What we believe the Bible says regarding using one loaf and one cup for the Lord’s Supper…
The following is an article on the subject which we believe does a good job of covering this matter – the original article can be found on the New Testament Church website.
The night that our Lord instituted the memorial for His death is a hallmark of history. The events of that evening have been debated throughout the centuries, yet the simplicity of this institution defies the wisdom of man. Often, in the simple things, God expresses deep truths. We miss such truths because we are seeking something beyond what God intended. We need to examine the Lord’s Supper in its simplicity. What do the elements of the Lord’s Supper memorialize? To learn this, we must study the Lord Supper in its scriptural and historical setting. This study will reveal the great wisdom of God in His selection of the elements of the Lord’s Supper.
Throughout the scriptures we see spiritual things in triplets. The three dispensations; the three members of the Godhead; the three parts of man (body, soul and spirit); and many other triplets. The spiritual number of Christ is three, and this is His perfect number. In the Passover, there were three literal elements to represent three spiritual reminders of Israel’s deliverance from bondage. The ratifying of a covenant always required three elements: the body of sacrifice, the blood of the sacrifice, and the covenant ratified by the blood. A similar triplet can be found in the emblems of the Lord’s Supper.
From the texts where we read about the institution of the Lord’s Supper we find the following facts.
- Our Lord took bread (a loaf of unleavened bread) and blessed this loaf of bread.
- Our Lord interpreted this to mean that the loaf “is my body which is given for you.”
- Our Lord took a cup and blessed this cup. He then gave this cup to the disciples with the following command — “Drink from it, all of you.”
- Our Lord then gave the interpretation for this cup. In Matthew and Mark we find the reference is from the perspective of the contents of the cup. In Luke and Paul’s writings we have it from the perspective of the container.
- Our Lord then said that as often as they would eat this bread and drink from this cup that they would show forth His death till He would come again.
Over the centuries a lot has been written regarding the three elements in the Lord’s Supper. Some elements have received more attention than others. This does not mean that one part is more important than the other, rather that some have either questioned or brought into dispute one more than the other. One element that has not had as much modern day attention is the contents of the cup. What was in the cup? What must me have in the cup today? These are vital questions, and we shall answer these and other questions about the contents of the cup.
We do not have to wonder what was contained within the cup that our Lord blessed. Our Lord told us what was in this cup. It was the “fruit of the vine.”
Matthew 26:29 “But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.”
Mark 14:25 “Assuredly, I say to you, I will no longer drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”
Luke 22:18 “For I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”
These are the only verses that mention the contents of the cup in the institution of the Lord’s Supper. If we simply take the Lord’s statement, that it was the fruit of the vine, then we have no problem with understanding what we must use. However, there have been many, over the centuries, that have claimed that the cup contained something vastly different. The contention became so great during the time of the restoration movement in the United States, that some denominations substituted either water or nothing in the cup to resolve the disputes. This did not resolve the problem, it merely avoided the truth.
The phrase “fruit of the vine” is another way to refer to the juice of the grape. The “fruit of the vine” or grape juice is something that is not fermented. We are now stating this as fact, however, the proof of this statement will be developed as we progress in this material. First, we must consider some foundational truths that will aid us in our investigation of the drink element of the Lord’s Supper.
The night that our Lord instituted the Lord’s Supper He took a loaf of unleavened bread. He also took a cup containing the fruit of the vine. There were two things that He handled, yet there were three elements within the two. To understand the meaning of the Lord’s Supper, we must recognize that there are three important elements in this supper. Each of these elements is there for a definite purpose. God has never set something up for His people by happenstance. There is always a purpose and design in what He does. There is a unity of symbols in the three elements of the Lord’s Supper. The key to this unity can be found in the words of Paul:
1 Corinthians 11:26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.
This verse tells us that whenever we partake of the emblems of the Lord’s Supper, we are “proclaiming” the Lord’s death. This word “proclaim” or in the KJV “show forth” comes from “kataggello” and means to “proclaim or teach.” This word is used elsewhere in the scriptures to show that when something is done, there is teaching or demonstration occurring. Whenever we partake of the elements of the Lord’s Supper, we are not only remembering the death of the Lord, we are demonstrating (teaching) others what occurred in the death of our Lord. If we are teaching, or demonstrating the death of our Lord, we need to lean what occurred in the death of our Lord. The elements of the Lord’s Supper must proclaim those events that occurred in our Lord’s death. Herein we shall learn the unity of the symbols.
