"And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 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” (Matthew 26:26-28).
The partaking of the Lord's Supper represents an important aspect of the New Testament Church faith 12:15 ). Some presume that fermented wine could not be present at Passover because it contains leaven and leaven is forbidden. Because no leaven was to be used is the very cause wine SHOULD be used.
Grape juice is full of leaven and is what causes fermentation. Fermentation is the process by which all leaven is purged out of the grape juice. That which causes fermentation in wine is the yeast cells which collect naturally on the skins of the grapes, and is comparable or equal to leaven. Leaven is foreign to the nature of wine. Fermentation is but the latent energy of the juice nature to throw this leaven off, where it settles to the bottom of the vessel as the dregs so as to leave the wine pure and clear, fitted to drink as a symbol of the Savior's pure blood.
The Law forbade leaven in all offerings to the Lord by fire (Leviticus 2:11; 6:17). However the drink offering which was poured out over the fire was STRONG WINE (Numbers 28:7; 15:5, 7, 10; Deuteronomy 32:38). This strong wine like all wine, used after fermentation, was drawn off or separated from the dregs so that not even the dead leaven killed in the fermentation process was poured out on the sacrifices. So, any leaven that was in the original unfermented grape juice never came upon the sacrifices. Therefore according to Biblical definition, wine DOES NOT contain leaven. Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (KTDNT), volume 5, page 162 states:
"WINE is specifically mentioned as an integral part of the Passover meal no earlier than Jubilees 49:6, but there can be no doubt that it was in use long before."
KTDNT, volume 3, page 732, 733 reports:
"The Jewish Passover of the time, according to Jewish sources, especially Pes. 10 and features of the Jewish rite confirmed by the NT, the course of the Passover at this period was as follows: The meal was to take place on the evening of the 14th Nisan in Jerusalem. At least 10 persons had normally to be present. When the meal has been prepared, those participating took their places at the table. The head of the house opened the feast with two blessings, first for the festival and then of the WINE: Blessed be Thou, Yahweh our God, King of the world, who hast created the FRUIT OF THE VINE."
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, volume 1, page 165 states:
"Other details in the synoptics characterize the Supper as a Passover: it was a lengthy and well prepared meal; it took place at night; the disciples reclined at the table (Mark 14:18) and drank WINE; the whole meal closed with an act of praise."
Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible, volume 3, page 148:
"Christ took the two simplest and most universal representatives of sustaining food, bread that strengtheneth man's heart, and WINE that maketh glad the heart of man, and employed them as the universal representatives of spiritual foods, of his body broken and his blood poured out. His loyal followers have from the first retained these."
Alfred Edersheim, The Temple: Its Ministry and Services, states:
“The use of WINE in the Paschal Supper, though not mentioned in the Law, was strictly enjoined by tradition. According to the Jerusalem Talmud, it was intended to express Israel’s joy on the Paschal night, and even the poorest must have ‘at least four cups, though he were to receive the money for it from the poor’s box’ (Pes. x. 1).”
The Passover was not held in the season for grape juice to be fresh. There was no way of keeping the juices from fermenting. Pasteurization, the process used today to keep juices from fermenting, was not used until 1869. Some have been misinformed by Bible commentaries which tell of an "ancient custom" of storing grape juice under streams and in deep wells for thirty days to keep it from fermenting. This recipe comes from Cato the Elder (234 – 149 B.C.), De Agri Cultura 120:1 which states:
“If you wish to keep grape juice [mustum] through the whole year, put the grape juice [mustum] in an amphora, seal the stopper with pitch, and sink in the pond. Take it out after thirty days; it will remain sweet the whole year.”
First of all it is not clear how reliable Cato’s recipes are. Cato claimed that cabbage was the cure-all for septic wounds, cancer, and other diseases. Cato also stated that the cure for any dislocation was to split a green reed down the middle, let two men hold it to the hip and recite a chant. Secondly, NOTHING in Cato’s recipe indicated preserving wine in an unfermented state. The end result was that the juice would “remain SWEET.” This is referring to the taste of the juice, not that it would remain unfermented. This is confirmed by Columella (c. A.D. 50), De re Rustica 12:29:1 which states:
“That must may continue always sweet, as if it were new, manage it thus: Before the husks of the grapes are put under the press, take the freshest must out of the wine-vat, and put it into a new amphora, and daub it, and pitch it carefully, that no water at all may enter into it; then sink the whole amphora into a pool of cold and fresh water, so that no part of it may stand out of it; then, after forty days, take it out of the pone, thus it will continue sweet a whole year.”
Notice that NOTHING in this recipe indicates preserving wine in an unfermented state. Columella’s statement of “AS IF it were new” actually indicates that he expected the juice to ferment. Again, this recipe was simply to keep the juice “sweet” as opposed to sour (like vinegar).
Hasting's Dictionary page 974, article Wine and Strong Drink says:
"It maybe stated at this point that NO TRACES can be found, among the hundreds of references to the preparation and use of wine in the Mishna, of any means employed to preserve wine in the unfermented state. It is even IMPROBABLE that with the means at their disposal the Jews could have so preserved it had they wished (cf. Professor Macallaster's statement as to the ‘IMPOSSIBILTY’ OF UNFERMENTED WINE at this period in Hastings' DB ii, 34b)."
Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible, volume 2, page 34 states:
"When active fermentation is in progress these skins become some distended, and are liable to burst. This is especially liable to occur with new skins of young animals ...The preservation of wine DID NOT mean keeping it from fermentation, -for, with the total absence of antiseptic precautions ...it would have been IMPOSSIBLE to do so."
"There is no temperature short of FREEZING that will completely stop fermentation. Grape juice can be stored at 28 degrees and will still ferment."
Let's be honest. There are no streams or wells in the Middle East that get colder than 28oF. Therefore the Passover cup could not have contained anything but fermented wine. If there was no such custom of preserving grape juice for Passover and the Jews did not use a method of preserving it to avoid fermentation in the observance, then Jesus could not have used grape juice.
The only method of storing grape juice mentioned in the whole Bible is in bottles which correctly translated would be wine-skins.
"Neither do men put new wine into old bottles; else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved" (Matthew 9:17 ).
Grape juice is preserved only as fermented wine. The reason the skins can burst is because during the process of fermentation and killing the leaven in fresh juice, carbon dioxide is released creating pressure within the skins (cf. Job 32:19, “Behold, my belly is as wine which hath no vent; it is ready to burst like a new bottle”).
The Jews were to keep a Sabbath of the land every seven years.
“Six years thou shalt sow thy field, and six years thou shalt prune thy vineyard, and gather in the fruit thereof; but in the seventh year shall be a sabbath of rest unto the land, a sabbath for the LORD: thou shalt neither sow thy field, nor prune thy vineyard. That which groweth of its own accord of thy harvest thou shalt not reap, neither gather grapes of thy vine undressed (that is ‘separating’ them from the vine): for it is a year of rest unto the land” (Lev 25:3-5).
Therefore the Jews had to harvest enough on the sixth year to get them through the remainder of the sixth year and all the way to the harvest time of the eighth year -- almost two years. Therefore, the juice that was pressed out of the grapes in the sixth year had to last until the vintage of the eighth -- almost two years. It is IMPOSSIBLE to keep grape juice fresh for two years. Not even the grape juice manufacturers can do this. Pasteurized grape juice has a typical shelf-life of 15 months. Grapes only have a shelf-life of 3 to 5 days! According to Purdue University, and extended shelf life (2 weeks to 6 months) can only be achieved by freezing the grapes at 28oF in a controlled atmosphere. Pasteurized grape juice has an expiration date on the carton because it will eventually spoil, but bottled wine can stay preserved for over a HUNDRED YEARS. Again, it must be stated that out of the HUNDREDS of references in ancient Jewish writings of preparing wine, there are NO references of preparing it in an unfermented state. Therefore the Jew absolutely drank fermented wine in observance of the Passover.
If you can find fresh unfermented grape juice it must be drank the same day or it will begin to cleanse out the leaven and fermentation starts. This is concluded within 12-14 days when all the leaven is dead and new wine results which the 120 were accused of drinking on the day of Pentecost. Therefore, beyond a shadow of a doubt the Jews used fermented wine for Passover which is six months after the previous year grape vintage when the juice would have been fresh only for a short time.
It is evident that the early Church used wine, not grape juice for the Communion. Look at the Corinthian Church
"For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry and another DRUNKEN” (1 Cor 11:21 ).
Some have argued that the word “drunken” in the text is in contrast to “hungry” and means "full of food" and not “intoxicated.” But is this true? The next verse proves such claims are false:
"What? Have ye not houses to eat and DRINK in?” (1 Cor. 11:22 ).
Obviously then the word “DRUNKEN” in verse 21 is a reference to “DRINK” in verse 22. “Drunken” refers to drinking wine to excess which Paul later rebuked but he never said using wine in a Godly manner was sinful. His mention of the proper use of wine concerning Bishops, Elders, Deacons, and older women proves such to be the case. So the word “drunken” refers to “drink.” The word “drunken” is the Greek word "methuo" (Strong's 3184), which means, "to drink to intoxication." Now surely one cannot eat food to intoxication! Is this what Paul rebuked as some want us to believe by changing “drunken” to having a full belly of food? Surely it was not pasteurized grape juice they drank to the point of intoxication (methuo)!
Notice that Apostle Paul said that he had received from the Lord that which he had delivered unto them concerning the Lord's Passover (1 Corinthians 11:23 ). Now if they were drinking the wrong substance (wine instead of grape juice), don't you think Paul would have jumped on this right away as a perversion and corrected them? He never told them they drank the wrong substance, he only told them the manner in which they were celebrating it was wrong. Clearly it is inferred from these texts that the early Apostolic Church
For over 1800 years of Church history no one debated the use of fermented wine in Communion. While scholars debated other issues concerning the Lord’s Supper (transubstantiation vs. symbolism, etc.) the issue of what beverage to use during Communion was not – they all drank WINE! Churches did not generally utilize grape juice in Communion until the mid to late 19th Century (1800's). This was brought about mostly by the American Temperance Society against men and husbands who frequented saloons, bars, and dives and who had become addicted and were no longer being proper husbands, fathers, Church members, and examples to children. Their tirades against whiskey and white-lightening turned also upon wine for use in the Communion. This brought them right into the church houses where they then claimed Jesus drank grape juice and not wine. The Temperance Movement changed some Churches ever since and continues till today.
It was not until 1869 that Doctor Thomas Bramwell Welch, a dentist by trade, and a Methodist by conviction, successfully pasteurized Concord grape juice to produce an "unfermented sacramental wine" for fellow parishioners at his church in Vineland , N.J.
In Genesis 14:18, Melchizedek, the priest of the most high God, brought bread and wine (Hebrew “yayin” [Strong's 3196] fermented wine) to Abraham for communion and fellowship. This foreshadowed the Lord's Supper that Christ, who is after the order of Melchizedek (Hebrews 7:17) presented to the Church, Abraham's seed.
The simple facts of the matter are: (A) Passover was not held during the time grape juice was fresh; (B) it was impossible to keep grape juice from fermenting into wine; and (C) the Jews used fermented wine for Passover. Passover wine is a beautiful symbol of the blood of Jesus Christ. The leaven collects on the skins of the grapes, just as Jesus took on our sins, yet in Him was no sin. The skins of the grapes are crushed to bring forth the juice, just as Jesus was bruised for our iniquities and out of His side came blood and water. The freshly squeezed juice lays dormant for about three days, just as Jesus was in the tomb three days and nights. After three days the process of fermentation takes place and the juice becomes “alive” and "moves" with effervescence (Proverbs 23:31), just as after three days Jesus arose from the grave. The process of fermentation “conquers” and “cleanses” the juice of all leaven, just as the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from sin. The wine must sit for forty days to be declared admissible for the drink-offering (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14941-wine). This is similar to Jesus spending forty days with His disciples teaching them the things concerning the kingdom of God
Common Questions Concerning Communion
1. Was the wine Jesus made at Cana fermented wine or grape juice?
Answer: Some have attempted to find linguistic support for saying that this was grape juice rather that wine. Such support is lacking. Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible, volume 2, page 34 says:
"An attempt has been made to obtain textual support for total abstinence by differentiating intoxicating from unfermented wine in the Biblical terminology; but it is only special pleading without adequate foundation."
The Bible is very plain about the miracle of Cana . The word for wine is the Greek word "oinos" which refers always in the New Testament to fermented wine. Ephesians 5:18: "Be not drunk (methusko, to intoxicate) with wine (Greek oinos)...” Thus, “oinos” refers only to fermented wine.
2. If Jesus turned water into wine, wouldn't this justify a Christian supplying booze to a party?
Answer: The Christian answer is definitely NO! God killed Pharaoh in the Red Sea; this does not mean we should go drown the ungodly. Secondly, the answer is rather in the culture of the first century Palestine Cana miracle.
3. Did Jesus drink wine or grape juice?
Answer: Jesus said in Luke 7:33-34:
“For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a devil. The Son of man is come eating and drinking (wine – that which John did not drink); and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners!”
Notice, Jesus drank that which John the Baptist did not. According to Luke 1:15, John the Baptist did not drink wine or strong drink. Therefore Jesus DID drink wine and strong drink. If Jesus did not drink wine then the accusation that he was a winebibber would have been absurd. Think of the Jews charging Jesus with being a bibber (drunkard cf. Proverbs 23:20-21) of something totally unintoxicating! What then was the accusation? That he drank grape juice? Obviously Jesus did drink wine and his holiness and sinlessness was not at all affected. Had he gotten drunk and used wine wrongly then He would be guilty of sin. We may then deduct that Jesus used wine Godly and for the right purposes. And in our discussion, the old Passover and the Lord's Passover are both Godly and the right purpose.
4. Wouldn't the use of fermented wine at Communion justify social drinking?
Answer: Definitely not as for reasons stated above. The Scriptures command us to be sober so any use of wine that would take away our right mind or conduct is forbidden (1Thessalonians 5:6, 8). Bishops, Elders, Deacons, Older women, Young women and Young men are ALL commanded to be sober (1Timothy 3:2, 11; Titus 1:8; 2:2, 4, 6; 1Peter 1:13; 4:7; 5:8). To be sober not only means to be discreet in personal conduct and habits, but to have a right mind unaffected by any devise that would or could alter the mind or body to do otherwise. Some have voiced a concern towards Christians who were once alcoholics, that using wine in Communion might cause them to relapse. The truth of the matter is, if a thimble full of wine used in holy reverence towards the Lord’s Passover can cause a Christian to turn towards alcoholism; then they were never delivered in the first place. Jesus said, “If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed,” (John 8:36 ). Many other things we use in our daily life contain alcohol which have a higher alcohol content than naturally fermented wine, such as: cough syrup and mouth wash, none of which should cause a Christian to stumble in their walk with God. In regards to our subject, there is absolutely no way any person observing the Lord's Passover could be anything other than sober throughout the entire celebration. After all, the glory of the event is remembrance and being sober minded is the key to the whole observance.
