scripture to support traditional, non-logical interpretations of scripture, you can bring me some ‘medicine’ and help me forget all about it.
==== Leviticus 10:8-10 ====
* “And the Lord spake unto Aaron, saying, Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations:  And that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean;”
Yep, yayin and shekar are alcoholic here, too.  This was another verse listed as “condemning the drinking of wine” in the above article by Jackson.  Once again, though, analysis of the actual verse reveals that it does no such thing.  It is basically a command to Aaron that when the priests go into the tabernacle (and later the temple) they aren’t to drink alcohol.  This is not a general prohibition at all, just like Proverbs 31:4-5.  Asserting that it is, is pure eisegesis.
~~“Yes, but what about that whole holy vs unholy, unclean vs. clean bit?”
Well, what about it?  What is unholy?  It’s something that hasn’t been set apart or sanctified.  Unholy doesn’t equal evil.  It just means common or not set apart.  Same for unclean.  Unclean doesn’t mean evil.  Israelites were considered unclean for a whole host of things.  Women on their period, men who killed another man in self-defense, touching a dead body.  Words have meanings, folks, and there is a precision of meaning that God uses that we can only hope to imitate.
All God is saying here is take extra steps to make sure you are set apart for the specific activities of the priesthood when you show up at the tabernacle/temple.  That’s it.  This verse does not condemn the general use of alcohol.
==== Daniel 1:8 ====
* “But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king's meat, nor with the wine which he drank: therefore he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself.”
~~”See, Daniel would have ‘defiled himself’ if he drank the king’s wine.”
Are you sure this is alcoholic wine?  How do you know?
Yes, it’s alcoholic.  Was the meat alcoholic as well?  No?  Then what about the king’s meat and the wine would have defiled Daniel and his friends?  The context does not tell us.  The Israelites had very strict dietary laws to follow.  To eat the kinds of food that did not follow these dietary laws was to defile one’s self.  The word defile means to make unclean, to take that which is sanctified and make it common again.
There is nothing in this verse that demands the conclusion that they avoided the wine simply because it was alcoholic.  To use this verse as if it does is a huge stretch based on the assumed conclusion.
==== Isaiah 5:22 ====
* “Woe unto them that are mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink:”
The first point to make concerning this verse is that it has no context and it is used that way.  One of the greatest issues in the church with regard to Bible study is the memory verse mentality.  The church has become so used to memorizing single verses out of context, to citing particular verses to support a position, that the average member has little desire to dig deeper or little capacity to understand larger contexts.  They are given a verse, told what it means, and then when they do happen upon the larger context, they interpret the context based on what they’ve been told the one verse means.  Folks, that’s how the man-made denominations do it, how they are made. (John 3:16 anyone?)  Instead of just believing what you are told to, we should be working out our own salvation.
What does this verse actually mean?  Does it condemn the general drinking?  No.  In a similar fashion to Proverbes 23, this is referring to those who are long into their wine.  Mighty or heroic to drink wine, the valiant at mixing strong drink is like the stereotypical frat boy chugging a whole keg at the party to be cool.  This is about those who have made themselves popular because of their drinking.  It’s an extreme look at alcohol drinking, not a condemnation in general.
This verse does not support what it is alleged to support against the drinking of alcohol.
==== Isaiah 28:7 ====
* “But they also have erred through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink, they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way through strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in judgment.”
Another passage about those who are so deep in their cups that they are reeling about, can’t see, and can’t comprehend anything of the world about them properly.  They are “swallowed up of wine”.  They are drunk.  This is obviously sinful under the NT.
This is not the kind of drinking that is being defended.
==== Habakkuk 2:15 ====
“Woe unto him that giveth his neighbour drink, that puttest thy bottle to him, and makest him drunken also, that thou mayest look on their nakedness!”
~~”...even the consumption or intake of light or small quantities of ethyl alcohol as a beverage constitutes a degree of drunkenness or intoxication, which condition is plainly taught in the Bible to be sinful or contrary to the law of God.” (Jeffcoat, pg. 126)
Jeffcoat goes on to cite Hab. 2:15 and a few other verses as evidence of this “plain” teaching.  Except that’s not what this verse is saying at all.  This verse quite obviously has a nefarious context to it.  To the person who gives their neighbor alcohol in order to get them drunk and see them naked.  Nobody is advocating for this in the church.
