𝐂𝐚𝐧 𝐚 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐃𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐤 𝐀𝐥𝐜𝐨𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐖𝐢𝐧𝐞? 𝐀 𝐁𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞

 𝐂𝐚𝐧 𝐚 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐝𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐤 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐥𝐜𝐨𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐖𝐢𝐧𝐞? 𝐀 𝐁𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞.

Sometimes, the word WINE in the bible confuses us to understand whether it is about fermented or unfermented WINE. The Hebrew word for WINE is yayin and oinos in Greek which means juice of the grapes, which can be fermented or unfermented. This significant finding discredits the claim that the Bible knows only fermented wine, which it approves when used moderately. This means the Bible knows both fermented wine, which it disapproves, and unfermented grape juice, which it approves.

Because of its natural and nourishing properties, grape juice was fittingly used to represent the divine blessing of material prosperity (Gen 27:28; 49:10-11; Deut 33:28), the blessing of the messianic age (Joel 2:18-19; Jer 31:10-12; Amos 9:13, 14), the free offer of God’s saving grace (Is 55:1), the wholesome joy God offers to His people (Ps 104:14-15; 4:7), and the acknowledgement of God through the use of grape juice as tithe, offerings and libations (Num 18:12; Deut 14:23; Ex 29:40; Lev 23:13).

On the other hand, the negative references to “wine” have to do with fermented and intoxicating wine. Some of the reasons Scripture condemns the use of alcoholic beverages are that they distort the perception of reality (Is 28:7; Prov 23:33); they impair the capacity to make responsible decisions (Lev 10:9-11); they weaken moral sensitivities and inhibitions (Gen 9:21; 19:32; Hab 2:15; Is 5:11-12); they cause physical sickness (Prov 23:20-21; Hos 7:5; Is 19:14; Ps 60:3); and they disqualify for both civil and religious service (Prov 31:4-5; Lev 10:9-11; Ezek 44:23; 1 Tim 3:2-3; Titus 1:7-8).

The way the Apostolic Church understood, preached and practised the teachings of Jesus and the Old Testament regarding the use of alcoholic beverages provides a most valuable verification and clarification as to whether Scripture teaches moderation or abstinence. The New Testament is amazingly consistent in its teaching of abstinence from the use of alcoholic beverages. Paul’s reference to drunkenness at the communion table of the Corinthian church (1 Cor 11:21) offers no support for a moderate use of alcoholic wine, for two reasons. First, whatever was done at Corinth was a departure from the instructions Paul had delivered to the church (1 Cor 11:23); thus, the Corinthians' conduct constitutes a warning rather than an example for us. Second, a study of the meaning of the verb methuo (“satiated”) and of the implications of Paul’s admonitions, clearly suggests that the problem at Corinth was indulgence in eating rather than intoxication with alcoholic wine.

Ephesians 5:18, where Paul condemns wine as the cause of debauchery and shows the irreconcilable contrast between the spirit of wine and the Holy Spirit of God. Most English translations and commentaries have chosen to translate or interpret Ephesians 5:18 by making “drunkenness” rather than “wine” the cause of debauchery. numerous other ancient and modern translations, all translate Paul’s text as saying that in the very nature of wine is debauchery. It seems that some English translators had such a predilection for wine that they decided, to borrow the words of Ernest Gordon, to “save the face of wine while condemning drunkenness”.

The translators’ bias toward wine became most evident in the study of the apostolic admonitions to abstinence, expressed through the verb nepho and the adjective nephalios. The first meaning of the verb is “to abstain from wine” and of the adjective “abstinent, without wine.” Yet these words have been consistently translated with their secondary sense of being “temperate, sober, steady,” rather than by their primary sense of being “abstinent.” Such biased and inaccurate translations have misled many sincere Christians into believing that the Bible teaches moderation in the use of alcoholic beverages, rather than abstinence from them.

