Some of the Hebrew and Greek terms translated “wine” are generic terms for a range of products, both fermented and unfermented. So “wine” is also a generic term. Perhaps Jesus did not use the term “wine” when referring to the Passover cup, but rather “fruit of the vine,” in order to avoid ambiguity.
Also, I have never referenced any official “sanctions” on Christians, although there were on Levitical priests and Nazarites.
**SHAKAR/SHECHAR/SHEKAR**
Patton
…Kitto’s Cyclopaedia says: “Shakar is a generic term, including palm-wine and other saccharine beverages, except those prepared from the vine.”
……
Shakar (sometimes written shechar, shekar) signifies sweet drink expressed from fruits other than the grape, and drunk in an ***unfermented or fermented ***state. It occurs in the Old Testament twenty-three times. Lev. 10:9; Num. 6:3 (twice wine and vinegar),. 28:7; Deu. 14:26; Deu. 29:6; Jdg. 13:4; Jdg. 13:7; Jdg. 13:14; 1Sa. 1:15; Psa. 69:12; Pro. 20:1; Pro. 31:4; Pro. 31:6; Isa. 5:11; Isa. 5:22; Isa. 24:9; Isa. 28:7; Isa. 29:9; Isa. 56:12; Mic. 2:11. Shakar is uniformly translated strong drink in the Authorized Version, except in Num. 28:7 (strong wine), and in Psa. 69:12, where, instead of drinkers of shakar, the Authorized Version reads drunkards.
(There are several pages on this.)
Bacchiocchi
Deuteronomy 14:22-26
The Nature of the Problem. It must be admitted that the text in question poses a problem, since it appears to grant God’s permission to those traveling to the sanctuary from distant places presumably to spend part of their tithe money to purchase not only food (“oxen, or sheep”) but also “wine or strong drink” (v. 26). The word “strong drink” renders the Hebrew noun shekar, a term which is used 23 times in the Old Testament. With the exception of its usage in Deuteronomy 14:26 and possibly in a couple of other texts,2 shekar denotes an intoxicating beverage disapproved by God. Proverbs 20:1, for example, condemns “strong drink” (shekar) as a “brawler.” Similarly, Isaiah pronounces a “woe” upon “those who rise early in the morning, that they may run after strong drink [shekar ]” (Is 5:11). “Strong drink” is also prohibited, together with wine, to the priests (Lev 10:9- 11) and to the Nazarites (Num 6:2-4; Jud 13:3-5). In view of the overwhelming divine disapproval of the use of “wine and strong drink,” how can we explain the apparent sanction of their use at the annual harvest festival described in Deuteronomy 14:26?
….
The adjective “strong,” though consistently used in conjunction with shekar, is not part of the word itself, but an added word. This gives the false impression to a modern reader that people drank distilled liquor in Old Testament times. This is obviously wrong because the process of distilling alcohol did not develop until around A.D. 500. Isaiah 24:9 suggests that shekar in the Old Testament was a beverage valued because of its sweetness, a quality which disappears as the sugar is converted into alcohol.
……
Teachout bases his conclusion on textual and contextual considerations. Textually he notes that the word shekar, like yayin, “can refer to grape juice as well as to wine (cf. Deut 29:6; Num 28:7; Ex 29:40).”7 The verb shakar, which is etymologically related to the noun shekar, means primarily “to drink deeply,” as indicated by its usage in Haggai 1:5-6 and Song of Solomon 5:1.8 Thus the idea of drunkenness is not the innate meaning of the noun or verb, but is determined by its context and the beverage being imbibed.
Contextually, Teachout argues convincingly that “the context demands this understanding, since it specifically indicates that the beverage was to be imbibed ‘before the Lord.’ In order to be able to rejoice properly before the Lord over what He has provided, one would have to be sober. Since God had explicitly denied intoxicants (on pain of death—Lev 10:9) to the priests serving in His presence, it would be totally out of character for God to command the use of these same intoxicants by the worshippers in one of their infrequent appearances before Him, especially when they were in the company of those priests.