What do we proclaim in the Lord’s death? Our Lord did three very important things in His death. Each of these is symbolized in the elements of the Lord’s supper. The three things accomplished by the Lord’s death can be found in the three things necessary to ratify a covenant. In all Biblical covenants, there had to be a body that was sacrificed; the blood of the sacrificed body; the covenant or agreement that was made binding only after the shedding of the blood of the sacrifice.
When we partake of the loaf, which represents the body of our Lord, we are showing that our Lord gave His body freely as the sacrifice necessary to establish the New Covenant. Before any covenant could become effective, there had to be a sacrifice. This sacrifice was a symbol of unity and binding force between all who would come into covenant with each other. Under the Old Covenant the body of sacrifice also was a symbol of what would happen to anyone who broke covenant. The sacrifice was slain and had to forfeit its life. If anyone broke covenant, their fate was symbolized by the body that was sacrificed in ratifying the covenant. The sacrificed body of our Lord not only represented all the animal sacrifices under the Old Covenant, it was also the body that was necessary to establish the new covenant.
Hebrews 10:4-5 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins. Therefore, when He came into the world, He said: “Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, But a body You have prepared for Me.”
Christ came into this world so that He could establish the New Covenant. This could only happen by His death. Christ could not die in His deity, so God prepared a body for Him to inhabit. He was made a man, after the likeness of men, so that He could die. This idea is taught in detail in Hebrews chapter two and eight. The essential thing for us to remember is that it took the body of the Lord in sacrifice so that we could come into a covenant relationship with God. Every time that we partake of the communion of the body of our Lord, we are showing forth this sacrifice. We are teaching others that it took the sacrifice of our Lord’s body to bring us into covenant with God.
The next two things proclaimed by the Lord’s death, when we observe the communion of the blood, are united in a way that they cannot be viewed apart. Christ shed His blood, thereby ratifying the covenant. Now the blood of the covenant is not the covenant, neither is the covenant the blood of the covenant. They are distinct, yet cannot be separated from each other. Without the one the other could not be effective.
Paul recognized this unity of symbol when he reflects back upon the establishment of the first covenant God made between Himself and Israel.
Hebrews 9:19-20 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you.”
From this account, we see that the blood came from the calves and goats that were sacrificed to ratify the covenant. The book of the covenant was something different from the blood. When Moses sprinkled the blood on the covenant and the people, this became a binding symbol of the unity of God with His children through that covenant. The covenant, although presented to Moses in the mount many months before this event, did not become binding until this ceremony. It took blood to make it binding.
What wisdom God displayed in giving us this unity of the blood and the covenant ratified by the blood. What better symbol for this unity than a cup and its contents! An empty cup is of no value to people. Like the covenant written on stone, it was of no value until the blood made it binding. The cup, with its contents (the fruit of the vine), is the united and unbroken symbol. The cup, Paul says “is the new covenant in my blood.” Thayer implies that the expression “in my blood” means ratified by my blood.
“Moreover, since Christ’s dying blood served to establish new religious institutions and a new relationship between men and God, it is likened also to a federative or covenant sacrifice: the blood by the shedding of which the covenant should be ratified, Matt. 26:28; Mark 14:24, or has been ratified, Heb. 10:29; 13:20 (cf. 9:20); add, 1 Cor. 11:25; Luke 22:20 …” (page 15)
The writers of the New Testament picture this unity of symbol between the blood and the covenant:
Matthew 26:28 “For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.”
Luke 22:20 Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.”