The fundamental reason given by Peter and Paul for their call to a life of mental vigilance and physical abstinence is eschatological, namely, preparation to live in the holy presence of Christ at His soon Coming. To abstain from intoxicating substances represents a tangible response to God’s invitation to make concrete preparations for the physical return of Christ Proverbs 31:6, for example, suggests ironically that alcoholic beverages are only suited for killing the excruciating pain of someone who is dying. Similarly, Hosea 4:11 does not justify a moderate use of alcoholic beverages for two reasons. First, because “wine and new wine” are mentioned figuratively, as representative of the good gifts God had provided to the children of Israel, gifts which they had used for idolatrous purposes. Second, even if “wine and new wine” were alcoholic, they are condemned in the text for taking away understanding, irrespective of the quantity used.

In a different yet equally convincing way, 1 Timothy 5:23 supports the principle of abstinence in two significant ways. First, the advice, “No longer drink only water,” implies that Timothy, like the priests and Nazirites, had abstained until that time from both fermented and unfermented wines, presumably following the instructions and example of Paul. Second, the apostle recommended to Timothy to use only a little wine, not for the physical pleasure of the belly, but for the medical need of the stomach.

Ancient writers such as Aristotle, Athanaeus, and Pliny indicate that unfermented wine was known and preferred to alcoholic wine for medical purposes because it did not have the side effects of the latter. In light of these testimonies and of the other Biblical teachings regarding wine, it is reasonable to assume that the wine recommended by Paul for medical use was unfermented grape juice. Scripture is consistent in teaching moderation in the use of wholesome, unfermented beverages and abstinence from the use of intoxicating fermented beverages.

Ephesians 5:18 presents a strong contrast between two states: being “drunk with wine” and being “filled with the Spirit.” This contrast is not about moderation versus excess but rather about seeking fulfilment in alcohol versus in the Holy Spirit.

The New Testament contains similar contrasts. In Luke 1:15, the angel tells Zechariah that John the Baptist will "drink no wine or strong drink" but instead "be filled with the Holy Spirit." Likewise, at Pentecost, when people thought the disciples were drunk, Peter clarified that they were not drunk but "filled with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:15, 4). Paul, like Luke, highlights the difference between being under the influence of alcohol and being under the influence of the Spirit.

Paul may also be referencing Proverbs 23:31 from the Septuagint (LXX), which warns against even looking at intoxicating wine (“Do not look at wine when it is red”). If this is the case, then Paul is not merely warning against excessive drinking but against the use of intoxicating wine altogether.

Ephesians 5:18 issues a strong warning, not just against the abuse of alcohol but against its use. The Greek word asotia, translated as “debauchery” in the RSV, also appears in Titus 1:6 and 1 Peter 4:4, where it is translated as “profligacy.” This word refers to a state of moral corruption and spiritual ruin—an existence devoid of salvation.

Before drinking wine, remember this warning. Your body should be a temple of the Holy Spirit, not a vessel for intoxicating drinks. Has wine ever made someone a better Christian? Has it ever helped a minister counsel an anxious sinner, pray more effectively, or preach the gospel with greater power?

 One of the most commonly cited Bible verses regarding wine is 1 Timothy 5:23, where Paul advises Timothy, saying, “No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.” Many interpret this verse as an endorsement of consuming alcoholic wine, but a closer examination suggests otherwise.

In the previous verse, Paul exhorts Timothy to ‘keep yourself pure’ (1 Timothy 5:22). It is likely that, at this point, Paul recalled Timothy’s strict abstinence from wine and his ongoing health issues, particularly his stomach problems. As a result, he immediately clarified his instruction by adding, ‘No longer drink only water …’ This suggests that while Paul encouraged purity, he did not want Timothy’s dedication to abstinence to prevent him from addressing his medical needs. The underlying message can be understood as: “Maintain your purity in every way, but do not let your commendable desire for purity stop you from using a little wine for medicinal purposes.”

Many Bible translations do not fully capture the meaning of the Greek text. A more literal translation of Paul’s words is: “No longer drink water alone, but use with a little wine for the stomach, because of your frequent infirmities.” The Greek word oinos (wine) was used in a broad sense, referring to both fermented and unfermented wine. Therefore, it is not certain that Paul was recommending alcoholic wine.