5. When Paul told Timothy to take "a little wine" was the "wine" a grape jelly-like substance that was mixed with water?
Answer: Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible, volume 4, page 869 states:
"The latter is the juice of the grape, boiled to the consistency of thick treacle, and set aside to cool into a mass resembling in appearance candied honey. It is NOT TRUE that this substance is anywhere used or known as wine. In its commercial form it is no more a beverage than crystallized honey, and no one here ever saw or heard of any one drinking it and using it as a drink."
We would conclude from this that the idea of Paul telling Timothy to make a grape-jelly drink to avoid the use of real wine is simply error. Some have speculated that “honey” in the Old Testament was actually boiled grape juice which when mixed with water was considered wine. However, the Old Testament makes a clear distinction between “honey” and “wine.” “Honey” was forbidden as an offering made by fire (Leviticus 2:11). However, the drink offering, an offering made by fire, was “wine” (Numbers 15:10). The Greek word Paul used for “wine” (1 Timothy 5:23) was oinos, the SAME word used in Ephesians 5:18, “Be not DRUNK with wine (oinos)…” To say Timothy had stomach ulcers is conjecture and is not in the text. Timothy could have suffered from any number of intestinal disorders of which wine could have been used as a cure or aid. Again, whatever Timothy's stomach disorder, the practice of using wine for the old Passover or the Lord's Passover is totally unaffected.
6. How could wine be used for Communion, when the Bible says it is a mocker (Proverbs 20:1) and that in wine takes away the heart (Hosea 4:11) and that wine inflame them (Isaiah 5:11)?
Answer: Of course these in the text are those who have not used wine in a Godly manner and there is no condemnation of those that do. The condemnation is against those who use it wrongly and they are so identified. Notice also that no mention is here made against using wine for the Passover or for any of the other good purposes. The word “wine” (Hebrew yayin) when used in the vulgar sense can mean “intoxication” when so identified by the conduct of a person and is used in Genesis 9:24 to show such an event: "And Noah awoke from his wine (intoxication)." In Isaiah 5:11 it is brought out more clearly: "Woe unto them that rise early in the morning, that they may follow strong drink; that continue until night, till wine (intoxication) inflame them." Notice here that it is the misuse of wine to intoxication that is pointed as the evil and not wine itself. In the Scriptures mentioned above the misuse of “yayin” refers to the state of intoxication not to the actual beverage - wine. However, the beverage, wine, is used as a symbol of God’s blessings throughout the Bible. In Psalm 104:14-15, the Bible states that God gives us wine that “maketh glad the heart of man.” Prov. 3:9-10 states, “Honor the LORD with thy substance, and with the first fruits of all thine increase: so shall thy barns be filled with plenty, and thy presses shall burst out with new wine.”
7. How can wine be used for Communion, when the Bible says that God gave us “the pure blood of the grapes?”
Answer: The verse is found in Deuteronomy 32:14, "Butter of kine, and milk of sheep, with the fat of lambs, and rams of the breed of Bashan, and goats, with the fat of kidneys of wheat; and thou didst drink the PURE BLOOD of the grape." Those who contend for grape juice quote this verse but they do not rightly divide it. Is the “pure blood of the grape” fresh juice or fermented wine?
The key here is the word “pure” which in Hebrew is “chemer” (Strong's 2560--wine <as fermenting>: pure, red wine)”. The word “pure” refers to fermented wine, not fresh grape juice. This same word chemer is also found in Isaiah 27:2 and is translated “RED WINE.” The text then rightly divided would say: “… and thou didst drink the fermented blood of the grape.” Here we have a graphic proof that wine is the blood of the grape, and that it was considered “PURE” which all grape juice users deny. But now with the above evidence we trust they will be honest and confess that wine can be pure and is also the blood of the grape. Therefore the texts actually states, God gave us the FERMENTED blood of the grape not that he had given grape juice and this was the pure blood. This verse can only be used by those who serve wine, the pure blood of the grape. That is what Jesus did on the glorious event of sealing his wedding covenant with the Church when he blessed and then served his Passover cup to the Bride represented by the twelve apostles.
8. Does the word “wine” refer to unfermented grape juice since Isaiah 65:8 states that “new wine is found in the cluster?”
“New wine” DEFINITELY refers to fermented wine, and NOT to unfermented grape juice. The phrase “new wine” in Hebrew is tiyrosh, and in Greek is gluekos. The Bible indicates that BOTH tiyrosh (Hosea 4:11) and gluekos (Job 32:19 LXX; Acts 2:13) are fermented wine which can cause intoxication. The phrase “new wine is found in the cluster” is what grammarians call a prolepsis. A prolepsis is “the representation or assumption of a future act or development as if presently existing or accomplished” (Webster). We find a similar statement in Job 28:5:
“As for the earth, out of it cometh bread: and under it is turned up as it were fire.”
