I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zenas
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Z

Zenas

Guest
These words of Jesus, uttered at the Last Supper, are found in all three of the synoptic gospels. Yet in John 19:28-30, we read:

“28 After this, Jesus, knowing that all things had already been accomplished, to fulfill the Scripture, said, “I am thirsty.”
29 A jar full of sour wine was standing there; so they put a sponge full of the sour wine upon a branch of hyssop and brought it up to His mouth.
30Therefore when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!” And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit.”

It would seem that at the time Jesus took the sour wine, He had not yet entered into the kingdom. So why did He do it, and how can this be reconciled with His statement at the Last Supper?
 
What makes you think that Jesus drank that wine while on the cross? Read Mark’s account. Mark says that Jesus didn’t drink it. Matthew says that it was offered, but he doesn’t say that Jesus drank it.

Put them all together, and I’ll say that Jesus didn’t drink it.
 
In the Passover meal there are four cups of wine that are drank. Some say that Jesus took the last cup on the Cross which completed the Passover.

Henri Nouwen wrote a book called Can you Drink This Cup which I think was based on a question that Jesus once asked some of his apostles. The question had to do with their being willing to join in his suffering for all of mankind.
 
rwoehmke said:
In the Passover meal there are four cups of wine that are drank. Some say that Jesus took the last cup on the Cross which completed the Passover.
Click to expand...
I know the Eucharistic implications of this are significant, and I have heard that the cup on the cross is the fourth cup. But that being so, why did Jesus say, “I will never drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God?”
 
*Mt 26:27-29 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
I tell you I shall not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new **with you **in my Father’s kingdom.” *

The following is my personal way of understanding Our Lord’s statement.
The “this fruit of the vine” was consecrated wine, the consecrated wine of the Eucharist which Jesus had just instituted. Jesus would not drink consecrated wine (His blood) until He drank it “new with them” when they would be celebrating the Mass in His “Father’s kingdom” - the Church. At Mass the priest is there in the person of Christ, Christ is present in Him, acting through the priest. In His unity with the priest, Our Lord is drinking it “with you/him”.

It’s also possible that Our Lord Himself again celebrated the Mass/Eucharist with the Emmaus disciples after His resurrection.

*Luke 24:30 When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them. *
*Luke 24:35 Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he was known to them in the breaking of the bread. *

Nita
 
Zenas said:
I know the Eucharistic implications of this are significant, and I have heard that the cup on the cross is the fourth cup. But that being so, why did Jesus say, “I will never drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God?”
Click to expand...
From Scott Hahns Lambs Super

After all, he declared very clearly, “I will not taste of the fruit of the vine again until I drink it new with you in the kingdom” - - until my glory is established, until the purpose for my coming is realized. And if you follow Jesus’ footsteps from the Mount of Olives to the trial and to the sentencing and to the carrying of the cross up Calvary, you discover that he followed through on his resolution. For instance, there in Mark 15:23, we read, “On the way up to Golgatha, they offered him wine mingled with myrrh, but he did not take it.” He refused the wine. After all, what did he say? “I’m not going to taste the fruit of the vine again until my kingdom has come, my glory is revealed.”
Now, what exactly does that mean? When is it that Christ’s kingdom comes? When is it that his glory is revealed? I think most of us would assume that the answer is the second coming, the final advent when our Lord returns and establishes his eternal kingdom and manifests his divine glory for all the world to see and for the rest of eternity.
But that is not the perspective of the New Testament in the gospels, especially John. In the fourth gospel, the Gospel of John, we have a very penetrating insight into what Jesus meant when he spoke of his kingdom, when he referred to his glory, when he spoke about the real purpose for his coming. For instance, in John 12, we read, "Jesus answered them, ‘The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. Now is the judgment of this world. Now shall the ruler of this world be cast out and I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.’ "
What was he talking about? He says, “Now is the hour of glory. The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified.” It sounds like the reference to the end of time, when the Son of Man comes riding on the clouds. “Now the judgment of this world begins. The ruler of this world will be cast out.” That sounds like the expulsion of Satan and the consignment of his legions to hell for eternity. “And I, when I am lifted up from this world from the earth, will draw all men to myself.” Perhaps that refers to Christ gathering the elect and taking them home to heaven.
But that is not Jesus’ meaning. John makes it clear, “When I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all men to myself. He said this to show by what death he was to die.” John has a very profound spiritual insight here for us. We assume that Jesus’ kingdom and glory are primarily physical and visible realities, when, in fact, the glory of Christ’s kingdom is the truth and the love that he manifested upon the cross. So for Christ, in his own conscious thought, he understood that when he died that shameful ignominious death on the cross, there on Calvary, at that moment of shame and agony and horror – for the first time in history, the greatest manifestation of God’s love became available to all the earth.
see zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m5/lmbsp.html
zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/4cp.html
 
Thank you Michael G (Post # 6) and epostle (Post #7). However, with all due respect to Scott Hahn who is a better scholar than I could ever hope to be, he has misquoted our Lord on this. Hahn quotes Jesus as saying, “I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until I am entering into the kingdom of God.” This is a present perfect tense and all three scriptural accounts (Matthew 26:29; Mark 14:25 and Luke 22:16) use a future perfect tense. Mark 14:25, which is the tltle of this post is illustrative. So we have Hahn saying Jesus won’t drink the fruit of the vine until he is coming into the kingdom, whereas Jesus actually says He won’t drink the fruit of the vine until after He has come into His kindgom. When He drank the cup of sour wine on the cross, He was close but quite there. This isn’t meant to detract from Scott Hahn’s beautiful and precise explanation of how Jesus became the sacrificial lamb of the passover but his explanation of the fourth cup still falls short.
 
even if Jesus drank the cup on the cross, it was vingar, not propper wine. And, Jesus did not drink it with the appostles.

