Jesus Christ’s End Times Message Hidden during the Last Supper Discourse

[swainkas]

During the Last Supper, Jesus makes two statements about the End Times/His coming kingdom that are invariably swept under a rug because people either don’t understand what He said or refuse to believe the implications of what He said. The first statement is captured in all three of the synoptic Gospels:

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.” (Matthew 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18 NASB)

If it is recorded that Jesus did in fact drink of the fruit of the vine after that dinner, which is not limited to wine, but also its derivatives, then the Church needs to reconsider its whole approach to preaching the Gospel. For, if biblical texts document Jesus drinking of the fruit of the vine again after this statement, then one of only two options is left to the Church. The first is that He did drink it but that He didn’t drink it in His Father’s kingdom, as He said He would. This option leads to the conclusion that He was not God in the flesh, and therefore the Church should convert to Judaism and await the coming Messiah, for Christ could not be God and have made such a slip, even if by only a sip. His perfection would be tainted, the perfect sacrifice now imperfect and unable to atone for humankind’s fall.

The second option is that Christ was, in fact, God Almighty in the flesh, that He hadn’t made a mistake, that He went to all the trouble of dealing with blood, sweat, blistered feet, and humanity’s cruelty, that He/God meant what He said (from His own mouth) and that if it is documented in scripture that He did drink of the fruit of the vine after that statement, then He did in fact drink it new with them in His Father’s kingdom. This option presupposes that Christ, God in the flesh, knew what He was saying and that He was making a very specific claim: if His disciples saw Him drink fruit of the vine again, the kingdom promised throughout the history of the Israelite nation was in full swing at the time of that swig.

Before we can answer if Jesus drank the fruit of the vine again after the Last Supper, we must understand what fruit of the vine is. Fruit of the vine not only includes wine, it includes vinegars, sour wines, and even grape juice. Vinegars can further be split into subgroups including cider vinegars, which can be used as environmentally friendly cleaners, wine vinegars (most commonly used vinegar in Mediterranean countries), some pleasant enough to be used as elegant salad dressings. While wine is a fruit of the vine, it is not equal to fruit of the vine, because it is not synonymous with vinegar. And God forbid wine be confused with grape juice. But nonetheless, all three are fruit of the vine. Why is this important? Because the Gospel of John documents that Jesus not only drank fruit of the vine after the Last Supper, He asked for it.

After this, Jesus, knowing that all things had already been accomplished, to fulfill the Scripture, said, “I am thirsty.” A jar full of sour wine [vinegar (KJV)] was standing there; so they put a sponge full of the sour wine upon a branch of hyssop and brought it up to His mouth. Therefore when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!” And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit. John 19:28-30 NASB


Didn’t He know that the sour wine they offered Him was fruit of the vine? For Christians, this is a “hard” passage. For non-Christians, it is simply another example of a “contradiction” in the Bible that they claim the Bible is riddled with.


May God have mercy on us all if either is the case.


What if, as another possibility, it wasn’t a mistake on the part of the Son of Man on that cross? What if He really was God Almighty and actually asked for that drink, knowing they would provide a derivative of grape? What if He, being God, foreordained the proximity of that jar of sour wine? What if He had attended a crucifixion a time or two and knew that vinegar was kept nearby during these events? Christians and non-Christians alike need to consider the ramifications of this possibility.


So now we have confirmed that Jesus did just what He said He wouldn’t do unless He did it in His Father’s kingdom. The problem for us is that He didn’t just make that one confusing statement during the Last Supper. He made another equally confusing statement in Luke’s Gospel.

And when the hour had come He reclined at the table, and the apostles with Him. And He said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I say to you, I shall never again eat it [a Passover meal] until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God. Luke 22:14-18

So, just as I asked did Jesus ever drink fruit of the vine again after the Last Supper, I ask did He ever eat a Passover meal again with His disciples after the Last Supper, which as Luke documented was held on the first night of Passover (Luke 22:7-8). And for those unfamiliar with Jewish tradition, the Passover is not a single night event, it is a seven day celebration, most clearly described as such in Ezekiel 45, where is reads:

In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month, you shall have the Passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten. Ezekiel 45:21


So the question is, does the Bible document Jesus eating anything with His disciples within the six to seven day window following the Last Supper. If it does, it is not by accident that Jesus chose to do so, and as such, He is telling us something because He is in fact partaking again of a Passover feast with His disciples, which He said He wouldn’t do unless it was fulfilled in the kingdom of God. And in fact the Bible does clearly document Jesus doing just that, eating with His disciples after the Last Supper within this six day window. It was on His resurrection day (three days later) when He met His disciples in the upper room, documented in Luke 24:


And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet. While they still could not believe it because of their joy and amazement, He said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” They gave Him a piece of a broiled fish; and He took it and ate it before them. Luke 24:40-43


It should be noted, Jesus eating anything with them constitutes continuing the Passover with them. Note again here that He asks for something to eat. It is not by accident that He does so, just like with His drinking of the fruit of the vine on the cross. So I ask you as Christians, if Jesus made these very particular statements during the Last Supper, and then did the very things He points out in those statements, should we not as His followers take note of them and seek to understand the ramifications of those words and not simply ignore them as the church has now done for 2000 years?


I think He told us by drinking the fruit of the vine on the cross and by eating day-four of the seven-day Passover meal that the kingdom He came and died for is here and now.


What are your thoughts?


Parts of discussion taken from Heresy, by Keith Swainson

 

[Gottservant]

He tasted it, but did not drink.

The key word is drink.

If He had said "I will not taste it again" you would know He was lying.