Historical evidence shows that unfermented wine was often used in the ancient world for medicinal purposes. Additionally, Paul had likely taught Timothy to practice abstinence, as seen earlier in the same letter. In 1 Timothy 3:2-3, Paul instructs that a Christian bishop must be “abstinent” (nephalion) and must not participate in drinking parties (me paroinon). Since Paul required abstinence of church leaders, it is reasonable to assume that he had also taught Timothy the same principle. The fact that Timothy had been drinking only water suggests that he had faithfully followed Paul’s guidance on abstinence.

Thus, 1 Timothy 5:23 does not necessarily indicate that Paul was promoting the consumption of intoxicating wine. Instead, it likely refers to the medicinal use of unfermented wine, which was a common practice in the ancient world.

 God’s purpose in giving “wine” was to provide us with a wholesome and delightful beverage to gladden our hearts and not to make us “merry”. This thought is expressed in Psalm 104:14-15: “Thou dost cause the grass to grow for the cattle, and plants for man to cultivate, that he may bring forth food from the earth, and wine (yayin) to gladden the heart of man, oil to make his face shine, and bread to strengthen man’s heart.

The word translated “wine”here is tirosh, a term which, as we have seen, is explicitly used in numerous passages to refer to grape juice. What the Psalmist is saying in this passage is that while the ungodly derive their chief joy from the abundance of grain and grape juice, the believer experiences an even greater joy when he is the recipient of the light of God’s countenance. The truth expressed in this text is different from that in Psalm 104:14-15, yet it does show that grain and grape juice were commonly viewed as sources of joy. This gives us reason to believe that the “wine” (yayin) mentioned in Psalm 104:15 is the same as the unfermented “wine” (tirosh=grape juice) of Psalm 4:7, since in both passages reference is made to a product of the earth which gladdens human hearts.

In Psalm 104:14-15 there appears to be a contrast between the plants in general which provide us with solid food and the vine in particular which supplies us with wine as a drink to cheer our hearts. This does not mean that the Psalmist is referring to the pleasure given by the artificial stimulation of intoxicating wine. The effect of the latter is sometimes expressed in the Scripture by the verbless formula “the heart of…was merry with wine” (2 Sam 13:28; Esther 1:10). By contrast, the wholesome joy over God’s provision of grape juice is expressed by the verbal formula “wine to gladden [samah] the heart of man” God’s purpose in providing "wine" was to offer a wholesome and enjoyable beverage that naturally brings joy to the heart, not to induce intoxication or merriment. This idea is reflected in Psalm 104:14-15, which states: “You cause the grass to grow for the cattle, and plants for man to cultivate, that he may bring forth food from the earth, and wine (yayin) to gladden the heart of man, oil to make his face shine, and bread to strengthen man’s heart.”

The word translated as "wine" here is tirosh, a term that is consistently used in the Bible to refer to grape juice rather than fermented wine. In this passage, the Psalmist highlights a key distinction: while ungodly people find their primary joy in material abundance—such as grain and grape juice—believers experience a deeper and greater joy when they receive the light of God’s presence and favor.

Although Psalm 4:7 expresses a different idea than Psalm 104:14-15, both passages emphasize that grain and grape juice were widely recognized as sources of joy. This suggests that the "wine" (yayin) in Psalm 104:15 refers to the same unfermented wine (tirosh, or grape juice) mentioned in Psalm 4:7, since both verses describe a natural product of the earth that brings gladness to the human heart.

Psalm 104:14-15 also presents a contrast between plants in general, which provide solid food, and the vine, which produces wine as a drink that brings joy. However, this does not imply that the Psalmist is referring to the artificial stimulation caused by intoxicating wine. The effects of alcoholic wine in the Bible are often described using phrases like "the heart of …was merry with wine" (2 Samuel 13:28; Esther 1:10), indicating a state of drunkenness and loss of self-control.

In contrast, the joy that comes from God’s provision of grape juice is described in Psalm 104:15 with the phrase: "wine to gladden (samah) the heart of man". This joy is not the result of intoxication but rather a pure and wholesome delight that comes from God’s natural blessings. Jesus was accused of being “a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners” (Matthew 11:19; cf. Luke 7:34). The full passage states: “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, ‘Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ Yet wisdom is justified by all her children” (Luke 7:33-35).