“Bread” does not literally come out of the earth. What comes out of the earth (ground) is grain which is made into “bread.” This statement (just like Isaiah 65:8) is simply a statement of anticipation i.e. a prolepsis. We find a similar statement throughout the Bible that God gave Israel “bread from heaven” (Exodus 16:4; Nehemiah 9:15; Psalm 105:40; John 6:31-32). The “bread from heaven” wasn’t literally bread, but was some sort of a grain the size and shape similar to the “coriander seed” (Numbers 11:7). The people gathered this manna, ground it in mills, and baked it in pans (Numbers 11:8); the final product being a “cake” or “bread.” Thus, we see “new wine is found in the cluster” is simply a statement of anticipation describing the final product of fermented wine.
9. Is there a particular date or day in which Christians “must” observe the Lord’s Supper?
There are different groups who teach that the Lord’s Supper must be observed on a particular date or day. There are some who teach that the Lord’s Supper must be observed only on Passover (Nisan 14); while others teach that it must be observed every Sunday (first day of the week). However, it must be observed that there is NO direct command in the New Testament on how frequent Christians are to observe the Lord’s Supper.
1Corinthians 11:25 - 26, After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, AS OFT as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For AS OFTEN as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.
The phrase “as oft” or “as often” in Greek is hosakis. Zodhiates, Word Study Dictionary, p. 1063 defines this as, “In the NT, ‘as many times as you do,’ followed by an (302), a particle denoting supposition, wish, possibility, or uncertainty … There is no implication of urgency or frequency.”
Those who teach an observance on Passover (Nisan 14) are called Quartodecimans (from Latin meaning “fourteen”). They contend that the Lord’s Supper is a continuance of the Passover, and should be observed on the same night (Nisan 14) that it was instituted. However, the Lord’s Supper was also instituted in Jerusalem in an upper room, but no one teaches that these should be observed also! In fact the Old Testament Law not only instructed what to eat (lamb, unleavened bread, etc.) and when to eat (Nisan 14), but also what time to eat (at even i.e. sunset) and WHERE to eat (Jerusalem cf. Deuteronomy 16:3-7). At the Last Supper, Jesus only instructed His disciples WHAT to eat (bread and fruit of the vine cf. Matthew 26:26-28), but NEVER when or where.
Modern Quartodecimans appeal to the supposed tradition of the Apostle John and Polycarp (his student) of observing the Lord’s Supper on Passover as proof of their doctrine. However, the bishops of the West claimed that their tradition of observance on Sunday was handed to them from Peter and Paul! Also, Polycarp never considered the issue a test of fellowship, and even consented to observing the Lord’s Supper with Anicetus on a Sunday (see wikipedia “Quartodecimans”).
Those who contend that the Lord’s Supper must be observed on Sunday appeal to ONE passage in the book of Acts.
Acts 20:7, And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.
For the sake of argument, we’ll agree that the phrase “break bread” here in Acts 20:7 refers to the Lord’s Supper. If this is the case, then it must be observed that the same phrase is also used in Acts 2:46 where the Scriptures indicate that the disciples continued “DAILY with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house.” The observance of the Lord’s Supper is not regulated to a particular time or place. Certainly Christians CAN observe the Lord’s Supper on Passover (Nisan 14) or on a Sunday; but there is NO command in the New Testament indicating on what date/day Christians MUST observe the Lord’s Supper.
10. How can wine be used for Communion, when Jesus called it the “fruit of the vine” (Matt. 26:29)?
Answer: We have already shown that WINE in the Passover celebration is blessed by Jews as the “FRUIT OF THE VINE”! The Passover cup of blessing contained wine and no Jew will ever deny this. Try to get one to confess that it was grape juice because they were trying to avoid use of wine because either it was sinful, or had leaven in it, and watch him laugh.
The most authoritative Greek scholars agree that "fruit of the vine" refers to wine:
Bauer, Arndt, Gringrich, Danker Lexicon, page 154 states: "of WINE as the product of the vine."
Vincent Word Studies of the New Testament, volume 1, page 139 states this is "applied to the WINE."
A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures, volume 2, page 267 states: "the fruit of the vine and not oinos though it was WINE undoubtedly."
Heinrich Meyer, Commentary on Matthew, page 470 states: "The use of this term instead of oinos has something solemn about it, containing as it does, an allusion to the form of thanksgiving for the Passover WINE."
Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible, volume 2, page 34 states: "There are several figurative names for WINE: 'fruit of the vine' (Lk 22:18 ), 'the blood of the grapes’ (Deut 32:14)."
R. C. H. Lenski, Commentary on Matthew, page 1032 says: "Because oinos does not appear in this account, the use of wine is at least gravely questioned, which means practically denied. The fact that Matthew writes not merely 'fruit of the vine' peri hagiphen, the lovely liturgical term for WINE used in the Passover ritual, but most definitely 'this fruit of the vine,' the one regularly used in the Passover and thus used by the Lord for his supper, is not appreciated by those who will not use wine in the celebration of the Lord's Supper, for they think grape juice fits this phrase better then wine although in April such a thing as grape juice was an impossibility in the Holy Land of Christ's time. It could be had only when grapes were freshly pressed out, before the juice started to ferment."
