Did Jesus drink wine/alcohol?

Similarly, some stress their opposition to the use of wine at the Lord's supper, or at any time. This would again be a mere human regulation, for Timothy is told to use a little wine for his stomach's sake (1 Tim. 5:23). The Lord Himself made "good wine" (Jn. 2:7-11) and manifestly drank wine (Mt. 11:19), though certainly not to excess, as some would accuse Him. But He makes no law as to what the cup should or should not contain, and we must not make such rules. Let us remember that the bread speaks of the body of Christ and the cup, of His blood, and not be sidetracked by men's legal thoughts.

When we designate the Lord Jesus as the true Nazarite, we do not mean that He literally took the vow of a Nazarite, or literally had the characteristics of a Nazarite. We do not read, for example, that He refrained from drinking wine. He said Himself: ‘John the Baptist has come neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and ye say, He has a demon. The Son of man has come eating and drinking, and ye say, Behold, an eater and wine-drinker, a friend of tax-gatherers and sinners’ (Luke 7:33, 34). In Matthew 26:29 it says: ‘I say to you that I will not at all drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in the kingdom of my Father.’

Q. Wine, John 2 etc. Are there two kinds in scripture, one unfermented and legitimate, the other fermented and only evil? ENQUIRER.

A. There is no ground whatever for such a distinction, which is due to teetotal imagination. Wine in its natural and proper sense means the fermented juice of the grape, though it may be applied figuratively to other liquor, or even more widely still. The Nazarite only abstained when under vow; the priest, when about to enter the sanctuary. It was offered to God: not a word of an unfermented liquid. Must was also drunk, which was not fermented. But the new or sweet wine of Acts 2:13 was intoxicating evidently. So wine is supposed throughout the scriptures, Old or New; and hence the warning against excess, never, save in special circumstances, against its use. The Lord made the water into wine at the marriage feast in Cana, and made it "good wine," and abundantly. Nor is the late Dean Alford unduly hard, when he says in his comment, "He pours out His bounty for all, and He vouchsafes His grace to each for guidance; and to endeavour to evade the work which He has appointed for each man — by refusing the bounty to save the trouble of seeking the grace — is an attempt which must ever end in degradation of the individual motives and in social demoralization, whatever present apparent effects may follow its first promulgation. One visible sign of this degradation, in its intellectual form, is the miserable attempt made by some of the advocates of this movement, to show that the wine here and in other places of scripture is unfermented wine, not possessing the power of intoxication." (The Greek. Test. i. 701, fifth edition, 1863).

If we are going to be Nazarites, there is a certain sense in which it must be a voluntary thing. We must be willing to be Nazarites. When any one voweth the vow of a Nazarite. There was only one true Nazarite that ever walked this earth, and His Nazariteship was not a mere negative thing, it was that positive thing which associated Him with God, rather than merely separated Him from the world. As a matter of fact He was not a literal Nazarite. John the Baptist was a literal Nazarite. He was a man who abstained from all kinds of things; he came neither eating nor drinking, and the compliment he got was that he had a devil. The Son of Man came eating and drinking. He was a Man with men. The blessed Lord did not need any external self-righteous separation. Ah, His holy soul was separate unto His Father completely, and He needed nothing to witness outwardly of that. None could ever approach Him with defilement, none could ever link His holy Name with even the thought of sin. He was so completely absorbed in His Father's will, so completely yielded up to His Father, that the very finger of the world itself could scarce point at Him as anything but what He was. It was such a palpable falsehood, when they spoke of Him as a gluttonous man and a winebibber, as not even to require contradiction. He even takes the name of reproach Himself. Yes, He is the Friend of sinners, and associates Himself with that expression. Do not our hearts delight to know Him in that way! But who thinks of Him as the friend of sinners in any way save to deliver them from their sins? Who thinks of Him as in any way identifying Himself with the low state about Him, save in grace coming down to bear the consequence of man's distance from God, in order that He might associate His people with Himself in true Nazariteship unto God!

The Lord then used a question to stir the interest of the people, asking what He might compare with "the men of this generation," that is, a generation of self-righteous men. The similarity of His illustration is striking. They were children -- childish and immature -- sitting idly in the marketplace (the place where serious business is transacted), complaining that people had not danced to their music and they had not wept to the tune of their mournful dirge (v.32). They had not liked John the Baptist's serious call to repentance, but had virtually played their frivolous music to him, complaining because he was too serious to dance. But how could John respond to this when their true state was one of departure from God. He abstained from even eating and drinking with them, for God had sent him for the serious purpose of bringing them down in self-judgment in view of preparing the way of the Lord. They accused him then of having a demon.

On the other hand, the Son of Man did eat and drink with them. He did not weep to the tune of the mournful dirge of the Pharisees with their legal demands. They were legal minded enough to strongly criticize Him for eating with tax gatherers and sinners (Lk.5:30). They wanted Him to conform to their cold, formal religion, which reduces people to a practical state of mourning. But He had brought the grace of God that people desperately needed. He would not do as they wanted him to, to put on a long face and pretend to be very religious. Then they criticized Him for not conforming to their attitude of false humility. He did not practice their outward show of fasting, but even ate with tax collectors and sinners. Then they falsely accused Him of being a gluttonous man and a winebibber, just as religious zealots today glory in their boasted self-denial and despise others who do not do the same. Thus self-righteousness despises the grace of God and is grossly unfair in its accusations.