It is my impression that Jesus said that he would not drink the wine with the apostles until the comming of the kingdom.

Did I misread the text? “with you”

Matthew 26:29
I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew **with you **in my Father’s kingdom."

I don’t recall the apostles drinking wine at the foot of the cross, do you?

👍
 
It doesn’t say that the apostles will drink, it just seems to imply that they would be with Jesus when he drinks. And at least John was there. Also, the kingdom of God exists where ever God is king, that is, the church.
 
I’d go back to the fact that it’s SOUR wine.

Sour wine is vinegar. Vinegar is not the same thing as wine, just like a beefsteak is not the same thing as the cow it came from.

In fact I don’t think I’ve ever heard that verse before translated as anything BUT ‘vinegar’.
 
Scott Hahn explains the fourth cup as Christ’s crucifixion. I am trying to think of where I read or heard this. Dr. Hahn speaks about the 4 cups of the Seder meal and how the apostles would have been confused that Jesus ended the meal after the 3rd cup when he instituted the Eucharist and left the Upper Room. This makes all that followed a part of the Paschal celebration. When Jesus pours out his own life on the cross, he completes the meal by drinking the wine. This means that Jesus has paid the price to reuntie us with God in the Kingdom. Dr. Hahn describes this in detail. (Please forgive me, Dr. Hahn, if I have done a poor job…)

At our Pascal Feast on Holy Thursday we leave the church without being dismissed. The celebration on Friday has no beginning or end because it is still part of the celebration. The celebration is not ended until after the Easter Vigil.
 
bcuster said:
Scott Hahn explains the fourth cup as Christ’s crucifixion.
Click to expand...
I believe a careful reading of Scott Hahn shows he is equating the fourth cup with the sour wine in John 19:29. His analysis of these events is really flawless except the fourth cup doesn’t match up very well with when Jesus said He would again take of the fruit of the vine.

Maybe Scott Hahn is wrong and Nita has the right idea in Post 5.
 
LilyM said:
I’d go back to the fact that it’s SOUR wine.

Sour wine is vinegar. Vinegar is not the same thing as wine, just like a beefsteak is not the same thing as the cow it came from.

In fact I don’t think I’ve ever heard that verse before translated as anything BUT ‘vinegar’.
Click to expand...
and I was under the impression it was drugged. this was a custom to offer drugged vinegar to those on the crosses to ease the pangs of death. I never thot Jesus took it.
 
Zenas said:
I believe a careful reading of Scott Hahn shows he is equating the fourth cup with the sour wine in John 19:29. His analysis of these events is really flawless except the fourth cup doesn’t match up very well with when Jesus said He would again take of the fruit of the vine.

Maybe Scott Hahn is wrong and Nita has the right idea in Post 5.
Click to expand...
Isn’t Vinegar classified as “fruit of the vine”?
 
Zenas said:
Thank you Michael G (Post # 6) and epostle (Post #7). However, with all due respect to Scott Hahn who is a better scholar than I could ever hope to be, he has misquoted our Lord on this. Hahn quotes Jesus as saying, “I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until I am entering into the kingdom of God.” This is a present perfect tense and all three scriptural accounts (Matthew 26:29; Mark 14:25 and Luke 22:16) use a future perfect tense.
Click to expand...
Hahn most likely used the NAB, which used this tense: nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/mark/mark14.htm
 
Ravyn_Guiliani said:
and I was under the impression it was drugged. this was a custom to offer drugged vinegar to those on the crosses to ease the pangs of death. I never thot Jesus took it.
Click to expand...
You’re mixing up Mark and John.

In Mark, Jesus was offered wine mixed with myrrh (a pain killer), but he did not drink it. This happened as Jesus was carrying the Cross.

In John, Jesus was offerred vinegar while on the Cross, and he drank it.

Notice one more clue for the 4th Cup being drunk on the Cross.

At the end of the 4th cup at Passover, the leader says, "It is Finished (actually, the translation is “consummated”).

In John, we read, When Jesus had taken the wine, he said, "It is finished." Again, the better translation is “consummated”.
 
NotWorthy said:
Isn’t Vinegar classified as “fruit of the vine”?
Click to expand...
It is. In fact, the Greek version I have lists the definition for that word as “sour wine” not vinegar. And they gave it to him on a hyssop branch. Thats what they used to spread the blood on the door frame during the original Passover. The connection at Golgotha between the blood and the wine, sometimes called the blood of the grape, I think is pretty striking. 😉
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenas forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*I believe a careful reading of Scott Hahn shows he is equating the fourth cup with the sour wine in John 19:29. His analysis of these events is really flawless except the fourth cup doesn’t match up very well with when Jesus said He would again take of the fruit of the vine.

Maybe Scott Hahn is wrong and Nita has the right idea in Post 5.*

Isn’t Vinegar classified as “fruit of the vine”?

I would propose that both Scott Hahn and Nita, in post 5 are correct. When Jesus drank the fourth cup of the Seder on the cross and said, “It is consummated.” he was indeed referring to his becoming the Lamb that was slain and the Transfiguration of the Passover into the Mass. Yet, this drinking of the fourth cup was not in the context of HIgh Priest at Mass, which is what Jesus was alluding to when he told the Apostles, “And I say to you, I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I shall drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father.” This was not done “in the Kingdom” until the road to Emmaus.
NotWorthy said:
Isn’t Vinegar classified as “fruit of the vine”?
Click to expand...
 
OK, something else to throw out:

If the vinegar is drunk in accordance with the Passover Feast, and vinegar is good wine gone bad, could this vinegar represent the Old Covenant which has gone sour?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top