Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | 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." |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | 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." |
Subject: What is 'the fruit of the vine'? |
Bible Note: Greetings Joe! How does the LXX translate 'yayin'? I believe it always, or almost always, translates 'yayin' as 'oinos', which is the generic word in Greek. You wrote: "Well, the assumption I make is since there is no prohibition against drinking, and that it is seen as a practice among the people of God, and that Jesus consecrated wine for the communion and changed water into wina at Cana, that it is not expressly forbidden." The fact that there is no explicit prohibitation is why I don't get real dogmatic on this issue. As a pastor, when someone asks me about it, I lay out my case and ask them to pray about it. But it is worth noting for the record several points. 1) There is no explicit command either way. But, there are many passages, besides the drunkness ones, which paint a very negative picture of wine. And, there are groups of people in the Old Testament who were expressly forbidden to drink wine. Why? 2) That alcohol use was a practice among the early church is an assumption. I have often wondered why Paul had to command Timothy to just add a little wine to his water for medicinal purposes. Could it be that he was reluctant to use any wine at all? 3) Concerning the communion, there isn't a single reference to "wine" in any of the passages, at least not by name. The assumption is that "fruit of the vine" refers to "wine", but why didn't Jesus simply say "wine"? It sure would have saved us a lot of time! :-) 4) The wedding at Cana is an excellent case of a generic word. It simply could mean either, so I would be reluctant to appeal to this account either way. Thus, we are told not to be drunk, but drunkeness is never defined. We are never explicitly told to abstain totally, though some in the OT were. But, we are never explicitly told to use it either. And, the only assumed examples of its use in the NT are instances where generic terms are used which could go either way. This is why I don't get dogmatic either way. Well, I just got home from work and I'm heading to bed! I'll talk to you later my friend! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |