Did Jesus drink wine/alcohol?

[Garland-Green]

There is only one group of people who are explicitly told in the Bible to never drink wine/alcohol, and that is the Nazirites (Numbers 6:1–4). Jesus was not a Nazirite; He was a “Nazarene,” a native of the town of Nazareth (Luke 18:37). Jesus never took the Nazirite vow.

Christ’s first miracle of turning water into wine at the wedding at Cana almost certainly involved a fermented beverage. According to Jewish wedding tradition, fermented wine was always served at weddings; if Jesus had provided only grape juice, the master of the feast would have complained. Instead, he said the wine was better than what was previously served; it was apparently a “fine” wine (John 2:10–11).

The Greek word for “drunk” in John 2:10 is methuo, which means “to be drunken” or intoxicated. It is the same word used in Acts 2:15 where Peter is defending the apostles against accusations of drunkenness. The testimony of the master of the feast is that the wine Christ produced was able to intoxicate.

Of course, just because Jesus turned water into wine doesn’t prove that He drank the wine at the wedding, but it would have been normal for Him to do so. What it does prove is that Jesus doesn’t condemn drinking wine any more than He condemns eating bread. Sinful people abuse what is not inherently sinful. Bread and wine are not sinful, but gluttony and drunkenness are (Proverbs 23:2; Ephesians 5:18.).

In Luke 7:33–44, Jesus said, “For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’” (emphasis added). In verse 33 Jesus is making a contrast between John the Baptist’s “drinking no wine” and His own practice. Jesus goes on to say the religious leaders accused Him (falsely) of being a drunkard. Jesus was never a drunkard, any more than He was a glutton. He lived a completely sinless life (1 Peter 2:22); however Luke 7 strongly suggests that Jesus did indeed partake of alcoholic wine.

The Passover celebration would also have commonly included fermented wine. The Scriptures use the term “fruit of the vine” (Matthew 26:27–29; Mark 14:23–25; Luke 22:17–18.). Of course, Christ participated in drinking from the Passover cup (Mark 14:23).

All Christians would agree drunkenness is sinful, and Christ Himself warns against it (Luke 12:45). However, a biblical view of wine is that it is given as something to delight in (Psalm 104:14–15). There are plenty of warnings against alcohol abuse, in texts like Proverbs 20:1, because sinful men are more likely to abuse wine than to use it in moderation. Those who try to use Jesus’ probable use of wine to excuse their drunkenness should heed the warning in Luke 12:45. Christians who want to keep a biblical view of drinking wine should either drink in moderation, never to drunkenness, or abstain totally.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-drink-wine.html#ixzz2WszWyVZR  

[Rednal]

Whiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiich is pretty much the same teaching as quite a lot of the stuff in the Bible, when you actually take a look at it. ^^ Most things are accepted in reasonable amounts (even harvesting food should be moderate, according to some of the earlier parts), but excess of anything is generally regarded as bad.  

[Souijji]

Actually there's a very good reason that Jesus drank wine. At that time in history is was better to drink wine than it was to drink the water. Healthier at any rate. Many diseases travel in water and at that point in history sanitation was much different. Water would be taken from down stream of a heard of sheep, goats, cattle, etc, ignoring the fact that said animals were leaving their droppings in the water just a few feet/yards away.

Thus the wine was drunk instead leading to less illness.  

[Aquatic_blue]

Quote:

Of course, just because Jesus turned water into wine doesn’t prove that He drank the wine at the wedding, but it would have been normal for Him to do so.

Why would it have been 'normal' for Jesus to drink wine at this wedding? We can't make that assumption because it never says that Jesus, "turned the water into wine and then drank." We can't assume that it would have been normal for Jesus to drank the wine. Why take glory in his own miracle? Why take from your own miracle when it was for others rather than yourself?

Quote:

What it does prove is that Jesus doesn’t condemn drinking wine any more than He condemns eating bread.

Of course Jesus didn't condemn drinking wine, but it doesn't mean that he did drink wine. There are people in this world that have medical conditions or take certain medications that don't allow them to consume alcohol, but they may not condemn the use of alcohol.

Quote:

In verse 33 Jesus is making a contrast between John the Baptist’s “drinking no wine” and His own practice

Jesus could have very well been using this word in a figurative way. There are two meanings for the word "pino", which is the Greek word for "drinking" that has two meanings:


1. to drink

2. figuratively, to receive into the soul what serves to refresh strengthen, nourish it unto life eternal

If it was to drink and they condemn John the Baptist for something stupid like "he doesn't eat or drink - he must be a demon", which is of course a strange assumption to make - assumptions that don't correlate. Jesus may have been saying something along the lines of, "Well, if you think that John the Baptist is a demon because no one has been seeing him eat or drink then they would gladly call me a drunkard, glutton, and a friend of sinners." This word can be used literally and figuratively.

