The REAL position of Brother Todd Clippard

Answering the Error of Don Blackwell and Terrance Brownlow-Dindy Sr.

On March 14, 2026, in an article published on Substack titled “Debunking the Growing Myth of Biblically Authorized Alcohol Use,” Don Blackwell and Terrance Brownlow Dindy attempted to refute my public teaching on Romans 14, particularly verses 21-23. In their nine-page article, they never once attempted to address the text in question, choosing instead to attack ancillary arguments. Even to that end, they failed miserably. The article is poorly written, poorly reasoned, poorly researched, defamatory, and worst of all, untrue to the biblical text.

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 many professions of love for many different things. 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.

I was recently and publicly accused of having “advocated for drinking alcohol in private.” This is patently false. The brother who said it has been contacted and corrected. I granted him the benefit of the doubt and grace to simply say that he misspoke, but all I have received in return is the deafening sound of silence. 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.

Brethren need to do better.