The CUP of DEVILS or the CUP of BLESSING?

The 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

And 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 14:23-25

. . .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

When Jesus therefore had RECEIVED the VINEGAR, he said . . . -- John 19:30

Both sides of the issue would agree that the supper should be observed in the same manner (1 Cor. 11:25) as it was instituted. So, consider which kind of wine did Jesus use? Jesus 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. So Jesus did not use either alcoholic wine or vinegar at the last supper. Fruit of the vine is what the vine produces-–not what the merry wine maker produces.

During the crucifixion, Jesus was offered both vinegar and wine, mixed with narcotics (Pro. 31:6), and He refused the alcohol and the narcotics. Still, in John 19:30, Jesus did RECEIVED VINEGAR, proving that it was not the "fruit of the vine" but the "fruit of double fermentation." Wine is the "fruit of single fermentation" and not the "fruit of the vine”; single fermented wine ferments again to produce vinegar. If vinegar is not the fruit of the vine, neither is alcoholic wine. If alcohol or vinegar is the fruit of the vine, then Jesus lied about not drinking it until He drinks it in the kingdom.

Fruit of the Vine?

. . . he will also bless the FRUIT of the WOMB, and the FRUIT of thy LAND, thy corn, and thy WINE . . . -- Deut. 7:13

But the FRUIT of the Spirit . . . -- Gal. 5:22

The "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" neither the distillery nor the brewery. The type of wine that Jesus, God incarnate, produced at the wedding of Cana, was the "fruit of the vine" or the wine found in nature, as God produces it. Not as the merry wine maker produces it.

The Drunken Supper Argument

When 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. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. -- 1 Cor. 11:20-28

If the Corinthians, former idolaters and profligates, were inebriated at the Church’s supper, then it was because:

1. They brought the booze or came that way

2. That practice was pronounced as an invalid Lord’s Supper

3. That practice was pronounced as the cup and table of devils

4. The ex Pagan Corinthians were mimicking their ex feasts

The contrast, in the context, of the disputed passage, does not seem to bear up the interpretation of inebriation, "One is hungry, and another is intoxicated." The interpretation, which seems more fitted to this contextual contrast, is "One is hungry, and another is drunken/saturated/filled." Intoxicated/inebriated and drunken are not always perfect synonyms.

It is strange that folks, looking for an excuse to get intoxicated or to use alcoholic wine in the Lord's Supper, would 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 for that wrong, not commending them. The question is, "Were they intoxicated?" If intoxicated, they brought the hootch to the church (B. Y. O. B.), for the church didn't provide it, or they came already drunk. If they were intoxicated, they were following their former idolatrous practices and customs.

If they were soused, their supper was invalidated. If they were tipsy, they were rebuked for it. If they were stoned, they changed the table and cup of the Lord into the table and cup of devils. The word "drunken" does mean "intoxicated" or inebriated in many passages. Still, this definition is not inherent in the word nor demanded in every passage. In many passages, the sense is filled, drenched (one of Webster's definitions), satiated, soaked, bathed, saturated, and even watered.

Saturated/Filled or Intoxicated/Inebriated with Blood?

I will make mine arrows DRUNK WITH BLOOD . . . -- Deut. 32:42

For my sword shall be BATHED (Septuagint - methuo) in heaven . . . their land shall be SOAKED[ravah] with blood . . . -- Isa. 34:5, 7

For as the rain cometh down . . . but WATERETH [ravah] the earth . . . -- Isa. 55:10

. . . the sword shall devour, and it shall be SATIATE [saba] and made DRUNK[ravah] with their BLOOD . . . --Jer. 46:10

And ye shall EAT FAT till ye be FULL, and drink BLOOD till ye be DRUNKEN . . . -- Ezek. 39:19

I have drunk my wine with my milk: eat, O friends; drink, yea, DRINK ABUNDANTLY, [shakar], O beloved. -- Song 5:1

. . . they shall be DRUNKEN [shakar] with their own blood, as with SWEETwine [’aciyc] . . . -- Isa. 49:26

. . . the mountains shall drop SWEET wine [’aciyc] . . . -- Amos 9:13

. . . ye drink, but ye are not FILLED[shakar] with drink . . . -- Hag. 1:6

And I saw the woman DRUNKEN with the BLOOD of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus . . . --Rev. 17:6

People do not get inebriated with blood or water. A close examination of the words associated with drunk and drunken will reveal the words soak, satiate, bathed, full, filled, and etc. The primary meaning is filled with drink or liquid. It can be alcoholic drink or blood or water, but the words in themselves do not demand alcohol. Often, it means abundant satisfaction. The beloved is told to drink abundantly or literally “be drunken,” hardly advice to be giving your beloved if alcohol is meant. However, if being filled to satisfaction is meant on a less harmful drink, the problem disappears, even though SHAKAR is used in certain contexts of inebriation.

