DRINKING AND THE SCRIPTURES
- Thread starter dcontroversal
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Since you're still want to go back to the Op, let's go back to those "simple truths" & see how true they are.
Out of all your statements on scripture, these are correct:
Give strong drink to those ready to perish--> Proverbs 31:6a
Give wine unto those who are heavy of heart (depressed)--> Proverbs 31:6b
Paul told Timothy as a (pastor( to take a little wine for the sake of his stomach--> 1st Timothy 5:23
*Even though the last one is true, we still don't know whether strong wine, weak wine, unfermented, or watered-down wine was used. Let's say for now that it is fermented for the cause of your argument.
These statements are totally out of context & wrong:
To drink wine with a merry heart--> Ecclesiastes 9:7
Ecclesiastes 9:7 (KJV) [SUP]7 [/SUP]Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart; for God now accepteth thy works.
The reason to rejoice & be merry in your eating & drinking is because god has accepted your works.....
That laughter and wine makes the heart merry--> Ecclesiastes 10:19
Ecclesiastes 10:17-19 (NASB) [SUP]17 [/SUP]Blessed are you, O land, whose king is of nobility and whose princes eat at the appropriate time—for strength and not for drunkenness. [SUP]18 [/SUP]Through indolence the rafters sag, and through slackness the house leaks. [SUP]19 [/SUP]Men prepare a meal for enjoyment, and wine makes life merry, and money is the answer to everything.
Bible knowledge Commentary:
10:18-20. Solomon added that profligate, incompetent leaders are lazy, causing the ruin of the state and the loss of its protection, such as the sagging of rafters and the leaking of roofs. In their undisciplined lifestyle, they are involved in raucous feasting and merrymaking, which deplete state funds. The NEB renders this verse, “The table has its pleasures, and wine makes a cheerful life; and money is behind it all.” The clause money is the answer (yaʿăneh from ʿānâh) for everything means that the rulers think money can meet all their demands.
This scripture gives no excuse for the righteous to drink alcohol. It's totally out of context.
Jesus turned water into wine--> John chapter 2
There's no evidence alcohol was made by Jesus....... but there's evidence He didnt!
Jesus is the head of the church, yes? Jesus is the one who sent the Holy Spirit, yes? Jesus is the one who inspires the writers of the New Testament by the Holy Spirit, yes?
1 Corinthians 8:9-13 (KJV) [SUP]9 [/SUP]But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. [SUP]10 [/SUP]For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; [SUP]11 [/SUP]And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? [SUP]12 [/SUP]But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. [SUP]13 [/SUP]Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.
Romans 14:13-21 (KJV) [SUP]13 [/SUP]Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way. [SUP]14 [/SUP]I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. [SUP]15 [/SUP]But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. [SUP]16 [/SUP]Let not then your good be evil spoken of: [SUP]17 [/SUP]For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. [SUP]18 [/SUP]For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men. [SUP]19 [/SUP]Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. [SUP]20 [/SUP]For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. [SUP]21 [/SUP]It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
You see how far Paul was willing to go out of his way to not offend his brother? How many people do you see these days with that attitude? Wasn't it Jesus who inspired Paul to write this?
Would Jesus inspire Paul to write this when He Himself made alcoholic wine? Would Jesus risk offending little ones at the marriage in Cana?
Which one of you would serve alcohol at your daughter's wedding banquet? Would you risk someone getting drunk & embarassing your daughter, son-in-law, or their families? I think the best of you as christians that you wouldn't.
Why then would Jesus do such a thing? His family was there, yes? Notice.... no pharisee, scribe, or priest accused Jesus of sinning that day.
The "best" wine of Jesus' day was not the strongest, but the best tasting. Which would taste best from wineskins, new or old? The old would grow stronger & bitter.
Knowing that the qualifications for a bishop included not given to any alcoholic wine to keep him blameless, How much the more would Jesus have abstained from it?
Are we to be blameless also?
