Why does Jesus in Matthew 26:29 call it fruit of the vine?

  • Thread starter Thread starter q54332
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Q

q54332

Guest
I am talking with this person that is very close (or open I should say) to converting to Catholicism but they do have one verse that is stopping them from believing in the real presence of Jesus in the eucharist. That verse is Matthew 26:29, they are saying if it is the body and blood of Christ why does he refer to it as the fruit of the vine instead of his blood? I don’t really know how to respond since I’m not smart but one of you smart people probably can. So any help
 
Since Matthew was primarily writing to a Jewish Christian audience most would have understood this passage in the context of a Seder meal for the Passover feast. There were four cups of wine served at the Last Supper, following the tradition of a Passover meal. I believe Jesus said of the third Cup, " This is my Blood ", so He would have already drunk from two other cups.

There was to be a fourth cup served, the Cup of Consummation, but Jesus and the Apostles left for the Garden of Gethsemane prior to the drinking from the fourth cup, after they sing the great Hallel psalms.

It would have been between the third cup and the fourth, that Jesus would have said, " I will not drink again …"

The fourth cup was the sour wine(or vinegar) Jesus consumed on the cross after which he exclaimed it is finished.
 
So the fourth cup wasn’t his blood yet? The third one was but the one he calls fruit of the vine at the moment is wine, but later on it became his blood. Did I understand this correctly?
 
Last edited:
I don’t think the fourth cup was ever his blood. It was the third cup that was consecrated and thus became his blood. Scott Hahn says fourth cup was the wine on the branch given to Jesus at the cross. Others say it refers to the great banquet in heaven.
 
Wine IS the fruit of the vine. Vine produce grapes that were primarily used to make wine and vinegar. Very important in those days. Wine was used to mix with water to sterilize it, kill all the bacteria, remember they did not have potable water in those days. Also, remember in the Cross the soldier gave Jesus a sponge that was impregnated with vinegar and mirrah, vinegar in those days was exclusively produce from grapes. Jesus did not drink from this. He is the 4th cup when the soldier pierced his side blood and water came from from His heart.
I would recommend the book by Scott Hanh “The 4th Cup” . Here you can watch a video about it.


Peace!
 
But He did say ‘this is my blood’… the fruit of the vine meant it was wine, made from grapes, the fruit of the vine.

But He does say the wine is His blood. I dont understand what they dont understand.
 
Well once wine is his blood its no longer wine its blood so Jesus referring to it as wine makes them think that its not really his blood but just a symbol
 
But the consecrated cup of Jesus blood had already been consumed. The next cup in the progression of the meal would have just been wine and this is what Jesus was referring to.
 
Ahhhh there is the problem. They play games with semantics with Jesus’s words.
But let’s put it in context here, the ceremony Jesus was conducting requires the Jews to drink wine with the meal. It is a specific meal that only happens AT Passover.
When will Jesus have the opportunity to repeat this meal WITH HIS disciples?
He has told us, precisely in that verse. "Matthew 26:29 But I say to you, I will not drink again from this fruit of the vine, until that day when I will drink it new with you in the kingdom of my Father.”
Jesus will not conduct another Seder meal until the end of the World after the resurrection of the bodies and the general judgement.

NOTE that Jesus did not drink from the 3rd cup After the blessing and saying the “Words of Institution”, He passed the cup to His disciples. And after this they all left to the garden.
Peace!
 
What I mean is the Jesus said this is my blood.

The Institution of the Lord’s Supper

26 While they were eating, Jesus took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” 27 **Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. ** 29 I tell you, I will never again drink of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

30 When they had sung the hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives. Matthew 26:26-29

You guys are talking about 1st cup, 3rd cup, 4th cup… the OP’s friend is saying that Jesus didn’t say this is my blood.

What I dont understand is why would anyone say He didn’t, when He did and why are you talking about multiple of cups when it say a cup. He took A CUP… He said, "Drink from it…this is my BLOOD

He took 1 cup and said this is my blood… What’s with the multiple cups? What’s with the not saying this is my blood?
 
Last edited:
annad347 said:
What’s with the multiple cups?
Click to expand...
During the Passover meal it was a custom to drink four different cups during the ceremony, each symbolizing a different blessing. They were not drunk at the same time, more analogous to think of it as a cup for different courses of the meal. It’s believed Jesus consecrated the third cup of wine in the sequence of the meal, this cup became his blood(body, soul and divinity). The last cup, which was not drunk at the meal, would have been just the wine, or the fruit of the vine, referenced in verse 29. It’s speculated this last cup, the fourth, was either the wine offered to Christ on the cross, or his actual blood which poured forth from his side during the cruxifixction.
 