“The context also suggests very strongly that only fresh juice is in view in verse 26 in light of the preceding verses. In verse 23 it is clear that all who come to this harvest festival will be bringing and drinking tirosh not yayin. Whereas yayin can be legitimately considered to be a somewhat ambiguous term (referring to either fresh juice or fermented wine depending on the context), tirosh only refers to fresh grape juice in every one of its 38 occurrences in the Old Testament. [Cf. page 83, footnote 1.]
“The beverage to be consumed by those at the festival who were near enough to bring their tithe of the harvest is explicitly restricted to fresh grape juice. Therefore, it seems most inappropriate to assume that those who were so far away that they needed to exchange their tithes for money were free to buy and drink fermented wine instead. At a harvest feast the appropriate drink would be a fresh beverage. Thus both the nature of the festival and the participation of the priests (verse 29) would indicate the freshness of the beverage in verse 26.”9
……
Fermented or Unfermented? The last quotation is an example of the prevailing assumption that shekar was an intoxicating beverage, especially since in the overwhelming majority of its Old Testament occurrences, it denotes an intoxicating beverage which God disapproves. This assumption is not accurate, however, because, like yayin (“wine”), shekar is a generic term that could refer either to a sweet, unfermented beverage as suggested by Isaiah 24:9, or to a fermented, intoxicating beverage as indicated in most other instances (Prov. 20:1; 31:4-6; Is. 56:12).
……
In his* Analytical Concordance of the Bible*, Robert Young expresses the view that shekar denotes a beverage that is either fermented or unfermented. Under “strong drink” Young defines shekar as “Sweet drink (what satiates or intoxicates), shekar.”18 This definition indicates that shekar can either satiate (fully satisfy) or intoxicate, depending on the nature of the drink. After listing twenty-one Old Testament references, he gives the Greek word sikera, indicating also that it may or may not be fermented: “Sweet drink (often fermented), sikera; shekar Hebrew.”19
….
Survival of Shekar. Several standard English dictionaries and Bible encyclopedias derive our English words **“sugar” **and “cider” from the Hebrew shekar. If this is true, which seems most plausible, it would support the hypothesis that originally shekar denoted a beverage noted for its sweetness. It is hard to imagine that the word “sugar” could have derived from a term originally associated with an alcoholic beverage having practically no sugar content nor sweet taste. The Popular and Critical Bible Encyclopedia provides a concise and yet comprehensive description of the derivatives of shekar in numerous languages. In its first definition of “strong drink—shekar,” it says: “(1) Sweet Wine or Syrup. Shechar, luscious, saccharine drink or sweet syrup, especially sugar or honey of dates or of the palm-tree (debash) . . . It seems more probable, however, that the palm syrup or honey denoted by shay-kawr, A Look at Some Misunderstood Passages 200 was used both as a sweetmeat or article of food, and as a drink , like the Hebrew sobhe and the Roman sapa (boiled wine), diluted with water, as with the modern grape and honey syrups or sherbets (Prov 9:2, 5). The derivatives of shechar, expressive of its first signification, are numerous…
(There are many pages on this.)
I have a question. We can find Baptists, Seven Day Adventists and even a Muslim, that sides with the “two-wine” theory (here on this thread). But we also know this: A good chunk of the bible, consists of the Old Testament. Can you produce any Jewish Rabbis, that side with this theory 
From Bacchiocchi, Chapter 2:
(There are other rabbis and rabbinical literature mentioned throughout the book.)
You maybe have not specifically used the words “sanctions” but how is that or similar implications NOT the case as per your main focus as suggested it your OP? As per…
“we also consider the high calling God has placed on kings, priests, and Christians.”
Hermano… how are you not binding “kings, priests, and Christians” under the one sanction, ban, prohibition or obligation? THIS CLEARLY is the focus and force of your entire OP; you leave little room for any “ambiguity” on this.
Yes I doubt most here have any issue agreeing with this conclusion.
Perhaps or perhaps not is no rational argument, either way. You have however by strong negative implications cast aspersions against “Christians” imbibing of “the fruit of the vine” (in whatever way you designate that) and attempted to use Scripture to back this up, AND THAT seems to me a complete overreach considering Jesus himself produced that very product for consumption at Cana. Not only that, but the text suggests Jesus did nothing by halves in bringing the very best of quality wine… again, however it is one chooses to define said wine.
