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
Most Protestants, most Calvinistic Baptists, and the Catholics 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 cup of the Lord versus their cup of devils, and their table of the Lord and the 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. 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 amoeba/protozoa infested "water" symbolization of the Holy Spirit?)
Saturated/Filled or Intoxicated?
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. -- 1 Cor. 11:20-21
And ye shall EAT FAT till ye be FULL, and drink BLOOD till ye be DRUNKEN . . . -- Ezek. 39:19
I 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
And I saw the woman DRUNKEN with the BLOOD of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus . . . --Rev. 17:6
It is strange that folks, looking for an excuse to intoxicate and 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, 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. The word "drunken" does mean "intoxicated" or inebriated in many passages but does not demand this definition in every passage. In some passages, the sense is filled, drenched (one of Webster's definitions), satiated, or saturated.
The contrast, in the context, of the passage, does not seem to bear up this interpretation of inebriation, "One is hungry, and another is intoxicated." Intoxicated and drunken are not perfect synonyms in every place that they are used. The interpretation, which seems more fitted, to this contextual contrast, is "One is hungry, and another is drunken/saturated/filled." Both sides of the argument, no doubt, would agree that the supper should be observed in the same manner (1 Cor. 11:25) as it was instituted. So, consider the following:
The Wine That Jesus Used
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
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. During the crucifixion, 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," Wine is the "fruit of single fermentation" and not the "fruit of the vine"; single fermented wine ferments again to produce vinegar. When the process is partially finished, you have sour wine. So Jesus did not use either alcoholic wine or vinegar, at the last supper. He used the fruit of the vine, grape juice.
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" not 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. Fresh, new, natural wine was found, in the last supper "cup of blessing."
. . .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
I have drunk my wine with my milk: eat, O friends; drink, yea, DRINK ABUNDANTLY, O beloved. -- Song 5:1
. . .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.
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 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. Ask the doctors, police, and the asylums; their wine has never been a blessing, it has always been a curse.
Source: Flaming Torch - July/Aug/Sept 2000, p. 22