The context here is giving someone enough alcohol to make them drunk in order to get them naked so you can have sex with them.  This verse is often used piecemeal cutting off after the word “drink”.  They attempt to make it a sin to even offer an alcoholic drink to someone.  Again, this is a dishonest use of the passage, another example where the conclusion is assumed then the passage is wrested in order to fit the conclusion.
=== Arguments Against Alcohol from Specific Verses in the New Testament ===
At last, we come to the only place that a case should even attempt to be made from, the New Testament.  It is the only source of spiritual authority that men are amenable to today.  So let’s take time to examine each verse used to attempt to condemn drinking any amount of alcohol.
They are generally going to be divided into two categories: 1) verses that condemn drunkenness which will then be used to assert that drinking is wrong, 2) verses that are related to drinking implicitly and have to be reasoned from, but that meanings of words are changed or asserted to fit the conclusion rather than drawing meaning from the context.
==== Ephesians 5:18 ====
* “And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the spirit;”
The argument from this verse goes like this:
~~”Two states are being contrasted, being filled with wine and being filled with the Spirit. The point of the contrast is that you cannot have both at once, they are mutually exclusive. You cannot be partially filled with spirits and partially filled with the Spirit.  In essence, the indwelling of the Spirit is connected with the abstinence of liquor.”
Furthermore, a great deal will be made about the “inceptive form” of the verb “drunk” (methuskesthe - a form of methuo).  They argue that the inceptive form means to begin, to start to become, and the like.  This is the verse where they draw their “one drop drunk” idea from.
The first argument is misleading because of the way they deal with the specific words in the text.  They use a kind of bait and switch tactic that ultimately requires them to assert the conclusion first, then argue from the passage as if the conclusion is already true.  The word methuo means “to get drunk”.  It is not the same word as pino which means “to drink” or “to take a liquid in through the mouth”.  Yet they interchange the two actions as if they are the same.
I have no issues with methuo (to get drunk) being inceptive.  Drunk is drunk whether it's a little or a lot.  But drinking alcohol is not automatically the same as being a little drunk.  Drunk is defined by scripture in a very vivid fashion in Proverbs 23.  One glass of wine at dinner does not make a person anything like that.  What the inceptive form is about is drinking to the point that you are starting to get drunk.  Instead of drinking that much, it is better to be overflowing with the spirit of Christ (no, it’s not the Holy Spirit in this passage, but that’s a whole other discussion).  This verse is not about abstinence from liquor or wine.  It’s about the contrast between getting drunk with alcohol or being filled with a Christ-like spirit.  And yes, those two things are mutually exclusive.
==== One drop drunk ====
I want to take a moment to address this idea of one drop drunk.  Since this is the verse they draw the idea from, this is a good place to do so.  It is important to note first of all that the arguments that center around this concept are all bait and switch tactics between the words drink and drunk.  It doesn’t help that those two are one letter apart and in one sense, drunk is the past tense of drink in the English language.
~~”When persons imbibe any amount of alcoholic drinks, according to the definition of the biblical term methusko and the determinations of medical science, they are softened, intoxicated, and drunk to that degree.  (Jeffcoat, pg. 97)
The argument says that any amount of alcohol makes a person that much drunk because the effects of alcohol are immediate.  What this argument first ignores is the Biblical picture of drunkenness.  Nobody is stumbling around, mumbling their words, bleary eyed and getting hurt without knowing it after one sip of wine.  There is a fast and loose running with definitions here, an imprecision that lends itself to confusion on the matter because they assume what they haven’t proved and then tie that in with uninspired “science” that supports their foregone conclusion.
First, the word methusko does not mean one drop drunk.  In its inceptive form, it means the point at which a person begins to become drunk.  It is assumed by the ascetic folk that this is with the first drop, but that is simply not the case.  Jeffcoat refers to the “definition of the biblical term methusko” and then doesn’t use the biblical definition of the word.  Proverbs 23 is what drunk looks like and one drop of alcohol does not make a person look like that to any extent.