Also, it is clear that Jesus did not drink in:

Matthew 26:29 KJV:

But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

I also found an interesting site that examined these occurrences about Jesus and the Nazarite vow going back to the Hebrew.

http://www.lumberguy.net/BCBO-Jesus_The_Nazarite_she_shall_conceive-Fab.html

Quote:

All Christians would agree drunkenness is sinful, and Christ Himself warns against it (Luke 12:45).

I do not agree with this statement - this is an "absolute" statement, which are dangerous assumptions to make. Saying "All Christians" would agree drunkenness is sinful is not true. Not all Christians believe this - perhaps they are Christians who are not strong in their foundation or have been recently born again and aren't sure of the spiritual dangers of drunkenness yet or ignore the warnings. This should be "All Christians should know that drunkenness is sinful" or "Most Christians would agree drunkenness is sinful." Absolute statements are obnoxious to me because they're rarely ever true or support an idea.

I do agree that drunkenness is sinful and Christ warns against drunkenness and does not condone drinking wine in moderation.  

[real eyes realize]

Aquatic_blue

Also, it is clear that Jesus did not drink in:

Matthew 26:29 KJV:

But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

You're interpreting that verse incorrectly: Jesus is saying he's not going to drink from the fruit of the vine again, until we're reunited with him in the Father's kingdom. In that chapter, Jesus is participating in the last supper with his disciples, passing the cup and breaking bread with them. Just like the Old Testament priests would partake of the sacrifice (Leviticus 7:4-9), so did Jesus. He, nor they, can literally eat human (against the dietary laws of Leviticus 11:1-3; humans don't have split hooves nor chew the cud), hence the bread. Let alone the blood which the law also prohibits consuming (Leviticus 7:27; 17:4,10), but must be offered at the altar (the bodies being the temple under the new covenant, hence the wine, instead of blood, so you can consume it and he can illustrate that our bodies are the temple now).

Matthew 26:26-29 (NIV)

26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”

27 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the[a] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

Footnotes:

a. Matthew 26:28 Some manuscripts the new

Jesus did drink wine and says as much in Luke 7:34, the very next verse. Verse 33 gives the context for what is being referred to by "drinking": it's about wine.

Luke 7:33-34 (NIV)

33 For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ 34 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’

Aquatic_blue

I also found an interesting site that examined these occurrences about Jesus and the Nazarite vow going back to the Hebrew.

http://www.lumberguy.net/BCBO-Jesus_The_Nazarite_she_shall_conceive-Fab.html

That website makes the mistake of equating Matthew 26:29 to the "Nazirite Vow". Not to mention, Jesus did come in contact with dead bodies, not just his own, but the two thieves hanging on the cross next to him, and he himself died and resurrected. He would've had to cut off all of his hair for having somebody die next to his hair (Numbers 6:9). Which is a catch 22: because priests cannot cut off their hair if they're adhering the law (Leviticus 21:5-6, 10). So he's in a trap: whatever his choice, he transgresses the law if he were truly under a Nazirite vow (priests are not allowed to shave/uncover their head, but the law for violated Nazirite Vows requires you to shave it all off).

I don't know why you keep insisting that Jesus came under the Nazirite Vow, when it's already been shown to you with scripture that he never made that vow and it would be disobedience for a priest to do so (at the risk of violating it or completing it): even without violating the Vow (which he would have, given the events of how he died and who died next to him), but let's just say he didn't violate the Nazirite Vow: after the period of dedication, the Nazirite Vow requires you to cut off your hair anyway as an offering on the altar (Numbers 6:18 )! And, like I've stated, priests were NOT allowed to do that ever (Leviticus 21:5-6, 10). Jesus as our high priest also was not allowed to do this.

Leviticus 21:5-6, 10 (NIV)
5 “‘Priests must not shave their heads or shave off the edges of their beards or cut their bodies. 6 They must be holy to their God and must not profane the name of their God. Because they present the food offerings to the Lord, the food of their God, they are to be holy.

10 “‘The high priest, the one among his brothers who has had the anointing oil poured on his head and who has been ordained to wear the priestly garments, must not let his hair become unkempt[a] or tear his clothes.

Footnotes:

a. Leviticus 21:10 Or not uncover his head


Numbers 6:9-11 (NIV)

9 “‘If someone dies suddenly in the Nazirite’s presence, thus defiling the hair that symbolizes their dedication, they must shave their head on the seventh day—the day of their cleansing. 10 Then on the eighth day they must bring two doves or two young pigeons to the priest at the entrance to the tent of meeting. 11 The priest is to offer one as a sin offering[a] and the other as a burnt offering to make atonement for the Nazirite because they sinned by being in the presence of the dead body. That same day they are to consecrate their head again.

Footnotes:

a. Numbers 6:11 Or purification offering; also in verses 14 and 16

To declare that Jesus was under a Nazirite Vow, presents more problems than a cohesive explanation for anything.