Philippians 2:12-16 (KJV) [SUP]12 [/SUP]Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. [SUP]13 [/SUP]For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. [SUP]14 [/SUP]Do all things without murmurings and disputings: [SUP]15 [/SUP]That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world; [SUP]16 [/SUP]Holding forth the word of life; that I may rejoice in the day of Christ, that I have not run in vain, neither laboured in vain.
In conclusion, I don't see God allowing or condoning drinking alcoholic wine or strong drink for casual or entertainment use. Never does God want us to risk our reputation as christians with useless things as these.
Out of all your statements on scripture, these are correct:
Give strong drink to those ready to perish--> Proverbs 31:6a
Give wine unto those who are heavy of heart (depressed)--> Proverbs 31:6b
Paul told Timothy as a (pastor( to take a little wine for the sake of his stomach--> 1st Timothy 5:23
*Even though the last one is true, we still don't know whether strong wine, weak wine, unfermented, or watered-down wine was used. Let's say for now that it is fermented for the cause of your argument.
These statements are totally out of context & wrong:
To drink wine with a merry heart--> Ecclesiastes 9:7
Ecclesiastes 9:7 (KJV) [SUP]7 [/SUP]Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart; for God now accepteth thy works.
The reason to rejoice & be merry in your eating & drinking is because god has accepted your works.....
That laughter and wine makes the heart merry--> Ecclesiastes 10:19
Ecclesiastes 10:17-19 (NASB) [SUP]17 [/SUP]Blessed are you, O land, whose king is of nobility and whose princes eat at the appropriate time—for strength and not for drunkenness. [SUP]18 [/SUP]Through indolence the rafters sag, and through slackness the house leaks. [SUP]19 [/SUP]Men prepare a meal for enjoyment, and wine makes life merry, and money is the answer to everything.
Bible knowledge Commentary:
10:18-20. Solomon added that profligate, incompetent leaders are lazy, causing the ruin of the state and the loss of its protection, such as the sagging of rafters and the leaking of roofs. In their undisciplined lifestyle, they are involved in raucous feasting and merrymaking, which deplete state funds. The NEB renders this verse, “The table has its pleasures, and wine makes a cheerful life; and money is behind it all.” The clause money is the answer (yaʿăneh from ʿānâh) for everything means that the rulers think money can meet all their demands.
This scripture gives no excuse for the righteous to drink alcohol. It's totally out of context.
Jesus turned water into wine--> John chapter 2
There's no evidence alcohol was made by Jesus....... but there's evidence He didnt!
Jesus is the head of the church, yes? Jesus is the one who sent the Holy Spirit, yes? Jesus is the one who inspires the writers of the New Testament by the Holy Spirit, yes?
1 Corinthians 8:9-13 (KJV) [SUP]9 [/SUP]But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. [SUP]10 [/SUP]For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; [SUP]11 [/SUP]And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? [SUP]12 [/SUP]But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. [SUP]13 [/SUP]Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.
Romans 14:13-21 (KJV) [SUP]13 [/SUP]Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way. [SUP]14 [/SUP]I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. [SUP]15 [/SUP]But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. [SUP]16 [/SUP]Let not then your good be evil spoken of: [SUP]17 [/SUP]For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. [SUP]18 [/SUP]For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men. [SUP]19 [/SUP]Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. [SUP]20 [/SUP]For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. [SUP]21 [/SUP]It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
You see how far Paul was willing to go out of his way to not offend his brother? How many people do you see these days with that attitude? Wasn't it Jesus who inspired Paul to write this?
Would Jesus inspire Paul to write this when He Himself made alcoholic wine? Would Jesus risk offending little ones at the marriage in Cana?
Which one of you would serve alcohol at your daughter's wedding banquet? Would you risk someone getting drunk & embarassing your daughter, son-in-law, or their families? I think the best of you as christians that you wouldn't.
Why then would Jesus do such a thing? His family was there, yes? Notice.... no pharisee, scribe, or priest accused Jesus of sinning that day.
The "best" wine of Jesus' day was not the strongest, but the best tasting. Which would taste best from wineskins, new or old? The old would grow stronger & bitter.
Knowing that the qualifications for a bishop included not given to any alcoholic wine to keep him blameless, How much the more would Jesus have abstained from it?