According to the Jewish Passover tradition, the very prayer over the cup of wine called it the “fruit of the vine.” Notice that Jesus said that He would not drink any more of THIS fruit of the vine, until that day He drinks it “new” in the Father’s kingdom (Matt. 26:29). The word “new” in this text has the meaning of “fresh” as opposed to “old.” This statement is a thesis, with an understood antithesis. For example when Jesus said, “This is the blood of the NEW testament” this is in opposition to the Old Testament which had already been in affect. Thus Jesus’ statement that He would no longer drink of this fruit of the vine until He drank it “new” or “fresh” is in opposition to drinking it “old” i.e. fermented, as He was then drinking it with His disciples. Thus the phrase “fruit of the vine” definitely refers to fermented wine.
There are thirty-seven commentaries on the Book of Matthew in Harding University Library that I checked in doing this research project. Twenty-six of these reference works state that “fruit of the vine” refers to fermented wine; ten of them do not state either way, and only one commentary stated that the “fruit of the vine” refers to grape juice, which we know is an absurdity, since neither this one nor has any other, ever proved the Jews used grape juice for the Passover for the purpose of not using leaven or because wine was considered a sinful product for the observance.
That is out of 37 reference works ONLY ONE voiced an unqualified opposition to "fruit of the vine" not being wine. This commentary was that of the Seventh - day Adventist which states: "The cup contained the pure juice of the grape, untouched by fermentation, and was probably diluted with water. The method used in ancient times to preserve grape juice in an unfermented state from the vintage six months prior to the Passover season is NOT KNOWN."
In other words, WE DO NOT KNOW THAT THEY DID IT, AND IF THEY DID IT, HOW THEY DID IT, AND WE CAN FIND NO JEW TO SAY THEY DID IT, BUT WE BELIEVE THEY DID IT AND IT WAS DONE!
Dr. Francis Beare's translation and commentary on Matthew 26:27 states: "And he took a cup of WINE, and when he gave thanks, he gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink of it all of you’."
Robert Bratcher's, A Translator's Guide To The Gospel of Matthew, page 334 states concerning Matthew 26:27: "Drink it: 'Drink from it' or 'Drink the WINE.' It may be better to begin the verse 'He took a cup full of wine,' which will make drink it more intelligible."
Wine is the natural "fruit (product) of the vine." What else could wine be the fruit of? All a person needs to do is crush the grapes, let the grapes and the juice mix as if in an old wine press, let the mixture stand a few days and wine is created as the leaven is conquered and killed out of the juice. Yeast cells collect naturally on the skins of grapes, and when exposed to the sugars of the juice fermentation begins according to the Mississippi State University College of Agriculture and Economics.
11. Does it really matter what element or beverage we use in observing the Lord’s Supper?
Answer: If the element does not matter, then the Church could simply supply milk and cookies for Communion. If the element does not matter, we could serve tomato juice for Communion because tomatoes grow on “the vine.” We understand that the element is essential in other Church ordinances. John the Baptist instituted baptism (immersion) in water, no other element will suffice. It would be unbiblical to baptize a convert in milk, champagne, tomato juice, soda, etc. When James commanded the elders of the church to “anoint with oil” we understand that olive oil is meant, not motor oil, corn oil, or hair oil. Consider this, we place much emphasis on the proper mode and formula of baptism (immersion in the name of Jesus Christ), then why shouldn’t we place as much emphasis on the proper symbol of Christ’s blood. Therefore the element or beverage we use in the Lord’s Supper should be identical with that Jesus used as a symbol of His blood – fermented wine.
12. Should the congregation use only ONE cup in Communion, or is it permissible for each member to have their own cup?
Answer: It is true that Jesus chose only one cup to institute the Lord’s Supper. However, Jewish tradition states that FOUR or FIVE cups were passed around by the Jewish householder during the Passover meal. Luke’s account of the Last Supper suggests that Jesus may have used TWO CUPS as the symbol of His blood (Luke 22:17 -20). The THIRD (or possibly FOURTH) cup (which is probably the one referred to in Matt. 26:28) was known as “the cup of blessing.” The emphasis of Jesus’ statement was not on the container itself, but the beverage in the container. The beverage (wine) in the one cup was the “blood of the New Testament.” When the Bible refers to “this cup” or “the cup of the Lord,” the ELEMENT in the cup is what is being referred to, NOT the actual container. We do this also today. We may ask someone if they would like a “cup of coffee,” and they reply, “No thanks, I’ve already had ‘a cup’.” “Cup” would actually refer to the beverage, and not the container. Greek scholars agree that “cup” refers to the beverage, and not the container:
Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon, “by metonymy of the container for the contained, the contents of the cup, what is offered to be drunk, Luke 22:20b”
Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker, Greek-English Lexicon, “cup stands, by metonymy, for what it contains ... Luke 22:20b ... I Corinthians 11:25b”
Bullinger, Greek-English Lexicon, “Luke 22:17, 20 - Cup is put for its contents, as is clear from ... I Cor 10:16, 21, 11:25, 26, 27, 28 - In these and other places 'cup' is put for its contents”
Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, “Nevertheless, the second element in the Lord's Supper is almost always called the cup rather than the wine in the N.T. ... it refers, not to the cup, but to its contents.”
