cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?
...Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be
partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils.
-- 1 Cor. 10:16-21
Protestants, most Calvinistic (Sovereign Grace Baptists), and the Catholics
argue for alcoholic wine in the Lord’s supper (or Lord’s breakfast as some
practice it ). There is a clear physical and spiritual difference between their
cup and our cup, their wine and our wine, the cup of the Lord and the cup of
devils, the table of the Lord and the table of devils.
of their number have gone so far, as to enlist the services of a chemist, to
prove that fresh juice contains leaven and is impure and unfit to symbolize the
Lord’s blood, as opposed to alcoholic wine, of which the leaven is chemically
spent. The truth of the matter is that leaven is not found in the meat or juice
of the grape. Leaven spores are airborne and come from the world; they collect
on the grape’s outer skin and can be washed off. Still, the Lord pronounces
the “blood of the Grape” as “pure” (Deut 32:14).
Albeit, how do our friends
handle the amoeba/protozoa infested “water” in the N.T.
that symbolizes the Holy Spirit?)
ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s
supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is
hungry, and another is drunken. 1 Cor. 11:20-21
ye shall eat fat till ye be full, and drink blood till ye be drunken . . .—Ezek.
will make mine arrows drunk with blood ... Deut. 32:42
. . the sword shall devour, and it shall be satiate and made drunk with their
blood ...—Jer. 46:10
I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the
martyrs of Jesus . . .—Rev. 17:6
strange that folks, looking for an excuse to intoxicate and/or to use alcoholic
wine in the Lord’s supper, will run to 1 Cor. 11:21, especially since verse 20
says this is NOT to eat the Lord’s supper. Whatever the Corinthians were
doing, it was wrong and Paul is rebuking them, not commending them. The question
is, “Were they intoxicated?” If they were, they brought the hootch to the
church (B.Y.O.B); the church didn’t provide it. If they were, they were
following their former idolatrous practices. If they were, their supper was
invalidated. If they were, they were rebuked for it. If they were, it was the
table of devils and cup of devils, not the Lord’s cup, table, or supper.
word “drunken” does mean “intoxicated” in many passages but does not
always demand that definition in every passage. In some passages, the sense is
drenched (one of Webster’s defini-tions), satiated, and saturated. The
contrast in the context of the passage does not seem to bear the intoxicated
interpretation, “One is hungry, and another is drunken.” The interpretation,
which seems more fitted to the context contrast
is “One is hungry, and another is drunken” in the sense of being
saturated or satiated. Both sides,
no doubt, would agree that the supper should be observed, in the same manner (1
Cor. 11:25) as when it was insti-tuted. So, consider the following:
he took the cup . . . And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new
testament, which is shed for many. Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more
of the fruit of the vine, UNTIL that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of
God. -- Mark
. . one of them ran, and took a sponge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it
on a reed, and gave him to drink. Matt.27:48
Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said . . . John
used the “fruit of the vine” (new wine), at the last supper.
He promised not to drink of that “fruit of the vine” until the
kingdom. There were times, during the crucifixion, that Jesus was offered both
vinegar and wine, mixed with narcotics (Pro. 31:6), and He refused it. Still, in
John 19:30, Jesus received “vinegar,” proving that it was not the “fruit
of the vine” but the “fruit of double fermentation” (alcohol is the
“fruit of single fermentation” and not the “fruit of the vine”). So it
follows that Jesus did not use either alcoholic wine nor vinegar at the last
. .he will also bless the fruit of the womb, and the fruit of thy land, thy
corn, and thy wine . . .—Deut. 7:13
the fruit of the Spirit . . .—Gal. 5:22
“fruit of the womb” is that which the womb produces. The “fruit of the
land” is that which the land produces. The “fruit of the Spirit” is that
which the Spirit produces. The “fruit of the vine” is that which the vine
produces. The “fruit of fermentation” is that which fermentation produces.
Jesus said that He was the “VINE” not the distillery nor the brewery. The
type of wine, which Jesus, God incarnate, produced at the wedding of Cana was
the “fruit of the vine” or the wine found in nature, just as God produces
it. Not as the merry wine maker produces it. Fresh, new, natural wine was found,
in the last supper, a “cup of
blessing.” Alcoholic wine is everything but a blessing!
. . the first rain and the latter rain, that thou mayest gather in thy corn, and
thy wine, and thine oil.
-- Deut. 11:14
. . . thy presses shall burst out with new wine.
-- Prov. 3:10
. . the treaders shall tread out no wine in their presses; I have made their
vintage shouting to cease.
-- Isa. 16:10
. . As the new wine is found in the cluster, and one saith, Destroy it not; for
a blessing is in it . . .—Isa. 65:8
have drunk my wine with my milk: eat, O friends; drink, yea, drink abundantly, O
-- Song 5:1
. . thou didst drink the pure blood of the grape.—Deut. 32:14
wine, as opposed to our adversaries’ wine, may be gath-ered directly from the
field. Our wine may be tread directly out of the wine presses. Our wine may be
directly found in a cluster of grapes. Our wine may be mixed with milk, without
causing us to retch. Our wine may be drunk “abundantly” without drunkenness
and without fear of violating the scriptures against drunkenness and without God
being a tempter, as the result of such an instruc-tion. Our wine is “new”
and may be preserved; if it is not put, in old bottles (which would cause it to
ferment and burst the bottles (Matt. 9:17). Our wine is a “BLESSING.” Theirs
is a curse.
the hand of the LORD there is a cup, and the wine is red;
it is full of mixture; and he poureth the dregs thereof, all the wicked
of the earth shall wring them out, and drink them. Psa. 75:8
. . they drink the wine of the condemned in the house of their god.
-- Amos 2:8
wine is the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps.—Deut.
not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup,
when it moveth itself aright.
-- Prov. 23:31
wine of our adversaries, as opposed to our wine, moves and gives its color in
the cup. IT is the wine of another god. Their wine is an impure mixture of a
chemically changed juice and an addictive poison (yeast dung - alcohol), as
opposed to our “pure blood of the grape.” Their wine is poison, toxic, and
intoxicating. Their wine is the
“wine of the condemned” and not the saved..
Their wine is “old” (which won’t burst old bottles because it has
already fermented—Matt. 9:17). Ask doctors, police, and the asylums; their
wine has never been a blessing; it is a curse.