Are we to be blameless also?
Philippians 2:12-16 (KJV) [SUP]12 [/SUP]Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. [SUP]13 [/SUP]For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. [SUP]14 [/SUP]Do all things without murmurings and disputings: [SUP]15 [/SUP]That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world; [SUP]16 [/SUP]Holding forth the word of life; that I may rejoice in the day of Christ, that I have not run in vain, neither laboured in vain.
In conclusion, I don't see God allowing or condoning drinking alcoholic wine or strong drink for casual or entertainment use. Never does God want us to risk our reputation as christians with useless things as these.
I want to apologize again if I insulted you last week. with all due respect to what is posted above, their is not one verse in the entire Bible that states the having a drink of wine is a sin. now, you are free to feel however you want. if your personal Church or denomination has a alcohol is evil stand, you are free to abide by that. but you can not use the Bible to say it is a sin because the Word of God does not anywhere say it.
P
That is asinine. You want me to tell you what your dollars help support when you buy a walgreens? Have a look and see how many of these corporations you give money to.
Corporate Sponsors - L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center
Or how many of these people do you do business with?
So go ahead, tell me again how buying a bottle of wine is supporting....uh, what? What is that supporting? Oh that's right, you didn't say. Well then, please tell us.
Corporate Sponsors - L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center
Or how many of these people do you do business with?
So go ahead, tell me again how buying a bottle of wine is supporting....uh, what? What is that supporting? Oh that's right, you didn't say. Well then, please tell us.
K
It will make sense after another bottle. Your are supporting alcoholism and it's not a disease IT IS A SIN. If it was a disease, it's the only disease that is displayed on billboards to tell you how wonderful it is. It's the only disease that you can go to the courthouse and get a licenses to sell. It's the only disease that you can go and pick out what flavor you like.
P
If you want to start sling barbs you should know who you are slinging them at. I don't drink. I never said there was such a thing as alcoholism. Quite the contrary, I said I have never believed it is a disease. You need to go back and catch up on my posts. Then maybe you will slow down with your trash talking.
I disagree. The NT actually condemns social drinking. One issue I will deal with here is the word "wine".
Too many people today read the word wine in the NT and then ASSUME our modern day English meaning of the word wine into the verse thinking it means fermented wine only. In the original Greek, the word for wine, oinos, as used in the LXX can mean anything from fermented wine to unfermented wine (grape juice) to a cluster of grapes on the vine. Even our English word wine, as can been seen in some dictionaries from the 1940's on back, carried the idea of unfermented wine and not fermented wine only.
Too many people today read the word wine in the NT and then ASSUME our modern day English meaning of the word wine into the verse thinking it means fermented wine only. In the original Greek, the word for wine, oinos, as used in the LXX can mean anything from fermented wine to unfermented wine (grape juice) to a cluster of grapes on the vine. Even our English word wine, as can been seen in some dictionaries from the 1940's on back, carried the idea of unfermented wine and not fermented wine only.
Well that has been covered extensively and to argue the validity of the wine of the bible as being non-alcoholic is mute in light of the facts as grape juice cannot do the things that are suggested by the OP and or the other things describe as found tied unto wine.....Lets see if they make sense..
Pharisee--->to Jesus--->The Son of man came eating and drinking and you call him a friend of sinners and a (grape juice drinker) WINE BIBBER
Be not drunk with Grape juice in EXCESS key words bolded!
Give (grape juice) to those of a heavy heart...
Come on...do you believe the regurgitated ignorance that has been spread by hyper legalistic seminaries and the men that they have churned out as preachers!....CONTEXT DICTATES WHAT IS BEING TALKED ABOUT....
NO NEW WINE IN OLD SKINS AS WINE FERMENTS AND EXPANDS BECAUSE OF THE GASSES.....
Pharisee--->to Jesus--->The Son of man came eating and drinking and you call him a friend of sinners and a (grape juice drinker) WINE BIBBER
Be not drunk with Grape juice in EXCESS key words bolded!
Give (grape juice) to those of a heavy heart...