So again, IF one chooses at a personal level on the basis of Levite, Nazarite or Rechabite standards, or by whatever other imprecations, to live an alcohol-free life that’s fine. However, it is quite another to covertly or overtly, manipulate others via a sense of guilt or apparent Christian obligation to thereby reframe from such, i.e., such is an overreach and wholly unjustifiable.
Again I draw you back to the fact that your position against “wine” consumption MUST be consistent to include ANY grape product given that YOUR position as you yourself have acknowledged in many statements here… “I argue that this is so because in the Scriptures, “wine” is a generic term, including both alcoholic, and non-alcoholic varieties.” THEREFORE… Christians who partake thereof are as wrong to do so, as was Jesus, IF one is consistent, for making the same.
One final note… I have Kitto’s massive 3 volume tome ‘Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature’ and in his 5-page excursion (p. 1108-1112) into “Wine” in the Bible, he writes of his own position on this matter right at the start, thus…
“The writer, a total abstainer for many years, is fully persuaded that the theory or practice of total abstinence has no legitimate connection with the investigation in hand.” (emphasis mine)
davo said:
Thanks davo… That seems to be the realistic response to Christians (or anyone ) partaking in alcoholic drinks. 
We really have to ask (from the abstainers point of view) what we do with the drug addict, and other gluttonish (is that a word) behavior that we all are prone to? Our focus must be to help those who are adversely affected by it as opposed to making blanket statements in hopes of easily riding ourselves of problem people around us… When those problem folks may well be our place of mission.
Just a thought… Let me know what you think David
Yes Chad… I’m afraid religianity by its very nature fosters a “them / us” mentality and the only variance is the particular rule excluding one from true membership of the inner circles. 
My position is not against all wine products, only those of the alcoholic variety. As is still the case today, the people in Bible times recognized the difference between a fermented and an unfermented drink, in the context of their daily lives. Those two drinks certainly taste, and affect us, in distinctly different ways.
As a new Christian I came to concede, through ample and varied evidence (similar to what I have shared in my essay and references above), that Jesus never made or served alcohol. My certainty has only grown stronger over the years.
The truth sets people free. If, after consideration of the evidence of my argument, you can enjoy alcohol for the glory of God, *“go for it,” *(he said, unenthusiastically).
But if you are struggling about alcohol usage, and can come to see the truth that both fermented and unfermented juice in the Bible are being referred to as “wine,”–well, there is great freedom there! Now you enjoy knowing that God is not contradicting Himself when you read both warnings against “wine” (that “in the end it bites like a snake and stings like a viper”), and yet also that Jesus created “wine” for a wedding celebration.
God never condemns us, and that is certainly not my intention here, either 
. I am calling people to a (re)consideration of the evidence of unfermented “wine.” Of course, absolutely, I am trying to convince you of my viewpoint. I am trying to point people to the higher calling of being filled with the Holy Spirit instead of with alcohol.
Blessings.
First of all, there is a bit of evidence that Christ turned water into wine, and a very good variety at that. Those who were at the wedding were partaking in a very liberal manner. And Christ supplied them with a very good wine that was better than they had previously partaken of.
Let’s let it go at that.
Let’s enjoy and be grateful.
Ok fair enough… I still do not think you can claim you’ve made a decent case for where there is biblical disapproval of alcoholic consumption per se. WHERE the bible DOES indicate something is in the area of OVER consumption; but one does NOT equate to the other… and THAT is where I find you are stretching credulity.
But WHERE is THIS “calling” in Scripture? It doesn’t exist. You are misreading and thereby misrepresenting the likes of Paul’s — “And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation; but be filled with the Spirit…” There is ample evidence chiding OVER consumption i.e., drunkenness, BUT THAT is NO injunction against alcohol; to conflate one with the other seems at best disingenuous or at worst dishonest, and any fair reading of Scripture shows this; that’s the point I’m making.