Second, they bring in this word “intoxicated” because toxic is bad, right?  They use a modern word to obscure and blur lines.  They want us to believe that taking in any amount of a toxic substance is bad. Except in doing this, they make their position even more absurd.  If intoxicated means simply drunk, fine, then it means drunk and then we are back to Proverbs 23.  If it means to take any amount of toxic substance, they better go back and examine every bit of food they take into their bodies because a vast majority of it contains toxins.  The city water contains toxins.  Vaccines contain mercury, murdered baby tissue, animal tissue, and other toxic substances.  Food contains pesticides, genetic modification, sugar, gluten, and a host of other allergy-causing, toxic substances.  If any amount of toxic substance in the body is sinful, then they have a lot of repenting to do.  Which brings me to my last point.
The absurdity of this argument is analogous to saying that one bite of food makes you one bite gluttonous.  Yes, I know, the effects of food are not equal to the effects of alcohol, but neither is drunkenness equal to gluttony.  It’s an analogy, not an equation, and it is one that the Bible draws a number of times.  If one drop of alcohol causes one degree of drunkenness, even though it's not observable, then one bite of food is one degree into gluttony.  The extremes of drunkenness and gluttony, especially the control aspect that they each have over the sinner, are so closely related that they are often found together in scripture.  E.g. Luke 7:34-35; Deut. 21:20; Prov. 23:21.
I was actually in a discussion with an elder one time before I got excommunicated from that congregation. He actually had the audacity to answer ‘yes’ when I asked him “if one drop of alcohol makes you one drop drunk, does one bite of food make you one bite gluttonous?”  The ascetics are so willing to defend their position that they will explicitly affirm these absurdities their position demands!  (The elder is dead now, but there were plenty of witnesses who still live for those who think in their heart that I’m a liar.)
==== 1 Corinthians 6:15-20 ====
“The Bible teaches that it is contrary to the law of God to abuse or harm the human body.” (Jeffcoat, pg 102)  cf. Rom. 12:1; 1 Cor. 3:16; 10:31
This is a short response here because I wrote a whole article about how 1 Corinthians 6 is grossly misinterpreted.  It has no relation to the human body and so does not demand the conclusion Jeffcoat and others have reached from it.
==== Romans 12:1 ====
This verse does not teach anything about abusing or harming the human body.  That is eisegesis applied into this verse.
==== 1 Corinthians 3:16 ====
Like 1 Corinthians 6, Paul is talking about the collective church as the body of Christ, not the individual body.
==== 1 Corinthians 10:31 ====
This verse is applied completely out of context and has no bearing on abuse or harm of the human body. But when you are desperate to prove a point, any port in the storm, eh?
There is more to this point, though.  The Bible does not make ‘abuse’ or ‘harm’ of the human body sinful.  In fact, these terms are not even defined and so we don’t really know what Jeffcoat means by them.  I “abuse” my body when I work out.  Harm is done every time I do any strenuous activity.  When I played football in high school and for a short stint in college, people got hurt all the time.  Is it a sin to play football?  This is the absurdity the position leads to when trying so hard to make a point that blinders prevent seeing all the implications of a statement while trying to prove a point.
But let’s examine the consistency for a moment of this statement.  The New Testament clearly says that physical circumcision isn’t a thing anymore.  God does not command it under the NT and the circumcision that takes place in this nation today is far more extensive than the OT circumcision (see Michaelangelo’s David for an example of what OT circumcision physically looks like).  This is abuse and harmful to the baby’s body to the point that at best it leads to a lifetime of discomfort, desensitization (which is the point), and disease.  At worst, babies have died, lost the organ altogether, or been severely deformed.  How many of you ascetic people will stop abusing your children?
The last point to make in regarding alcohol and supposed harm to the body is that these same people argue that alcohol is okay in moderation if used as medicine.  Let that sink in for a moment.  The same stuff that is harmful to you if you drink even one drop of it “socially” is supposed to help heal you when taken medically.  One drop drunk is by far the most asinine of the arguments against alcohol.
==== Romans 14:21 ====
“It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.”
~~“If it were not contrary to the divine law of God to privately imbibe light or small quantities of alcoholic beverages1, the Bible clearly indicates dangers which are prevalent with “social” drinking.  [...] The text indicates that to eat with offense is to eat under circumstances which cause persons to stumble.  There is very little danger today that eating meat will cause persons to stumble, but by “social” drinking individuals may lead others to also violate the law of God.”
1Dedicated Christians believe that it is contrary to the law of God to imbibe such beverages, even in a private setting.  (Jeffcoat, pg. 117)
Begging the question and No True Scotsman fallacies.  First, they say “even if it’s not a sin, if someone sees you drink alcohol they may drink alcohol and see, you’ve caused them to sin.”  Except that in your scenario, you’ve allowed that it isn’t a sin.  If it’s not a sin for me to drink “socially” and someone see me do it and they drink “socially”, then what’s the problem?
But the footnote adds, as every good Scotsman knows, drinking is sinful, so there!  (The irony here is simply too rich to fathom.)
This argument also takes the verse completely out of context.  Paul is not writing about eating meat or drinking alcohol (how do we know its alcoholic, by the way?) based on intrinsic properties of the meat/wine.  If so, eating meat would still be a problem today for the same reason the wine is.  However, since the main reason Paul is warning about this is how those things relate to idol worship, it puts this verse in a whole new light.  Paul is saying that, normally, it’s okay to eat meat and drink wine, even if offered to idols.  (See my commentary on 1 Corinthians 8)  But because of idols and those coming out of pagan worship, be careful that you aren’t using your liberty to purposefully cause a weaker Christian to sin by returning to that practice.  Don’t be like “hey, look you former pagan now Christian guy, I’m eating meat and drinking wine offered to your former fake deity!”
What’s the implication here?  It’s intrinsically okay to eat meat and drink wine (which the ascetic people acknowledge is alcoholic because that fits their narrative).  This passage doesn’t condemn the drinking of alcohol in moderation today.  It supports it.
Also, vegans.
==== 1 Corinthians 5:11; 1 Corinthians 6:10-11 ====
These verses clearly say avoid drunkards and that drunkenness is a sin.  I wholeheartedly concur.
These verses do not state or imply that one drop, one cup, or any amount of alcohol makes you that much drunk, which is what the ascetic folks assume when trying to apply these verses when arguing against moderate drinking.  It’s called begging the question.
Moving on.
==== Sobriety and Restraint ====
(Jeffcoat, pg. 120) 
This argument is simply more of the one drop drunk argument in a different guise.  It basically argues that sobriety - which is definitely commanded - equals abstinence (which never is).  Furthermore, they use the term sober in the modern sense of the word and in so doing, remove it from the actual meaning as used in scripture.  Nepho is about the calmness and watchfulness a city watchman has making his rounds.  It is used opposite of anxiety and being distracted by worry.  Nepho is only very loosely related to the idea of not being drunk and so the ascetic use of it as absolute abstinence is incorrect.  Sophroneo is about being serious and clear-headed opposite of being controlled by passion, as Paul put it in 2 Cor. 5:13 existēmi -- beside ourselves with excitement, or in one case opposite of being demon possessed.  Alcohol is not within the context of these verses.
In 1 Thess. 5:6-8, Paul writes that the church at Thessolonica needed to be nepho instead of asleep, girded up for war instead of unprepared.  In 2 Tim. 4:5, Paul warns Timothy to be watchful and endure whatever comes.  This is the same guy who Paul encouraged to medicate with alcohol.   1 Pet. 1:13; 4:7; and 5:8 are all about vigilance.  Point being, the word sober isn’t directly about whether one is using alcohol or not.  Yes, I get what they say about needing to not be drunk to be watchful.  Certainly a drunk preacher isn’t going to be listened to.  But they just assume the conclusion that any amount of alcohol makes you suddenly not sober.  The irrationality of this position is that Timothy, the young preacher, could still be effective while taking alcohol as medication, but taking that same amount socially renders him suddenly ineffective.  The intent of the imbibing doesn’t change the effects of the imbibing.  Whether he was taking alcohol for the stomach or to forget his worries Proverbs 31:6-7 style or even just to be merry in celebration according to Psalm 104:15 and Deut. 14:26, taking that amount of alcohol was authorized by Paul and he was still considered sober, vigilant, effective as a preacher.
The argument that even a little amount of alcohol makes you not sober is simply not Biblical.  It’s eisegesis.
=== So-Called Implicit Arguments Against Alcohol ===
==== Law of Self Denial ====
Matt. 16:24 - “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.”
~~”The self to be denied is the carnal nature, whose desires come often into conflict with the spiritual nature.  The desire for ethyl alcohol is the desire for that which the human system does not need, and which it cannot receive without detrimental effects.”  (Jeffcoat, pg. 130)
Unless it’s received as medicine.
The argument from this law of self-denial is an absurd law used the way they want to use it, and of course they are still assuming the thing they are trying to prove, which is that drinking alcohol to any extent is sinful [unless it’s medicine, then it’s great].  They say "I can’t follow spiritual desires if any physical desires are getting in the way so I have to cast off, completely abstain from any physical desires if they could even possibly have a small chance of interfering with spiritual things or harming 'the temple of God' (which they think is the ever dying human body)."  That’s their position.  Total abstinence if there’s even a chance. 
Monks.  Basically, we have to become monks.
Let’s examine their consistency:
* People are tempted to skip worship because of football.  They should give up football.
* People drink soda.  The desire for soda is the desire for that which the human system does not need, and which it cannot receive without detrimental effects.  No medical use whatsoever.
* America is obviously tempted by food.  Christians should give up food.
* People like sex.  Christians especially seem to like sex.  See the large families.  But the desire for sex can lead to sin.  Christians should stop having sex.
This is a silly position that doesn’t properly interpret Jesus statement.  Jesus is not saying that self is sinful. Jesus is not saying that any and all physical desires are inherently wrong.  His statement is akin to the statement He made about hating father mother brother sister wife or children to become His disciple (Luke 14:26).  God designed us with physical desires.  It is when those desires interfere with our spiritual well-being that we should give them up.  If I can have sex with my wife and not allow sex to rule me or cause me to sin, then sex is fine.  If I can eat certain foods that I really like without them causing me to become gluttonous, then I can eat those foods.  If I can drink alcohol and not become drunk, then that’s fine too.  As I’ve already shown, drunkenness according to scripture is very precisely defined and one drink of alcohol, even “modern” alcohol does not make a person fit that definition (Prov. 23).
Denying myself to follow Jesus does not require me to stop drinking alcohol if I can drink without sinning.
Jeffcoat and his disciples argue that we should not take into our bodies anything our bodies do not need, and which has a detrimental effect on the health of the body.  You mean like sodas?  This erroneous idea stems from their idea that the human body is the temple of God, which I address in this article and above. 
We take stuff into our bodies all the time that our bodies don’t need and have a detrimental effect.  Candy, cake, donuts, coffee (yes, I went there).  This isn’t the litmus test.  It’s when those things control us, make us sin that they become something to abstain from.  An alcoholic should not drink alcohol because it will control them and keep them from God.  A person can drink alcohol without it ever controlling them and without ever becoming drunk.  That kind of person can drink alcohol in moderation without sin.  Just don’t hand the bottle over to the alcoholic or drink in front of them knowing that they struggle with it.
==== Law of Avoidance of Temptation ====
Matt. 26:41 - “Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation.” 
~~”temptations, allurements on the side of pleasure which tend to lead us into evil.”  (Jeffcoat, pg. 132)
~~”[The Lord] forbids persons to cross the threshold of temptation.”  (Jeffcoat, pg. 132)
This ascetic argument is absurd because it makes the very state of being tempted to sin sinful.  This is the essence of Pharisaism condemned by Jesus, taking the Word of God a step further than God Himself went in order to condemn.  Their position again makes Jesus a sinner because, in Matthew 4, Jesus was “led up of the spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.”  He was tempted not once, but three times!  That means, if the ascetics are right, Jesus sinned not once, but three times!
What Jesus is telling His disciples is to watch and pray so that they don’t give into temptations that were about to slam them in the next few hours and for the rest of their lives as apostles.  He is not telling them “watch and pray that you be not tempted.”
This idea of “better safe than sorry” has become “if you don’t abstain from things that can even lead to sin, you sin”.  Great, so the glutton should abstain from food lest the food tempts them and even if they deny the temptation, they’ve sinned because they were tempted.  Worse, it puts them in a catch-22 because not eating harms their temple-body, which is also sinful.  Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
The man tempted by sex should never get married (or even walk into public where women may be dressed in a way he finds attractive) because he may be tempted to have sex, which can lead to sin, so it’s sinful.