Come on...do you believe the regurgitated ignorance that has been spread by hyper legalistic seminaries and the men that they have churned out as preachers!....CONTEXT DICTATES WHAT IS BEING TALKED ABOUT....
NO NEW WINE IN OLD SKINS AS WINE FERMENTS AND EXPANDS BECAUSE OF THE GASSES.....
I do not see that an argument can accurately be made when underlying Greek words are being ignored.
When Jesus turned water into wine it is ASSUMED and nothing more than assumed that the wine was alcoholic in nature.
This was the first of miracles Jesus did and the purpose of the miracles, Jn 2:11 says "This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him"
Jesus would NOT be manifesting His glory and inducing a belief in people by contributing to the drunkenness of others
---------------------------------------------------------
In the context of Matt 11:18,19 Jesus being called a winebibber in no way proves he drank alcoholic wine.
If Jesus falsely being called a drunkard "proves" that He must have drank fermented drinks,
then
Jesus being called a sinner, Jn 9:24, must "prove" that He must have committed sin
Jesus being called a deciever, Mt 27:63, must "prove" He must have deceived people
Jesus said to have a demon, Jn 7:20, must "prove" He had demonic powers, "proves" He was Beelzebul as they called Him, Mt 10:25
Jesus was said to do that which is not lawful, Mt 12:2, must "prove" he broke the law on occasion
Jesus was said to blaspheme, Jn 10:33, so that must "prove" He must have done some blaspheming
The truth is, Jesus was no more a winebibber than He was a glutton or that Jon had a devil. Jesus came to save sinners and He went among sinners, those that were winebibbers and gluttons, and His enemies accused Jesus in participating in those sins since He was seen among those that were gluttons and winebibbers.
Lastly, in the context of Matt 11, the phrase eating and drinking is used figuratively to describe the lifestyles. When it says John came not eating or drinking that is figurative for his reclusive, anti-social lifestyle away from people. When it says Jesus came eating and drinking that is figurative for His social lifestyle among people and not literally about what He ate or drank.
Does the phrase "John came neither eating nor drinking" literally mean John did not eat or drink anything? No. So that must mean the phrases "eating and drinking" is used in a figurative sense.
-------------------------------
They used new skins to keep it from fermenting. Old skins would, a short while after being emptied develop yeast on the sides. Having absorbed oxygen the fermented matter would be communicated to the entire mass and eventually rend the skin. So they put it in clean bottles to keep it from fermenting.
"In the New Testament oinos is used 33 times. Concerning the Parable of the Wineskins, the juice would be acted on by yeast from the old wineskins and would begin to foam. Such gases could split any wineskin, but especially an older one that was already stretched out (Matthew 9:17; Luke 5:37,38). New wine would be grape juice (or a grapeade) mode from grape syrup while old wine would be 2 to 3 years old." --- From the Complete Biblical Library Greek-English Dictionary.
When Jesus turned water into wine it is ASSUMED and nothing more than assumed that the wine was alcoholic in nature.
This was the first of miracles Jesus did and the purpose of the miracles, Jn 2:11 says "This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him"
Jesus would NOT be manifesting His glory and inducing a belief in people by contributing to the drunkenness of others
---------------------------------------------------------
In the context of Matt 11:18,19 Jesus being called a winebibber in no way proves he drank alcoholic wine.
If Jesus falsely being called a drunkard "proves" that He must have drank fermented drinks,
then
Jesus being called a sinner, Jn 9:24, must "prove" that He must have committed sin
Jesus being called a deciever, Mt 27:63, must "prove" He must have deceived people
Jesus said to have a demon, Jn 7:20, must "prove" He had demonic powers, "proves" He was Beelzebul as they called Him, Mt 10:25
Jesus was said to do that which is not lawful, Mt 12:2, must "prove" he broke the law on occasion
Jesus was said to blaspheme, Jn 10:33, so that must "prove" He must have done some blaspheming
The truth is, Jesus was no more a winebibber than He was a glutton or that Jon had a devil. Jesus came to save sinners and He went among sinners, those that were winebibbers and gluttons, and His enemies accused Jesus in participating in those sins since He was seen among those that were gluttons and winebibbers.