Our Wine

. . .thy presses shall burst out with NEW WINE. -- Prov. 3:10

. . .the first rain and the latter rain, that thou mayest GATHER in thy corn, and thy WINE, and thine oil. --Deut. 11:14

. . . 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

. . .thou didst drink the PURE BLOOD of the GRAPE. --Deut. 32:14

Our wine, as opposed to our gainsayer’s wine, may be gathered 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 instruction. Our wine is NEW and may be preserved; if it is not put, in OLD yeast infested bottles (which would cause it to ferment and burst the bottles -- Matt. 9:17). Our wine is a BLESSING, unlike the CURSE of alcoholic wine. Fresh, new, natural new wine was found in the last supper "cup of blessing." Strange that the police, the hospitals, the prisons, the divorce courts will call alcohol anything but a blessing, but Protestants and even some Baptists will call alcoholic wine a blessing.

Their Wine

For in the hand of the LORD there is a cup, and the wine is RED; it is FULL of MIXTURE; and he poureth out of the same: but 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

THEIR WINE is the POISON of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps. -- Deut. 32:33

Look 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

The wine of some missionary Baptists, Sovereign Grace Baptists, Protestants, and Catholics, as opposed to our wine, moves, is RED (indicating mixture), and gives its color in the cup. IT is the wine of another god, the wine of the condemned. Their wine is an impure mixture of a chemically changed juice and an addictive poison (alcohol or yeast DUNG), as opposed to our "pure blood of the grape." Their wine is a poison, toxic, 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). It is POISON; the word INTOXICATE is TOXIC from TOXIN. Bad wine is a MIXTURE of BITTER alcohol (yeast dung) and other things. The SWEET (sugar) is eaten up by the LEAVEN and the by product is yeast Doo-Doo. Ask the doctors, police, and the asylums; their wine has never been a blessing. It has always been a curse.

Most Protestants, most Calvinistic Baptists, and the Catholics will argue for alcoholic wine in the Lord's Supper (or breakfast). A clear physical and spiritual difference exists between their cup and our cup, their wine and our wine, the table and cup of the Lord versus the cup and table of devils.

Some 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. They are hard put, however, to explain their inconsistency in not using leavened bread, whose leaven is spent after producing carbon dioxide to make the bread rise. 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. Still, the Lord pronounces the "blood of the Grape" as "pure" (Deut. 32:14). (How would our friends like to handle an amoeba/protozoa infested "water" symbolization of the Holy Spirit?)

The New Testament and METHUO

. . . thou shalt be like a WATERED [raveh (Septuagint -- methuo)] garden . . . -- Isa. 58:11

Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have WELLDRUNK [methuo], then that which is worse. But thou has kept the good wine until now. -- John 2:8-10

Others MOCKING said, These men are full of NEW wine [gleukos] . . . [Peter said] these are not drunken [methuo], as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day. -- Acts 2:15

And I saw the woman DRUNKEN [methuo] with the BLOOD of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus . . . --Rev. 17:6

The New Testament, as with the Old Testament, also allowed for being drunken or filled or satiated with blood, despite the insistence of some that the Greek METHUO always means intoxication or inebriation. Obviously, the Greek Septuagint proves differently. In Modern Greek usage, this is probably the case but not in older Greek usage.

Those that use Acts 2:13-15 to prove their contention, forget that the apostles’ accusers were MOCKING them. Moreover they were saying that they were drunken on NEW WINE (Gleukos), impossibility, if the implication of inebriation was really meant, since that was unfermented wine.

Some will point to the wedding at Cana and implicate Jesus in changing the water into wine to give to those, who had ALREADY WELL DRUNK (methuo). Even if we allowed the idea of alcoholic wine being served first, it would still be BAD WINE and Jresus’ wine would be GOOD WINE. Moreover, Jesus was aware of Habbakuk’s warning not to give one’s neighbor drink, making him drunk. And also there is the little admonition that forbade Jesus to be AMONG wine bibbers.

–by Herb Evans, Flaming Torch - July/Aug/Sept 2000, p. 22 (expanded)