Every individual should remove themselves permanently from every other individual, create their own little hut in a secluded area, grow their own food, read their Bibles and die.  It is the only possible application of the law that completely removes them from the sin of being tempted.
==== Law of Love ====
Rom. 13:10 - “Love worketh no ill to his neighbor, therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.” 
~~”If persons are to deny their own sinful desires, they are to be equally careful not to excite or minister to such desires in others.  If persons are to be careful that they do not enter into temptation, they are to be of the same concern not to lead others into it.  No doubt this law is in no way more often or more flagrantly violated then [sic] by setting bad examples before others!  LIkewise, no example is more pernicious than that of persons who imbibe alcoholic beverages, even in what is commonly referred to as “moderation”. (Jeffcoat, pg. 133)
The short version of this goes something like this:  Drinking alcohol is sinful.  Since drinking alcohol is sinful, you should avoid drinking alcohol because you might also cause someone else to drink alcohol, which is sinful for them, too.  Therefore, drinking alcohol is sinful.
Like every single one of their arguments, they assume the conclusion then try to prove the conclusion by using verses out of context based on the conclusion already being true.  If the conclusion isn’t true (which they never actually prove from scripture), then none of this applies.  Me drinking alcohol isn’t a bad example to others because drinking isn’t sinful.  Since drinking isn’t sinful in and of itself (see my first arguments from Deut. 14 and Luke 7 above), then all this is moot.
They have to prove first that drinking in moderation is sinful.  They have not done it with any arguments to date and cannot do so from scripture.
==== Law of Perfection ====
Matt. 5:48 - “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” 
~~”’Ye therefore shall be perfect,’ is grammatically in the future tense but the force is that of an imperative.”  (Jeffcoat, pg. 136)
~~”There term ‘perfect’ must not be taken in the sense of either possessing all the perfections of God or of attaining sinless perfection, for to claim the former is blasphemy and to claim the latter is to make God a liar. … Sinlessness is not attainable on earth, but those who would honor God must determine to constantly follow after it.  Those who defend the intake of alcoholic beverages, even in privacy, under the guise that it is not wrong because they are not influencing other persons to so do, are not following after this noble goal!”  (Jeffcoat, pg. 136)
I want to address first the cancer in the church that is the denominational idea that we cannot attain perfect sinlessness in this life.  I wrote a whole article on it, but it bears repeating in short.  Either Christ makes us sinless or He does not.  Either we mature and sin less, or we do not grow at all.  Christ was our sinless example or He was no example at all.  Either God gives commands we can actually obey, or His commands are unjust and our striving is in vain.  No faithful Christian can be Biblically called a sinner.  That’s what the denominations do because of Calvin.  We ought to know better.  We ought to be better.  There is more to this, but I point you to the full article in the interest of focus here.
Now, as to perfection and alcohol.  As before, they assume the conclusion then use that to arrive at the conclusion.  If drinking alcohol is not sinful, then one can drink alcohol and still be sinless.  Since the ascetics have not ever actually proved drinking a moderate amount of alcohol is sinful, these types of arguments are pointless.
Also, I refuse to let them frame the argument by picturing those who drink as people hiding in the shadows of their own home fearing to ‘influence’ others by their drinking.  If it’s not sinful, there is no reason to hide, no reason generally to worry about influence.  I can’t influence someone to sin if what I’m doing is not sin.
=== Arguments Against Alcohol from Revelation ===
Don’t.  Just don’t.  You don’t understand the book at all.  Until you do, just don’t go to Revelation to try and prove anything.  You aren’t capable of using the book in anything resembling a proper manner.
=== Negative Conclusion ===
Throughout the arguments presented by Jeffcoat and the ascetics, they have attempted to prove that drinking any amount of alcohol is sinful.  They have appealed to uninspired sources, which have no bearing on spiritual matters.  They have appealed to the Old Testament in terms of both definitions (acceptable hermeneutics but poorly done) and legality (we are not under the Old Testament today and Gentiles never were).  They have appealed to the New Testament, wresting the definitions of words and inferring things the text never implies, imputing their conclusion into the text in an attempt to draw that conclusion back out.