Lastly, in the context of Matt 11, the phrase eating and drinking is used figuratively to describe the lifestyles. When it says John came not eating or drinking that is figurative for his reclusive, anti-social lifestyle away from people. When it says Jesus came eating and drinking that is figurative for His social lifestyle among people and not literally about what He ate or drank.
Does the phrase "John came neither eating nor drinking" literally mean John did not eat or drink anything? No. So that must mean the phrases "eating and drinking" is used in a figurative sense.
-------------------------------
They used new skins to keep it from fermenting. Old skins would, a short while after being emptied develop yeast on the sides. Having absorbed oxygen the fermented matter would be communicated to the entire mass and eventually rend the skin. So they put it in clean bottles to keep it from fermenting.
"In the New Testament oinos is used 33 times. Concerning the Parable of the Wineskins, the juice would be acted on by yeast from the old wineskins and would begin to foam. Such gases could split any wineskin, but especially an older one that was already stretched out (Matthew 9:17; Luke 5:37,38). New wine would be grape juice (or a grapeade) mode from grape syrup while old wine would be 2 to 3 years old." --- From the Complete Biblical Library Greek-English Dictionary.
EPh 5:18 Paul is not condoning the moderate drinking of alcohol.
Paul is contrasting being filled with the spirit and being filled with wine.
This is mutually exclusive in that one cannot be both at the same time, it is one or the other proposition. You cannot be moderately filled with the spirit and at the same time moderately filled with wine. The same mutual exclusion is in Lk 1:15 John was not filled both the Spirit and alcohol at the same time.
As far as the original text of EPh 5:18: (my emp)
The clause that literally reads "in which is debauchery" refers to wine in Ephesians 5:18. Some translations change it to "that is debauchery" meaning getting drunk is debauchery, but this is not what the original text states. The original text states that there is debauchery in wine, as in Proverbs 23:31. In a letter to Laeta, a lady who wrote asking how to bring up her infant daughter, Jerome advised, "Let her learn even now not to drink wine 'wherein is excess.'" This quote of Ephesians 5:18 shows that Jerome believed the excess referred to the wine and not that drunkenness held excess. Albert Barnes stated, "Let Christians when about to indulge in a glass of wine, think of this admonition [Ephesians 5:18]. Let them remember that their bodies should be the temple of the Holy Ghost rather than a receptacle for intoxicating drinks. Was any man ever made a better Christian by the use of wine? Was any minister ever better fitted to counsel an anxious sinner, or to pray, or to preach the gospel, by the use of intoxicating drinks? Let the history of wine-drinking and intemperate clergymen answer." Jeffrey W. Hamilton
Paul is contrasting being filled with the spirit and being filled with wine.
This is mutually exclusive in that one cannot be both at the same time, it is one or the other proposition. You cannot be moderately filled with the spirit and at the same time moderately filled with wine. The same mutual exclusion is in Lk 1:15 John was not filled both the Spirit and alcohol at the same time.
As far as the original text of EPh 5:18: (my emp)
The clause that literally reads "in which is debauchery" refers to wine in Ephesians 5:18. Some translations change it to "that is debauchery" meaning getting drunk is debauchery, but this is not what the original text states. The original text states that there is debauchery in wine, as in Proverbs 23:31. In a letter to Laeta, a lady who wrote asking how to bring up her infant daughter, Jerome advised, "Let her learn even now not to drink wine 'wherein is excess.'" This quote of Ephesians 5:18 shows that Jerome believed the excess referred to the wine and not that drunkenness held excess. Albert Barnes stated, "Let Christians when about to indulge in a glass of wine, think of this admonition [Ephesians 5:18]. Let them remember that their bodies should be the temple of the Holy Ghost rather than a receptacle for intoxicating drinks. Was any man ever made a better Christian by the use of wine? Was any minister ever better fitted to counsel an anxious sinner, or to pray, or to preach the gospel, by the use of intoxicating drinks? Let the history of wine-drinking and intemperate clergymen answer." Jeffrey W. Hamilton
What ever dude...I stand with the OP and all the scriptures given in context as opposed to self-righteous hyper religious regurgitated mistruths. It is not those things that enter into a man that defiles a man but rather the wicked things that come forth of a man. Like Jesus said...Go learn what that means and then come argue the simple truths of that was said in the OP
Study up...