Although it seems that Matthew and Luke are saying two different things about the cup, they are saying the same thing, yet from different perspectives. These two statements give greater force to the unity of the symbol of the cup and its contents. Just as the blood is of no value without the covenant, so too, the covenant is of no value without the blood. Matthew views the saying from the contents of the cup, saying that “this is” the blood which ratified the covenant. The expression “this is” had reference to the drink element. Luke, however, concerning the cup says “this is” the new covenant that is ratified by the blood. Both the blood of the covenant and the covenant are important. You cannot speak of one without speaking of the other.
What wisdom God employs in this united symbol. It is a simple, common, everyday necessity that God chose to show the unity of the blood and the covenant. To separate the two, or exclude the one does violence to God’s wisdom.
Herein lies the significance of the expression “fruit of the vine.” God chose something that was a natural symbol of blood to represent the shed blood of Christ. Without blood, Paul says, there would be no remission of sins. Without the blood of Christ there would be no remission of sins, nor a covenant between God and man.
After giving thanks for the cup, our Lord gave it (the cup and its contents) to the disciples. He commanded them to drink from this cup. According to Matthew and Mark, our Lord then said:
Matthew 26:28 “For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.”
Mark 14:24 …”This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many.”
The expression “this is” is a metaphor and refers to the drink element contained in the cup. In the next verse, Christ says that he would not drink from that time on of “this fruit of the vine.” We now have clearly stated what was contained within the cup – fruit of the vine. This fruit of the vine, in some way, by metaphor, resembles blood. This implies that there are some characteristics of the fruit of the vine that would bring to the mind the idea of blood. Can we discover this relationship from the scriptures? If so, then we will possess a direct correlation between the fruit of the vine and the blood of Christ. There are two verses in the Old Testament that show that the fruit of the vine’s juice had reference to blood.
Genesis 49:11 Binding his donkey to the vine, And his donkey’s colt to the choice vine, He washed his garments in wine, And his clothes in the blood of grapes.
Deuteronomy 32:14 … And you drank wine, the blood of the grapes.
These two verses show that there is a direct relationship between blood and the juice of the grape. The word for blood in these verses is “dam” and is defined as “blood; of wine (fig.).” Now blood is something that naturally exist within the body. The blood is the life of the body (Lev. 17:14). The juice of the grape is naturally within the grape, and is its life. Again, the wisdom of God out weighs the wisdom of men. No better element could have been chosen as the representative of the shed blood of our Lord. The fruit of the vine aptly represents blood in the communion: the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.
In the second text, Deut. 32:14, the KJV renders this text by: “the pure blood of the grape.” This word “pure” comes from the Hebrew word “chemer” and occurs only in one other verse, Isa. 27:2, where it is translated as a “vineyard of red wine.” The grapes that grow in this part of the world are red or dark purple in nature. The juice from these grapes resemble the color of blood. Again, we can see a correlation between the juice of the grape and that of blood.
It was not an accident that our Lord had the fruit of the vine present. He did not just use what was handy, rather there was purpose and design in choosing the fruit of the vine to represent His shed blood. Our Lord realized that we could make the connection between the blood of the grape and the blood that He soon would be shedding. He used something that was commonly understood in His day and made the application to what we are to proclaim by His death.
Our Lord said that the fruit of the vine was the “blood of the covenant.” This aspect of the Lord’s Supper is often over looked. The blood of our Lord was shed, primarily to ratify the New Covenant. It would take His death to establish the New Covenant. Without the death of Christ, we could not have the New Covenant. As long as Christ lived, the Old Covenant was in force. Paul illustrated this point when writing to the Roman brethren.
Romans 7:4 Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another — to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God.
Paul also makes this point when writing to the Hebrews. They were a covenant oriented people, therefore they understood the significance of the blood and the covenant. Consider carefully Paul’s words:
Hebrews 9:16-20 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives. Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you.”
From this text, we can understand that the death of Christ brought about the opportunity for the New Covenant to be established. As long as Christ lived, He was under the Old Covenant. It had life, therefore it was the law that Christ lived under. Upon His death, the Old Covenant was removed. God prepared a body for Christ so that he could die. This was the purpose of Christ’s earthly journey. Hebrews is filled with this theme about the body of Christ being the sacrifice for our sins, and the establishment of the new covenant. The new could not be established until the old was removed.