Second, drinking wine is an essential part of Christian testimony, specifically enjoined in the Lord's Supper. This would certainly not be the case, if the drinking of wine were an evil in itself.

Third, notice that the blessed Lord entered heartily into the social life of the people, not banning their meat and drink, and receiving, in consequence, the reproach of His enemies, "Behold a … winebibber" (Matt. 11:19).

Fourth, wine was used at the Paschal Feast, with the Lord's express sanction; and though, for special reasons in His own case, He did not then partake of it Himself, He told the apostles all to drink of it; and this was not ceremonial, as it related to the earlier cup which was part of the feast, not to the one after supper out of which He instituted the Eucharist:

The Christian reads the Old Testament. He finds that wine intoxicated Noah and Lot, (Gen. 9, 19) and that it afterwards afforded occasion for frequent and solemn remonstrance. (Prov. 20; 23 Isa. 5; 28, etc.) Again, he finds wine brought as a natural comfort to Abraham and Isaac, (Gen. 1; 27) and often so treated, literally as well as figuratively. (Deut. 14, Ps. 104. Prov. 9; 31:6. Cant. passim, etc.) He sees in the New Testament neither contradiction nor difficulty. The Lord commenced His miracles by making water into wine, (John 2) was invidiously compared with His forerunner because He abstained not, (Luke 7) and made bread and wine (which John the Baptist never used)* to be the chosen, constant memorial of His dying love till He come again, the symbol also of our communion with each other. Finally, the Holy Ghost more than once dwells on the end of the drunkard, (1 Cor. 6, Gal. 5) corrects the unhallowed licence of the Corinthian church at the Lord's Supper, (1 Cor. 11) and warns believers, especially such as were prominent, against excess in daily life. (Eph. 5, 1 Tim. 3 Titus 2) At the same time, He takes pains (1 Tim. 5:23.) to remove the scrupulousness of a devoted young servant of Christ, and enjoins the use of a little wine, rather than water, for his stomach's sake and often infirmities. So graciously does God deign to interest Himself even in the bodily weakness and wants of those who love Him! The conclusion is irresistible. Total abstinence, as a general rule, has not, nor ever had, divine sanction. It is a device at issue with the plain facts and doctrine of Scripture, and this as to Christians no less than as to Jews. In the Old Testament yayin and in the New Testament οἶνος — that is, the ordinary words for "wine" in the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures — are used both in a good and in a bad connection; because the moral evil lay not in the thing itself, nor in its use, but in its abuse. There were different kinds of wine then, (Neh. 5:18,) as there are now. But not a single text intimates a particular sort of yayin which could not inebriate. Nay, more: what Scripture does say, disproves the fancy, as the sequel abundantly shows. Thus, Num. 6:3 plainly marks off yayin as fermented grape-juice, and that in the vinous as distinguished from the acetous stage; excluding other fermented drinks, vinegar, unfermented grape-liquors, as well as the solid fruit of the vine. We who adhere to the regular sense of the word are not bound to produce specific proofs; we are entitled to take it in the same sense everywhere, unless positive cause be shown to the contrary. But those who affirm that in certain places the word has a different meaning, are, in each instance, bound to give Scriptural reasons adequate to produce conviction. This they can never do. We deny their affirmation: upon them falls the burden of proof.†

Will it be said that the use of either is, abstractedly, wrong? was John the Baptist more pure than his Lord and Saviour? Note well, too that he abstained from bread as well as from wine. Are we, therefore, to abandon either or both?

It is perfectly plain that our Lord, who had blessed and given thanks for the cup, recognised that its contents were unchanged, that it was the fruit of the vine when He blessed it, and that it remained the fruit of the vine after He had blessed it. The wine was unchanged.

Wine was created by the Lord in His first recorded miracle. John 2:3-10. He was blasphemously spoken of as a wine-bibber; and He said at the last Passover, "I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God." Mark 14:25. He also instituted the Lord's Supper with the cup of wine. Paul recommended Timothy to take a little wine for his frequent sickness; and a bishop must not be given to much wine. There is therefore adequate evidence that wine is regarded as a beneficent gift of God, of which man may make a moderate use. If, however, a man has no power over his appetite, doubtless he had better abstain from wine altogether. Drunkards shall not inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Cor. 6:10.

They in each instance show the glory or real character of the One Who performs the immediate work of power. In the first miracle or sign which Jesus did as recorded in our Gospel, we observe the power of the Creator in exercise upon inanimate nature. A true case of transubstantiation occurs. The element water is changed so completely into wine that colour, taste and smell proclaim the fact; the governor of the feast bearing eloquent though unconscious testimony to the miracle wrought (chap. 2:9-10). Who but the Creator can change the nature of things? And the Evangelist tersely and illuminatively comments, "This beginning of signs did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth His glory"; "the glory or character as of the Only Begotten of the Father" (chap. 1:14).