All you did was to wholesale plagiarize your reply from the web.
Look what you missed by doing that...
And taking the cup (potérion),and giving thanks, He gave to them, saying, Drink all of it. For this is My blood of the New Covenant which concerning many is being poured out for remission of sins. But I say to you, I will not at all drink of this fruit of the vine after this until that day when I drink it new with you in the kingdom of My Father. (Matt 26.27 – 29)
Further proof that it was wine that Jesus drank is provided by the Greek term ‘potérion’ which literally means ‘wine cup’!
Why use a wine cup for grape juice?
Wrong, again, When the Lord instituted the communion He used the phrase "fruit of the vine" instead of one of the words that could have been translated by "wine." This should settle the issue. There are those who need more proof that the fruit of the vine is the only element that we must use in the cup our Lord. We shall now present this proof.
The phrase, fruit of the vine, comes from the following Greek words: tou gennhmato" th" ampelou. The word for "fruit" is "gennema" and means: "that which has been born or begotten; the offspring or progeny of men or animals: the fruits of the earth, the produce of agriculture." The word for "vine" is "ampelos" and its definition is simply "a vine." The word "vine" as it appears in the scriptures always has reference to the grape vine. In only one situation, that being the Old Testament, it has reference to a gourd plant. The vine culture of the land of Israel is well know, so when we use this word, it has reference to the grape vine - no other is under consideration.
The phrase has reference to the produce of the vine. Because Jesus had reference to drinking, we naturally conclude that it was the juice produced by the vine. This is what we know as grape juice. This was a common drink during the time of our Lord, and throughout the history of God's people.
If the Lord had used the word "oinos," which is the normal word for wine, then there might be debate as to what was inside the cup. However, the Lord did not use this word, but the phrase "fruit of the vine." This should settle the question, yet there are those who will still argue the issue.
There are certain facts that we must recognize about the time that the Lord instituted the communion. First, it was the time of the Passover. During this time period, there could not be anything that had been fermented or leavened within the homes of the Jewish people. For one week before this feast, there was an effort to remove anything leavened from their homes. Since wine is the result of fermentation, there could not be any alcoholic wine within their home. This alone would bring us to the conclusion that the fruit of the vine was not wine.
Leaven has been used as a symbol of evil and sin. The word for leaven in the Greek is "zume." It occurs thirteen times in the New Testament scriptures. It means: "1) leaven; 2) metaph. of inveterate mental and moral corruption, viewed in its tendency to infect others. Leaven is applied to that which, though small in quantity, yet by its influence thoroughly pervades a thing; either in a good sense as in the parable Mat. 13:33; or in a bad sense, of a pernicious influence, 'a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.'" (From Thayer's, as found in Logos.)
Logic would conclude that the Lord would not have chosen something that represented sin and corruption to be a symbol of His blood. Our Lord lived a pure and sinless life. Whatever represented His blood would have to be pure and free from any corruption. The fruit of the vine fills this need.
There is always the objection to the use of the fruit of the vine that says that they could not keep fresh grape juice during this time. This is not true. There were many different ways to preserve fruits fresh during the time of our Lord. Often, they would boil the juice of the grape down to a tick syrup called sapa or defrutum (Latin words that mean "must or new wine boiled thick.") This could be kept for long periods of time without spoiling. All they had to do was add water or goats milk, and the thick syrup would become thin and drinkable. Throughout the Old Testament history, this was a common practice among the nations. It was a product of quality and desired among many. When Jacob sent gifts to Egypt, one of these was honey (or the boiled down juice of the grape.) In Gen. 43:11, the word for honey has reference to grape honey. Gesenius defines this on page 188-89:
"debash" (2) {honey of grapes}, i.e. must or new wine boiled down to a third or half (Gr. epsami, Lat. sapa, defrutum, Ital. musto coto
which is now commonly carried into Egypt out of Palestine, especially out of the district of Hebron (comp. Russel's Natural History of Aleppo, p. 20); Gen. 43:11; Eze. 27:17. Another source that supports grape honey is from Unger's Bible Dictionary, p. 1158, 1970 edition:
The phrase, fruit of the vine, comes from the following Greek words: tou gennhmato" th" ampelou. The word for "fruit" is "gennema" and means: "that which has been born or begotten; the offspring or progeny of men or animals: the fruits of the earth, the produce of agriculture." The word for "vine" is "ampelos" and its definition is simply "a vine." The word "vine" as it appears in the scriptures always has reference to the grape vine. In only one situation, that being the Old Testament, it has reference to a gourd plant. The vine culture of the land of Israel is well know, so when we use this word, it has reference to the grape vine - no other is under consideration.