Hebrews 10:9-10 … “Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God.” He takes away the first that He may establish the second. By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
When Christ shed His blood on the cross, His life went from His body. In His death, the old covenant was removed as a binding covenant between God and man (Col. 2:14). The New Covenant was made effective by the blood that our Lord shed. It ratified the covenant that He had presented throughout His ministry. Without the shedding of the blood of our Lord, we could not have the covenant relationship with God our Father.
When Luke and Paul wrote about the institution of the Lord’s Supper, they used the expression “This cup is the new testament in my blood.” The cup represented the covenant, and the fruit of the vine the blood that was shed to ratify that covenant. Together, the blood and the covenant show our relationship with Christ. On the cross, Christ both shed His blood and died. In His death, by shedding of blood, Christ established the New Covenant. Whenever we partake of the communion of the blood of Christ we are showing forth this event which occurred by the death of our Lord. To show forth one without the other is to do violence to God’s wisdom. If we reject this idea, then we have rejected the simple wisdom of God and the pattern established by our Father in Heaven.
Matthew also said that the contents of the cup represented the blood that our Lord would shed so that we can obtain the forgiveness of our sins. This aspect of the communion of the blood is acknowledged by all, however it is not the sole aspect of our remembrance. What we need to point out is that the fruit of the vine was not the literal blood of our Lord. His blood, when the Lord’s Supper was being instituted, had not been shed yet. It would, however, be the symbol of what His shed blood would represent.
Christ was our Passover (1 Cor. 5:7) sacrificed for us. The symbol of blood and the Passover is well known. All the blood of the animals sacrificed under the Old Covenant was a picture of the shed blood of Christ. Through the shedding of blood there is forgiveness of sins. Without the shedding of the blood of Christ, we could not have any hope of obtaining the forgiveness of our sins.
Often, when we think of the communion of the blood of Christ, we only view the aspect of the forgiveness of our sins. This is part of what His blood was shed for, yet it also was shed to ratify the New Covenant. In the unity of the cup and the fruit of the vine, we have this dual symbol presented to our minds. The blood was shed to give us the New Covenant (represented by the cup), and this blood also was shed to cover our sins.
When Paul wrote to the Corinthians regarding the communion, he stated the following:
1 Corinthians 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?
Paul called the cup that we use in the communion a “cup of blessing.” The cup of blessing has reference to the contents of the cup. What does this expression really have reference to? This expression could well be translated by “this cup, which contains a blessing.” It was called a cup of blessing because it contained a blessing – Not because it had been blessed. The next statement shows that this cup of blessing received the blessing, or thanksgiving. It was the cup of blessing over which our Lord gave thanks. It is the cup of blessing that is the communion of the blood of Christ. To learn what this blessing was, we need to go to the Old Testament.
Isaiah 65:8 Thus says the LORD: “As the new wine is found in the cluster, And one says, ‘Do not destroy it, For a blessing is in it,’ So will I do for My servants’ sake, That I may not destroy them all.”
The word for “new wine” is the Hebrew word “tirosh.” This is one of the many Hebrew words for wine. Tirosh is used to refer to the fresh pressed juice of the grape. The definition from the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (TWOT) is significant.
“BDB defines tirosh as ‘must, fresh or new wine.’ The word is used thirty-eight times, twenty of these in conjunction with grain and/or oil as the fresh produce of the field. It is said to be ‘in the cluster’ (Isa. 65:8); the vats or presses overflow with it (Prov. 3:10; Joel 2:24). In Mic. 6:15 yayin ‘wine’ (q.v.) is said to be produced from tirosh. The word is never associated with drunkenness except perhaps in Hos. 4:11 where yayin is also mentioned. It is natural to suppose that this word for a product often associated with fruitfulness, productivity and blessing is to be distinguished from the yayin and shekar (q.v.) which definitely are intoxicating and are often mentioned together.” (Vol. II, p. 969)
This new wine, or fresh pressed juice of the grape, is the blessing that was contained in the cluster. The cluster refers to the cluster of grapes. The blessing was contained within this cluster of grapes. It was called “new wine.” This new wine was not intoxicating, but fresh pressed juice of the grape. In most of the occurrences of this word in the Old Testament, it is associated with the produce of the land. This would be something produced naturally from the produce, rather than something that had to be manufactured by the process of man.