Thus, the correct element (wine) is what is important to our observing of the Lord’s Supper, not the amount of containers. If a congregation wishes to observe the Lord’s Supper using only one cup, this is clearly permissible. However, one should not make a doctrine that a congregation MUST only use one cup. Jesus was baptized in water in the Jordan River . This does not necessitate that Christians be baptized in the Jordan River (the container), only that they be baptized in water (the element). Thus, the element (wine) is the essential part of Communion, not the number of containers.
.
We conclude by saying that whatever the Jews used for Passover is what Jesus used in his own Passover memorial cup. No one has ever proved that unfermented grape juice was ever used at the Passover because Jews considered wine a sin to use or that Jews considered wine to be leavened and unlawful for Passover use. Upon this authority and upon the authority of the Word of God, wine should be used for the commemoration of the Lord's cleansing blood that was shed for the remission of sins.
"After the same manner also he took the cup, when he supped, saying: "This cup is the New Testament in my blood: This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me" (1Cor 11:25 ).
APPENDIX
Foot washing and Communion
The night Jesus partook of the Passover feast with His disciples, Jesus instituted BOTH Foot washing and the Lord’s Supper. The account of Jesus washing the disciples’ feet is only found in the Gospel of John. The fact that John is the only writer to mention the incident does not take away from its importance. Remember, the Gospel of John is also the Gospel to record Jesus’ words “Ye must be born again” (John 3:7). The Gospel of John states:
“He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself. After that he poureth water into a basin, and began to wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded. Then cometh he to Simon Peter: and Peter saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet? Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter. Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet, Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me. Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head. Jesus saith unto him, He that is washed needeth not so save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all. For he knew who should betray him; therefore said he, Ye are not all clean. So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you? Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also out to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him. If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them” (John 13:4-17).
The act of “foot washing” was an established custom during the time of Christ. Because the people simply wore sandals in those times, and the roads were usually dirt, it was customary to wash a guest’s feet upon entering a house (cf. Luke 7:37 -47). However, the incident in John 13 of Jesus washing the disciples’ feet was NOT simply a matter of custom. The disciples were familiar with the custom of washing feet, however, this ordinance Jesus gave them, they were not familiar with (John 13:7). This act of foot washing was an act of humbleness and servitude (John 13:16 ), which is to be practiced by all Disciples of Christ (John 13:15 ). “Foot washing” is an important part of the Communion Service. It is as important as the bread and wine. According to John 13:8 the ceremony of “foot washing” makes us apart of Christ.
“Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou has no part with me” (John 13:8).
Some insist that the Bible does not demand that Christians literally wash each other’s feet during the Communion Service. They teach that Jesus was emphasizing humility, and any act of humility is equivalent to “foot washing.” For example, if a Christian changed the oil in an elder’s car; this, they claim, would be equivalent to “washing his feet.” However, Jesus spent 3 ½ years teaching the disciples about humility and servitude. What occurred in that upper room on Passover was the foundation of a Church ordinance. The same phraseology applied to observing the bread and wine is also used toward “foot washing.”
“And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this DO in REMEMBRANCE of me” (Luke 22:19 ).
The word “do” in this text is the Greek word “poieo” which means “to commit, or perform.” In order to “remember” Christ’s Last Supper we must “do” or “perform” what He did i.e. the breaking of bread and the taking of wine. The exact same phraseology is used towards “foot washing.”
“For I have given you and EXAMPLE, that ye should DO as I have DONE to you” (John 13:15 ).
The words “do” and “done” in this verse in Greek are “poieo,” the exact same word found in the giving of the ordinance of the bread and wine! That is, that which Jesus “performed” (foot washing), the disciples of Jesus should “perform” (foot washing)! Jesus said that when He washed the disciples’ feet, he gave them an “EXAMPLE” of what to perform. The word “example” in Greek is “hupodeigma” which means, “of the thing to be IMITATED” (Joseph Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon, p. 643). Again, that which Jesus did (wash the disciples’ feet), we should “IMITATE.” The phraseology concerning “foot washing” is more specific than the command to break bread and drink the cup. Why is it then, that some are not willing to humble themselves and “imitate” Christ, by practicing “foot washing” with their Communion Service? According to 1 Timothy 5:10 , a widow could not received aid from the church unless she had “washed the saints’ feet.” This is evidence that the early Church did indeed practice the ordinance of “foot washing.”
One last issue concerning “foot washing” is its timing as to the Lord’s Supper. Should the Church observe “foot washing” BEFORE or AFTER they partake of the unleavened bread and wine? Some might say that it does not matter, so long as both are observed. However, we do not want to be guilty of “putting the cart in front of the horse” so to speak. For example, a convert must FIRST repent BEFORE they become a candidate for baptism. Thus Peter’s command in Acts 2:38 was “Repent, and be baptized…” not “Be baptized and repent…” Likewise, Jesus’ statement in Mark 16:16 is that those who “believeth and is baptized shall be saved…” not “he that is baptized and believeth…” Each statement contains the same actions; however, these actions must be put in their proper order. The same is true concerning Foot Washing and Communion.