The phrase has reference to the produce of the vine. Because Jesus had reference to drinking, we naturally conclude that it was the juice produced by the vine. This is what we know as grape juice. This was a common drink during the time of our Lord, and throughout the history of God's people.
If the Lord had used the word "oinos," which is the normal word for wine, then there might be debate as to what was inside the cup. However, the Lord did not use this word, but the phrase "fruit of the vine." This should settle the question, yet there are those who will still argue the issue.
There are certain facts that we must recognize about the time that the Lord instituted the communion. First, it was the time of the Passover. During this time period, there could not be anything that had been fermented or leavened within the homes of the Jewish people. For one week before this feast, there was an effort to remove anything leavened from their homes. Since wine is the result of fermentation, there could not be any alcoholic wine within their home. This alone would bring us to the conclusion that the fruit of the vine was not wine.
Leaven has been used as a symbol of evil and sin. The word for leaven in the Greek is "zume." It occurs thirteen times in the New Testament scriptures. It means: "1) leaven; 2) metaph. of inveterate mental and moral corruption, viewed in its tendency to infect others. Leaven is applied to that which, though small in quantity, yet by its influence thoroughly pervades a thing; either in a good sense as in the parable Mat. 13:33; or in a bad sense, of a pernicious influence, 'a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.'" (From Thayer's, as found in Logos.)
Logic would conclude that the Lord would not have chosen something that represented sin and corruption to be a symbol of His blood. Our Lord lived a pure and sinless life. Whatever represented His blood would have to be pure and free from any corruption. The fruit of the vine fills this need.
There is always the objection to the use of the fruit of the vine that says that they could not keep fresh grape juice during this time. This is not true. There were many different ways to preserve fruits fresh during the time of our Lord. Often, they would boil the juice of the grape down to a tick syrup called sapa or defrutum (Latin words that mean "must or new wine boiled thick.") This could be kept for long periods of time without spoiling. All they had to do was add water or goats milk, and the thick syrup would become thin and drinkable. Throughout the Old Testament history, this was a common practice among the nations. It was a product of quality and desired among many. When Jacob sent gifts to Egypt, one of these was honey (or the boiled down juice of the grape.) In Gen. 43:11, the word for honey has reference to grape honey. Gesenius defines this on page 188-89:
"debash" (2) {honey of grapes}, i.e. must or new wine boiled down to a third or half (Gr. epsami, Lat. sapa, defrutum, Ital. musto coto
which is now commonly carried into Egypt out of Palestine, especially out of the district of Hebron (comp. Russel's Natural History of Aleppo, p. 20); Gen. 43:11; Eze. 27:17. Another source that supports grape honey is from Unger's Bible Dictionary, p. 1158, 1970 edition:
All you did was to wholesale plagiarize your reply from the web.
Look what you missed by doing that...
And taking the cup (potérion),and giving thanks, He gave to them, saying, Drink all of it. For this is My blood of the New Covenant which concerning many is being poured out for remission of sins. But I say to you, I will not at all drink of this fruit of the vine after this until that day when I drink it new with you in the kingdom of My Father. (Matt 26.27 – 29)
Further proof that it was wine that Jesus drank is provided by the Greek term ‘potérion’ which literally means ‘wine cup’!
Why use a wine cup for grape juice?