For in truth the wine was new, the grace of the New Testament. But this new wine was from a spiritual vine, which already had often borne fruit in the prophets and sprouted forth in the New Testament. For just as in the order of nature the vine, remaining ever the same, brings forth new fruit according to the seasons, so too the same Spirit, remaining what he is, having wrought in the prophets, now manifested something new and marvelous. His grace had indeed been granted to the fathers in times past, but now it came in superabundance; in their case they received a share of the Holy Spirit, now they were baptized in all fullness.
Well then might they be in doubt: for never had the like occurred. Observe the ingenuousness of these men. They were amazed and were in doubt, saying, "What meaneth this?" But "others mocking said, 'These men are full of new wine'" and therefore mocked. O the effrontery! And what wonder is it? Since even of the Lord Himself, when casting out devils, they said that He had a devil! For so it is; wherever impudent assurance exists, it has but one object in view, to speak at all hazards, it cares not what; not that the man should say something real and relevant to the matter of discourse, but that he should speak no matter what. "They are full of new wine." Quite a thing of course, that men in the midst of such dangers, and dreading the worst, and in such despondency, have the courage to utter such things! And observe: since this was unlikely; because they would not have been drinking much at that early hour, they ascribe the whole matter to the quality of the wine, and say, "They are full" of it.
"And, they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this? Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine." O the excessive folly! O the excessive malignity! Why it was not even the season for that; for it was Pentecost. For this was what made it worse: that when those were confessing-men that were Jews, that were Romans, that were proselytes, yea perhaps that had crucified Him-yet these, after so great signs, say, "They are full of new wine!"
Also, the error that they are moved by new wine is, by allegorical reasoning, the truth—the intoxicating teaching of heaven has filled them from a fresh spring. New vessels have taken on new liquid and are not spoiled by the bitter [liquid] that filled the old vats, [the new vessels] drinking in from the vine which, with Christ as the cultivator, gave a banquet in words [and] from which those waters that he transformed are red, and he made the poor flavor of the [old] law boil in the books of the church.
There were also some of those who understood, perhaps the baser sort, mocking the rites as if they were the products of drunkenness; for if they had not understood, they would not have attributed the matter to drunkenness. But if they understood what was being said, you will ask, how did they dare to mock? Yet malice, arising from excessive wickedness, is nothing other than sheer perversion, so that, finding nothing else, it rips the present affair into whatever it can. As when Christ performed miracles, they had no doubt about the power at work, yet the thing was madly ascribed to Beelzebul. And nations are remembered as enemies of the Jews, Cretans, Arabs, and others, who, speaking in their tongues, afforded a sign that they would hold by faith; and everywhere wickedness accompanies virtue. The devout ones marveled, but the others mocked. See, then, the folly of those who mock.
They say they are full with sweet wine. And yet it was not the season for that. For it was Pentecost, when there is no sweetness. For the sweetness chiefly is the sweet-flowing wine from the very press. But it was also the third hour, at which one is unlikely to become drunk, and especially when people are in danger and fear. Therefore they label the whole according to its kind, saying, "they were full of sweet wine." For the blunt speech seeks only one thing, to say anything at all, not how to say something with sense. The more astonishing thing was that, though those who marveled and confessed were Jews, Romans, proselytes, and almost all the nations proclaimed that they were speaking in their own languages, yet some were found mocking.
In another way. To claim that the apostles were filled with sweet wine is to slander them with regard to their character. For "sweet wine" is the sweet kind of wine, which is also more inclined to make one drunk, and by the slipperiness of its sweetness causes a more copious filling of the cavities of the brain with the vaporous exhalation. Did those who laughed at what was said understand it, or not? For if they did not understand, their mockery would have no point, for why should someone be grievously upset over a meaningless, senseless babble offered at random? But it is clear that they did understand, and that those who were cast into wonder held this matter in contempt. They themselves wickedly persistently snooped about it, as is the habit of wrongdoers.
In another way. They understood, but they were not pleased with what was said. For the speaker was attributing great works to God. For it is the custom of many, when they do not like what is said, to regard the speaker as demon-possessed or deranged. Therefore, also in the case of Christ: they understood the miracles and that he ought to be praised, but they slandered him as it being done by Beelzebul. (see Mark 3:22-30)
But others mocking said: Because they are full of new wine. Though mocking, they testify mystically to the truth. For they are not filled with old wine, which failed at the wedding of the Church, but with the new wine of spiritual grace. For now the new wine had come into new wineskins, as the apostles, not in the oldness of the letter, but in the newness of the Spirit of God, resounded the great deeds (Rom. VII).
But pay attention to the madness of the others: "they are full," they say, "of sweet wine," even though the time was not such as would allow one to suppose anything of the sort, because it was the feast of Pentecost and the third hour; but malice stops at nothing. And most importantly: when some, who were partly Jews, partly Romans, partly foreigners, and perhaps partly even from among those who had crucified Him — in short, from nearly all nations — hearing the preaching of the apostles, marveled and affirmed that the apostles were speaking in their languages, there were found a few who nevertheless reviled the apostles. Did those who reviled understand when the apostles spoke in different languages, or not? If they did not understand, then how does it follow that the apostles were speaking in all languages? But if they did understand, then how did they dare accuse them of drunkenness, having before them witnesses who would convict them — those very men who heard and understood that the apostles were speaking in different languages and that they were not drunk? Let someone else resolve this; but I maintain the opposite: if they had not understood, they would in no way have reduced the miracle to drunkenness (they would not have called the miracle drunkenness), for why would one even bother to demean something that causes no one any annoyance? Therefore Luke also calls them revilers, as if blasphemers and slanderers. So then, they slandered while understanding what was being said, but they slandered because they were displeased with what was being said, since the apostles were glorifying the great deeds of God. In what way, then, understanding what was being said, did they attribute it to drunkenness? On account of great madness and excessive cruelty. For it is the custom of many, if they are displeased with what is being said, to consider the speaker either demon-possessed, or insane, or to accuse him of drunkenness and of not understanding what he is saying, even though the one who speaks speaks soundly, while the reviler, in accusing him, listens to and understands him. But these men, accusing the apostles of drunkenness, displayed even greater audacity, because although they themselves listened to them in their own language, they supposed that other people, people of the most diverse dialects, did not understand them. They themselves understood what was being said, but about the rest — on whose account they slandered the apostles as drunk — they thought that those people did not understand the miracle. Just as at the time when the Lord was casting out demons, they understood and saw these miraculous acts, yet instead of the proper glorification they slandered the Lord, claiming that He performed them by the power of Beelzebul; and likewise, seeing every kind of disease and suffering being healed, they made these miraculous acts an occasion for envy, denunciations, and murder — so also now, being unable to deny the miraculous and supernatural character of the languages, they nevertheless dared to reduce the miracle to drunkenness. But pay attention also to the cunning device. Since it was incredible that anyone would be drunk at such an hour, and especially people who had experienced many dangers and terrors, they attribute everything to the quality of the wine, calling it "sweet." Here insolence strives only to say something, not to say something more substantial. Therefore what they express is obscure, full of foolishness and madness. Notice how malice is exposed both by the time of year and the hour of day. Where would gleukos come from in the days of Pentecost? Gleukos is what new wine is called. Furthermore, drunkenness gives the power to speak in different languages — drunkenness, which deprives one even of one's native tongue! See what God arranges. The Jews would have refused to enter and listen if they had not suspected that this was slander. The Lord permitted the slander in order to gather many listeners.
[AD 386] Cyril of Jerusalem on Acts 2:13