Under the tradition of the Jews of the Masoretic period (500-1000 A.D.), they included a cup of unfermented grape juice in their Passover observation. This cup was filled often during their celebration of the Passover. One filling of this cup, and the offering of a blessing, was over what became known as the cup of blessing. Scholars have used the time of the Masoretic’s as the pattern for the observance of the Passover during the time of our Lord. This, however, is not correct. The original institution of the Passover did not have a cup of the fruit of the vine as one of its emblems. When Paul referred to the “cup of blessing” he was not referring to a tradition that would not come to past for a few hundred years, but to the blessing that was in the cup. That blessing was the fresh pressed juice of the grape.
The cup of blessing has two specific designations. First, to the fruit of the vine, which was known as a blessing from the produce of the land. Second, to the blessing that we, as Christians, have from the shed blood of Christ. When we partake of this cup of blessing, we then have fellowship (communion) with each other. This was known as the “communion of the blood of Christ.” We have table fellowship with one another when we share in this cup of blessing.
This cup of blessing also has reference to a covenant meal. In this meal, those who were in covenant would share in a common cup. This showed unity and renewal of the covenant pledge. Whenever we partake of this cup of blessing, we are publicly proclaiming that we are renewing our pledge to be faithful to the New Covenant.
We have waited till this point in our material to introduce the difference between the fruit of the vine and wine. In the past, most articles on the contents of the cup have been directed at the false doctrine of using something intoxicating in the cup. I do not feel that this is the most important aspect of this subject. The meaning and unity of the symbol should be what we remember from this material. When we partake of the Lord’s Supper, we should be showing forth the death of our Lord. We should be concerned that we are doing this just as the Lord intended. This is the important message of the communion.
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:
In Palestine the finest grapes, even today, are dried as raisins, and the juice of the remainder, after having been trodden and pressed, is boiled down to a syrup, which, under the name of dibs (heb. debash), is much used by all classes, wherever vineyards are found, as a condiment with their food.
From the writings of Cato we can learn that fresh must or grape juice was highly prized, and kept fresh throughout the year. He wrote a book on agriculture of his time. He wrote about the time of Christ. Also, Pliny wrote about similar subjects and he lived about the end of the first century. Both writers mention how to preserve the fresh grape must, and to use it to make various medicines. Josepheus mentioned that the palace of Masada had stores of fruits and other produce that had been laid up during the time of Herod. These fruits were found fresh when the Roman’s took possession of Masada almost a hundred years later. These and other accounts show that fresh grape juice could be kept fresh.
Our Lord used an illustration on the preservation of wine (grape juice) to teach principles of the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 9:17 “Nor do they put new wine into old wineskins, or else the wineskins break, the wine is spilled, and the wineskins are ruined. But they put new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved.”
This text teaches that to preserve new wine (must, or grape juice) you must store it in a new wine skin. The reason for this was because once the seal had been broken from the wine skin, the air would get into the skin, and the germ of fermentation would be present. If new wine were put into the new skins, then sealed, the wine would be kept from the fermentation process. If the new wine were put into the old skins, the fermentation germ would be present, and the wine would begin to ferment, and the skin would burst from the pressure created by the expanding gasses released from the fermenting grape juice.
The symbol of the blood of our Lord is the “fruit of the vine.” As we have seen, this has reference to the juice of the grape. This juice was not fermented, but was pure and free from the influence of the fermentation germ. This juice was known as the “blood of the grape,” therefore a fit symbol for the blood of our Lord. When we observe the communion of the blood of our Lord, we are proclaiming that it took the blood of Jesus to ratify the covenant by which we have fellowship with God. Also, by the shedding of the blood of Jesus, we can obtain the forgiveness of our sins.
The next time you observe the communion of the blood of Jesus Christ, remember what He has done for you. Show forth His death and honor Him who died for all. Renew your determination to follow, faithfully, that covenant that He died for. In the end, you shall receive a blessing.