Now whether someone chooses to drink alcohol or not is THEIR business; and yes the likes of Paul’s injunction in Gal 5:13 does carry weight with regards to ANY behavioural condition, should others be looking up to us by way of example — again, in any area of life. But this is a far cry from some supposed biblically warranted prohibition against the consumption of alcohol.
It should be noted that the “two-wine” position, is a minority position…among mainline Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or Protestant Churches…and among any Christian, academic professor of theology, philosophy or some branch of science…But I respect anyone’s right, to side with the “two-wine” position.
I am not speaking of imposed prohibitions. We Christians are under grace, not law. We are to listen to and obey the inner voice of the Holy Spirit, not external rules and regulations.
**I) ** Fermented “wine” (by context):
-“Wine IS a mocker, beer IS a brawler.” Prov. 21.
-“Do not [even] GAZE at wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup, when it goes down smoothly! In the end it bites like a snake and poisons like a viper.” Prov. 23.
(I argue passages like these are warning of the seductive, deleterious nature of alcohol, and not just about the quantity of alcohol consumed.)
II) Unfermented, recently harvested, “wine” (by context):
*
The LORD has sworn by his right hand and by his mighty arm: “Never again will I give your grain as food for your enemies, and never again will foreigners drink the new wine for which you have toiled; but those who harvest it will eat it and praise the LORD, and those who gather the grapes will drink it in the courts of my sanctuary.”* Is. 62:8-9.
Again, as to our liberty in Christ,
-“It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother or sister to fall.” Rom 14:21.
-*“I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but not everything is constructive. * 1 Cor. 10:23.
Blessings.
Let’s look at a few of Solomon’s proverbial sayings… (NASB)
Pro 21:17 He who loves pleasure will become a poor man; He who loves wine and oil will not become rich.
Pro 21:20 There is precious treasure and oil in the dwelling of the wise, But a foolish man swallows it up.
So not only do I not find BEER (or the term brawler?) in proverbs 21 but we see that Solomon kind of stumbles over himself as to the oil that was linked to the wine. I assume there is a little mistake in the actual verse you were wanting to quote.
And we can start an argument about the first half of Pro 21:17 in that 'He who loves pleasure will become a poor man. Wow 
I would say Christ was all about Joy and fulfillment and peace. Both to those first fruit saints who endured incredible hardships and to us, who inherit the legacy and understanding of the Gospel message.
Christ set people free. Free from the sin curse that plagued Israel, and freed us in our ability to love and serve and not hold things against our neighbor.
Truly Good News.
That’s fair enough… I can only conclude that in the Spirit’s wisdom the Spirit speaks to some (not all) for within whom need that protecting guidance; as for others (not all), at least in the area of consumption thereof, less so, because for them it is not a weakness. So in that sense it must be horses for courses.
Again Hermano, the ONLY “seductive, deleterious nature” to be found in “wine” is its OVER CONCUMPTION! You cannot use the likes of Prov 20:1 et al as a carte blanch sweeping statement against partaking of alcoholic beverages. It ALWAYS comes down to the amount consumed; and OVER consumption is where the bible speaks in terms of “mocking” and “brawling” etc… that’s logical common sense.
One other thing I’d like to clear up from your OP which really is the nub of your argument that I find questionable. You state…
With regards to the meaning of “wine” your position posits it equally… “whether fermented or unfermented(6).” — I agree 100%.
But you go onto say… “Oinos is used at least 33 times in the Septuagint to translate tirosh, the Hebrew word for grape juice.(7)” — this is not entirely accurate and where importantly I find a degree of overreach with this position, as “new wine” (tirosh) was ALSO used to CLEARLY describe alcoholic wine having bite or kick to it, i.e., it is clearly fermented.
Now these texts can be ignored, but they are a bit hard to summarily explain away.
Though we may not totally agree with each other I do like this old adage that says…
“It is better to debate a question before settling it than to settle a question before debating it.” 
As I mentioned earlier, Strong’s describes “tirosh” as “must or fresh grape-juice (as just squeezed out); by implication (rarely) fermented wine:—(new, sweet) wine.”