But if there where multiple cups why not say there were multiple cups? Why would it matter? Why is important that he concentrated the 3rd cup over the 1st, 2nd or 4th… it says He picked up a cup, why the emphasized on a specific one was used if the important part of the Last Supper is that the win is now His blood?

The OP’s friend is saying Jesus didnt say ‘this is my blood’ and in stead of saying… YES HE DID say it… people are explaining, well the 1st cup was this the 2nd was yadda yadda, then the 3rd was His blood but the 4th wasn’t it was wine… why is that more important over the fact that Jesus picked up a cup and said this is my BLOOD?

He did he said “This is my blood.” It wasnt a metaphor, it wasn’t a symbol it was His blood.
 
Last edited:
I don’t know how else to explain it without repeating myself. The meal was a Jewish Passover ceremony. During the course of the meal, everyone would be served a cup of wine, one at a time, during four different parts of the ceremony. A toast, if you will:
Cup 1: just wine
Cup 2: just wine
Cup 3: This one Jesus consecrated, which became his blood
(References in verse 28)
Cup 4: just wine.
(References in verse 29)

This background helps explain how Jesus could pronounce one cup as his blood, verse 28, and then call it just the “fruit of the vine” in verse 29.

Read this for insight of the use of 4 cups in the Passover meal:
https://www.chabad.org/holidays/pas...What-is-the-significance-of-the-four-cups.htm
 
Beyond the four cups thing, which every Jew would know without saying:

You do know that Christ is the Vine, and that one Biblical expression. for wine is “the blood of the grape.” So He could talk about the Precious Blood either way.
 
Mintaka said:
You do know that Christ is the Vine, and that one Biblical expression. for wine is “the blood of the grape.” So He could talk about the Precious Blood either way.
Click to expand...
Thank you. It shouldnt matter if it was the 3rd or 4th cup, the important part is that Jesus said the wine is His blood.

If it was the 4th cup would the importance of that change… of course not because we know it happened then and happens every week in church.
 
Last edited:
In his commentary on Matthew 26:29, Haydock mentions several reasons why the Eucharist might still be referred to as bread and wine:
Ver. 29. I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine. In St. Luke, (xxii. 15, 16,) Christ said to his disciples; I earnestly desired to eat this Pasch with you before I suffer; (or this paschal sacrifice ) for I say to you, that, from this time I will not eat thereof, till it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. These expressions seem to import no more, than that it was the last time he would eat and drink with them in a mortal body. And if, as some expound it, Christ, by the generation of the vine, understood the consecrated cup of his blood, he might call it wine, or the fruit of the vine; because he gave them his blood under the appearance of wine; as St. Paul calls the body of Christ bread, because given under the appearance of bread. (1 Corinthians xi. 26.) (Witham) — Fruit of the vine. These words, by the account of St. Luke, (xxii. 18,) were not spoken of the sacramental cup, but of the wine that was drunk with the paschal lamb. Though the Sacramental cup might also be called the fruit of the vine, because it was consecrated from wine, and retains the likeness, and all the accidents, or qualities, of wine. (Challoner) — As St. Paul calleth the body of Christ bread, so the blood of Christ may still be called wine, for three reasons: 1. Because it was so before; as in Genesis xi.[ii.?] 23, Eve is called Adam’s bone; in Exodus vii, Aaron’s rod devoured their rods, whereas they were not now rods but serpents; and in John ii, He tasted the water made wine, whereas it was now wine not water. 2. Because the blessed Eucharist retaineth the forms of bread and wine, and things in Scripture are frequently called from their appearance; as Tobias v, the archangel Raphael, is called a young man; and Genesis xviii, three men appeared to Abraham; whereas they were three angels. 3. Because Jesus Christ in the blessed Sacrament is the true bread of life, refreshing us in soul and body to everlasting life. (Bristow) — Drink it new, after a different manner most wonderful and hitherto unheard of, not having a passible body, but one clothed with immortality; and henceforth no longer in need of nourishment. Thus he brings to their minds the idea of his resurrection, to strengthen them under the ignominies of his passion, and eats and drinks with them, to give them a more certain proof of this grand mystery. (S. Chrysostom, hom lxxxiii.)
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top