There is no apostolic command in the New Testament as to the proper order of the Communion Service, therefore churches base there Communion Services on the order of events recorded in the Gospels. As stated previously, Matthew, Mark & Luke mention the breaking of bread and the drinking of the cup; but do not mention the act of Jesus washing the disciples’ feet. John gives us the account of Jesus washing the disciples feet, but does not mention the actual breaking of bread or giving of the cup. However, THREE of the four Gospel writers DO mention the same instance of Jesus dipping the “sop” and giving it to Judas Iscariot! Now, we have an element of that Passover night that three of the four Gospel writers mention; so that we may be able to put the events into their proper order. A special note here on the account of the Last Supper as recorded in the Gospel of Luke. Luke does indeed mention the betrayal of Judas. However, Luke’s account of the Last Supper does not harmonize with either of the other two Synoptic Gospel writers (Matthew & Mark). A.T. Roberts stated concerning Luke’s account of the Last Supper:
“Luke here departs from the order of Mark (and Matthew) and mentions the institution of the supper earlier in the evening. It seems best to follow the chronology of Mark, who places it after the departure of Judas” (A.T. Robertson, A Harmony of the Gospels for Students of the Life of Christ, p. 148).
Therefore the account of the Last Supper as found in the Gospel of Luke must be viewed in light of both Matthew and Mark’s accounts of the Last Supper. A.T. Robertson, Harmony of the Gospel indicates that the identifying of the betrayer in Matt. 26:21-30; Mark 14:17-25; and John 13:21-30 all refer to the same event. Some have suggested that “dippeth his hand” (Matt. 26:23 & Mark 14:20 ) is not the same as “shall dip the sop, and give it him” (John 13:26 ). However, if these were different events, then Jesus would have announced the identity of the “betrayer” TWICE! If this were the case, then why would the disciples have questioned the identity of the betrayer both times? This would have been superfluous! Clearly, all three accounts refer to the same event.
According to Matthew and Mark, Jesus dipped the “sop” with Judas Iscariot BEFORE He instituted the breaking of bread and the cup of wine (see Matt. 26:21-30; Mark 14:17 -25). According to John, Jesus washed the disciples’ feet BEFORE He dipped the “sop” with Judas (John 13:4-30). Some see in the word “supper” used in John 13:4 a reference to the “Lord’s Supper,” and thus place the “foot washing” after the institution of the bread and wine. However, as previously mentioned, this would mean that Jesus dipped the “sop” with Judas TWICE, which is inconsistent with the account given in the Gospels. The word “supper” in John 13:4 is best understood to refer to the Passover supper, and NOT to the actual bread and wine Jesus presented later that night. The phrase “supper being ended” in John 13:2 (KJV) is not an accurate translation. The American Standard Version translates this, “and during supper,” the Rotherham translation states, “and, supper, being in progress” both showing that the Passover Supper was still in progress. Thus harmonizing the account of the Last Supper as recorded by Matthew, Mark, and John we have the following order of events.
The Passover Feast Begins (John 13:1-4)
Jesus Washes the disciples’ feet (John 13:4-20)
Jesus declares that He will be betrayed (Matt. 26:20-25; Mark 14:20; John 13:21-30)
Jesus presents the disciples with the bread and wine (Matt. 26:26-30; Mark 14:22 -26)
Alfred Edersheim in The Temple: Its Ministry and Service gives a comparison between the Last Supper events and the Passover Tradition as recorded in the Jewish Talmud. By comparing these two, Edersheim gives the order of events of the Passover meal Christ ate with His disciples as:
- The meal begins with a prayer of thanksgiving to God
- First cup of wine is passed around and drank by everyone, each person washes their hands.
(At this time Jesus arose from the table and washed the disciple’s feet)
- The herbs are dipped in salt water and ate.
- The son asks his father four questions, or in the absence of children the head of the table asks and answers the four questions of the Passover.
- The second cup of wine is passed around and drank; each person washes their hands again.
- The sop is dipped in the Charoseth
(This is time in which Jesus proclaimed that He would be betrayed, and dipped the sop with Judas)
- The Passover meal is eaten including the lamb, unleavened bread & bitter herbs.
(At this time Jesus broke the unleavened bread and passed it to the disciples)
- The third cup of wine, the “Cup of Blessing,” is passed around and drank.
(This cup, Christ declared to be the “blood of the New Testament” cf. 1 Cor. 10:16)
- The fourth cup of wine is passed around and drank by everyone.
- The Hallel or a Psalm is sung; sometimes a fifth cup of wine is drunk.
Therefore we can see, from comparing the Last Supper with the Jewish tradition of the Passover meal that Christ washed the disciples’ feet BEFORE He gave them the bread and wine. Thus this is the “pattern” that we should “imitate” in our observance of the Lord’s Supper.
No comments:
Post a Comment