In all of their efforts, they have not ever proved the thing they are trying to prove.  Moreover, in going too far to prove the unprovable, they have condemned Jesus himself, made hypocrites of themselves, and have presented a case on a simple subject that requires three doctorate degrees to understand.  The common man does not have to read the Bible in such a twisted manner to understand what God said.  This isn’t apocalyptic texts.  This is wine.  Understanding should be easy and straightforward.  But the ascetics present a case that makes one think that without them and modern science, we could not understand what God intended us to understand about alcohol.  This clergy-laity mentality is what led to the heresy that is the Catholic church.
== Other Common Biblical Considerations ==
=== John 2 - Water to Wine at a Wedding ===
“1 And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: 2 And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. 3 And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. 4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. 5 His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. 6 And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. 7 Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. 8 And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it. 9 When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, 10 And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now. 11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.”
I have seen a lot of arguments on both sides of this event and to date, I’ve not seen one that properly addresses what actually happened here.  Both sides have made assumptions and so the arguments made for and against using this text are less than stellar.
The story is a familiar one.  Jesus and His mom are at a wedding in Cana when they run out of wine.  I’ll deal with what kind of wine in a minute.  Mary asks Jesus to help out so Jesus turns water in six huge waterpots into wine.  The MC of the party doesn’t know where the wine came from but when he drinks it, he is impressed.  He says, in effect, “usually people start with the good stuff and then when everybody generally has had enough, the cheap stuff comes out for the stragglers and slowpokes.
Now, to the type of wine.  The focus here is the immediate context first, specifically what the ‘governor’ of the feast said and the reality of what happened.  When we consider that the typical practice was to bring out the good wine first and then the cheap stuff later, we get a big indication as to the nature of the wine.  The natural understanding of this is alcoholic wine.  It’s a celebration.  To argue that this is grape juice is to again assert the conclusion first then try to draw that conclusion back out.  Why is it the natural understanding, though?  Because only when folks have had some alcohol have their tastebuds been dulled enough not to be able to tell the difference.  Don’t worry, this dulling of tastebuds doesn’t bring a person to a Proverbs 23 definition of drunk.  It can happen at the medication level of 1 Tim. 5:23 and even Proverbs 31:6-7.  Grape juice doesn’t do this and so people can tell the difference still between expensive grape juice (Welch’s?) and the cheap knockoff store-brand.  Try it some time.  Drink a whole bottle of Welch’s then take a sip of the Walmart brand.
Keep in mind that this is discussing what typically happens at a wedding, not what happened at this wedding.  The ascetics will try to argue to extremes here by saying that we are arguing that everybody got sloshed then Jesus makes a beer run to add to the problem.   The ascetic assertion about this is not a description of what actually happens with Jesus there, nor even what typically happens.  Neither is the ascetic assertion that this is about grape juice.  So what really happened?
The wedding at Cana turns out to be a bigger affair than the MC planned and he runs out of wine early.  We know this because the guests were still wanting wine.  They had not “well drunk” as the KJV says because there wasn’t enough.  So the typical way it goes described by the MC isn’t even what is happening.  Then, Jesus makes some high-quality wine and saves the party, much like the celebration that went on in Deut. 14:26 when people came to worship God (except there they had shekar, too).  Nowhere is it stated or implied in this context that there was drunkenness, that anybody sinned.  It has been the case that people throughout the ages understand this passage naturally to be alcoholic wine and it is only through the prohibition-minded wresting of the scriptures and denominational eisegesis that we get only grape juice out of this.
John notes that this is the first miracle Jesus does to “manifest forth His glory”.
== Final Conclusion ==
The case in favor of alcohol being authorized is simple, straightforward, and only required two passages without rambling explanations or any appeals to uninspired man, emotional pleading, juvenile “tricks” and bait-and-switch tactics with the meanings of words and contexts.  The case is obvious.  
Moderate, responsible drinking is authorized.  
A liberty that these ascetics are attempting to take away out of a misguided understanding of the nature of authority or out of a sense of the need to control others.  It has caused division in the church that is not based on scripture but on the American Prohibition era (also a denominational construct).  It’s time to throw off this denominational baggage and unify as commanded in 1 Cor. 1:10 in the Truth of God’s Word.
In Truth and Love.