So as to your above quote (that it appears I am insisting tirosh is only, every, grape juice), --I guess I could have said, “Oinos is used at least 33 times in the Septuagint to translate tirosh, the Hebrew word [THAT IS [b]OFTEN USED] for grape juice.(7)” But then, I was citing Samuele Bacchiocchi, from reference (7).
As I continue to argue, multiple GENERIC terms in both Hebrew and Greek which may include both fermented and unfermented products --are all lumped together into ONE, SINGLE generic term in English: “wine.” (After considering the two referenced books, does anyone still disagree with this assertion? If so, why?)
As to “overreaching,” and ‘carte blanche sweeping statements,’ when I make my point that
you oblige that “It ALWAYS comes down to the amount consumed.”
Blessings.
Why would it be contrary to Christ’s nature to have turned the water into fermented wine? Was Christ opposed to giving people pleasure? Consider what Ignatius (A.D. 30-107) wrote to Hero about wine, and also what Irenæus (A.D. 120-202) wrote in Book 3 “Against Heresies”:
Clearly, in advising Hero not to entirely abstain from wine, he was speaking of alcoholic wine, since he also quoted, “Wine makes glad the heart of man.”
In the following quote, describing the marriage feast at Cana, Irenæus asserts that the Lord Jesus Himself partook of the wine that was served in the beginning (which had made people some people drunk):
In my original essay to launch this thread, I suggest Timothy’s actually motive for abstaining from “wine” (perhaps Hero’s motives were the same?):
It is certainly not clear to me that it is alcoholic wine that “makes glad the heart of man.” Makes “goofy,” or “raucous,” or “uninhibited,” perhaps. But, yes, *unfermented *wine—and giving thanks for a good harvest—would make glad the heart of man.
As to the marriage feast at Cana, I can certainly believe that Christ partook of “wine,” but as to people being drunk, or Christ making fermented wine to help people become drunk, I already addressed that with you earlier, here:
More blessings
EXACTLY qaz… Paul, the one with regards to the law considered himself “blameless”, understood the medicinal therapeutic value of “a little wine”, hence his instruction to Timothy. He obviously knew Timothy was not in danger of becoming a “winebibber” because he exercised self-control — not all have this self-control, thus the copious injunctions NOT to OVER imbibe. It is indeed a stretch to take this beyond that point in terms of implied abstinence being in and of itself a Christian virtue. The accusation was falsely brought against Jesus (Lk 7:33-34) of being “a gluttonous man and a winebibber” BECAUSE, unlike John, He ate and drank with others. It is fair and reasonable to conclude that Jesus exercised responsible moderation.
And I can only point out again that Scripture is CLEAR… “new wine” COULD and was OFTEN understood to be alcoholic…
Again, according to the above texts… new wine could either “cheer” or “enslave” — these texts can be ignored, but they cannot with any degree of Christian honesty be explain away.
Practically speaking, it is wise for most people to abstain from alcohol. Look around, people have self control issues. Food and drink is a great example. Now, the consequences of overconsumption of food is far less harmful than that of alcohol. One can kill not only themselves, but others. Many crimes are committed due to alcohol misuse. You do not need alcohol to live, unlike food and the misuse of the former is detrimental to all, not just oneself.
That said, I do not believe alcohol is evil. Nor is in sin to consume it. But, frankly, it just isn’t wise for most people. Often it is associated with young and unruly. Highschool, college parties, etc… I’d wager that 90% of alcohol consumption is misused and unrestrained and is a coping mechanism for many.
Again, the way it see it isn’t sin vs not sin, that is missing the point. The question is, is it wise? I’d say no. It can cause a lifetime of struggle for something that was never required for a full life. Drugs, I feel the same about. Who the heck would risk taking heroin hoping they could use it with self control? Seems short sighted and not so wise. Still, I judge no one. If I see a Christian drink a beer, I think nothing of it. But many do not feel that way. One could argue that it is a stumbling block for others… And we know what Christ said about that.
[size=100]Any and every attempt to persuade Hermano concerning the wine being alcoholic, seems hopeless. Even if he were convinced, I suspect that the following cliché might still apply:[/size]
[size=130]
[/size]