The contrast between John the Baptist’s lifestyle and that of Jesus reflects their distinct missions. John was called to prepare the way for Jesus by preaching repentance and reformation. To fulfil this mission, he lived an austere and abstemious life, dwelling in the wilderness and avoiding the excesses of society. His strict lifestyle served as a rebuke to the corruption of his time.

Jesus, on the other hand, was sent to proclaim the Good News of the Kingdom. Instead of isolating Himself in the wilderness, He actively engaged with people in their homes, towns, and villages. His sociable nature made Him approachable to sinners, tax collectors, and outcasts. However, just as John’s strict lifestyle led critics to accuse him of being demon-possessed, Jesus’ willingness to engage with people led the same critics to falsely accuse Him of being a glutton and a drunkard.

Both accusations were groundless, as both Jesus and John lived lives of self-denial according to their unique callings. Their different lifestyles reflected their different missions.

A key reason Jesus specifically mentioned that John “came drinking no wine” (Luke 7:33) is that John was a Nazirite from birth. This interpretation is supported by Luke 1:15, where the angel tells Zechariah: “He shall drink no wine nor strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.” Nazirites demonstrated their total dedication to God by abstaining not only from wine and strong drink but also from grape juice and grapes (Numbers 6:1-4).

Jesus, unlike John the Baptist, was not a Nazirite and was not required to abstain from drinking grape juice, which comes from the fruit of the vine. We know that He drank at the Last Supper. However, this does not mean that because Jesus “came drinking”, He consumed all types of wine, both fermented and unfermented. If that were the case for drinking, then the same logic would apply to eating, suggesting that Jesus ate all kinds of food, including those that were unclean or harmful—yet no one makes such a claim.

Another important point that is often overlooked is that Jesus never explicitly mentioned “wine” when describing His own lifestyle. While He said that John the Baptist “came eating no bread and drinking no wine”, He described Himself simply as “eating and drinking”. Some argue that the contrast in this statement (antithetic parallelism) implies that “wine” should be assumed in the second phrase.

Although this argument may seem convincing, the fact remains that if Jesus wanted to emphasize that, unlike John, He was a wine-drinker, He could have explicitly stated so by repeating the word “wine” for clarity. Instead, by avoiding specific references to the types of food and drink He consumed, Jesus may have deliberately denied His critics any justification for their accusations of gluttony and drunkenness.

Furthermore, the omission of “bread” and “wine” in Jesus’ description of Himself (Matthew omits both in his account) may have been intentional, meant to expose the baseless nature of these accusations.

Some argue, “If Jesus did not drink wine, how could He be accused of being a drunkard?” This assumption suggests that Christ must have consumed alcoholic wine because a person cannot be accused of drunkenness without drinking alcohol since grape juice does not intoxicate.

However, this argument is flawed because it overlooks the fact that the accusation was false, fabricated by malicious critics rather than based on actual observations. Even if Jesus was seen drinking grape juice or even water, His enemies could have twisted the truth and falsely accused Him of drunkenness. A similar situation occurred on the Day of Pentecost, when the apostles were accused of being drunk on grape juice (gleukos—Acts 2:13), showing that critics were willing to make baseless claims regardless of reality.

To conclude that Jesus must have drunk alcoholic wine simply because His enemies accused Him of being a drunkard is to accept false accusations as truth. If we follow this reasoning, then we must also believe that Jesus had a demon—because His critics accused Him of that as well (John 7:20; 8:48). Clearly, such logic is flawed, as relying on the words of Christ’s enemies is not a valid way to determine biblical truth.

Jesus responded to these accusations by saying, “Yet wisdom is justified by all her children” (Luke 7:35). Some manuscripts use the word “works” instead of “children,” but the meaning remains unchanged: true wisdom is judged by its results. God’s wisdom is proven through the goodness it produces. Therefore, using the accusations of Jesus’ critics as proof that He drank alcohol demonstrates a lack of wisdom. The self-discipline and purity of His life speak for themselves, proving the baseless nature of such claims.