(It's a good question though, you are keenly observant)

 

[swainkas]

He tasted it, but did not drink.

The key word is drink.

If He had said "I will not taste it again" you would know He was lying.

(It's a good question though, you are keenly observant)

Gottservant,

You are correct with one reference. Matthew 27:34 documents the following:

they gave Him wine to drink mixed with gall; and after tasting it, He was unwilling to drink.

If that was the only reference to Jesus and wine, I wouldn't have brought this up. But later in Matthew it reads:

Immediately one of them ran, and taking a sponge, he filled it with sour wine and put it on a reed, and gave Him a drink. Matthew 27:48 NASB

This verse, along with the verse I quoted in the post, clearly documents Jesus "drinking" the sour wine, not just tasting it.

And thanks for the compliment!

 

[Anto9us]

You make interesting points, Swain...

It was my understanding that what he tasted but did not drink was a NUMBING AGENT (in one translation I think it said 'wine mingled with myrrh' or some such)

iow, it was a pain-numbing agent, that was not what Jesus wanted

as far what he did take on a sponge that was lifted up -- note that He did not specifically 'ask for' "fruit of the vine" -- He just said he was thirsty and that was what was provided to him - I dunno if that constitutes "drinking fruit of the vine' again -- but yes, thx for your close reading and observations

as far as a JAR of vinegar close by during this crucifixion scene - it does seem a little strange that out on Golgotha at a Roman-soldier-supervised crucifixion site out in the open -- here is a big jar of viegar

it makes me wonder if it all was not the same thing - jar of vinegar - wine mixed with a numbing agent -- perhaps all the same thing

Jesus rejects it at an early time so as not to be "drugged" during the torture of His sacrifice, but later when He is near death and simply excruciatingly thirsty -- He then takes what is offerred - a sip from a sponge to quell thirst rather than a draught to be a narcotic against his pain

i dunno

don't see how a piece of fish might be seen as a continuation of a passover meal, which I thought was lamb

as far as "being in His KINGDOM"

it is interesting that at the cross, one thief who is repentant says "Lord, remember me when you COME INTO YOUR KINGDOM"

and the Lord promises him "TODAY you will be with me in paradise" like He was coming into his kingdom THAT DAY

 

[Gottservant]

Gottservant,

You are correct with one reference. Matthew 27:34 documents the following:

they gave Him wine to drink mixed with gall; and after tasting it, He was unwilling to drink.

If that was the only reference to Jesus and wine, I wouldn't have brought this up. But later in Matthew it reads:

Immediately one of them ran, and taking a sponge, he filled it with sour wine and put it on a reed, and gave Him a drink. Matthew 27:48 NASB

This verse, along with the verse I quoted in the post, clearly documents Jesus "drinking" the sour wine, not just tasting it.

And thanks for the compliment!

No, no, no, you must go with what the Holy Spirit inspires you to believe, first, and what the letter of the scripture says second.

If Jesus says "I will not drink" it doesn't matter if someone was tempted to say they gave Him drink, He did not drink.

Do you think if your life depended on it (He needed to be resurrected remember), that you would get it wrong?

The point was to torment Him, not to ease His suffering.

 

[swainkas]

You make interesting points, Swain...

don't see how a piece of fish might be seen as a continuation of a passover meal, which I thought was lamb

as far as "being in His KINGDOM"

it is interesting that at the cross, one thief who is repentant says "Lord, remember me when you COME INTO YOUR KINGDOM"

and the Lord promises him "TODAY you will be with me in paradise" like He was coming into his kingdom THAT DAY

Anto9us,

Lamb is to be eaten on the first night of Passover. The only week-long characteristic of the Passover is that there is to be no leaven in the house the entire week, i.e., that they are to eat unleavened bread the entire time. Thus, after they finish the lamb, they can eat any kosher thing to continue the Passover feast for the remainder of the week. Thus, fish would be kosher and fine.

I like your observation regarding the episode on the cross. Yes, Jesus makes the kingdom very present in time for the one thief. Exactly my point. Thanks for sharing.

 

[swainkas]

If Jesus says "I will not drink" it doesn't matter if someone was tempted to say they gave Him drink, He did not drink.

Gottservant,

Thanks for your comments. I don't doubt that Jesus drank on the cross. We have accounts in two different Gospel records that document Him doing so. What I do doubt is our understanding of what Jesus said. We as a faith are so focused on a future fulfillment of a kingdom that we deny the very words of Christ (God Himself in the flesh) because they don't fit with our preconceived notions. I think we as a faith need to reevaluate our understanding of Jesus Christ. If He was indeed God in the flesh, we should dig into His words deeper and try to understand what He spoke perfectly out of His own mouth. Instead, I've seen the tendency to simply sweep His confusing sayings under some proverbial rug and ignore those things that don't line up with Church doctrine or those things taught by His followers, the Apostles. I have no problem questioning the teachings of the Apostles if they don't line up with the teachings of Christ. I have a real problem dismissing the words of Christ, coming from at least one eyewitness to those words (John's account, as he was present at the cross). But in this case, regarding drinking, we have two accounts, with possibly both of them being those of eyewitnesses.

Before we discount the words we have of Christ during the Last Supper, and those documenting His actions after the Last Supper, I think we should try to reevaluate our theology of the End Times and the coming kingdom.

 

[Gottservant]

If He did drink, He was dead when He drank.

Not to contradict you, but I know for a fact that I am not tempted to drink on the way to my cross and if Jesus had drank, I would be. So something does not add up with your account, as I have strength that would not be there if what you were saying was true. You must account for the strength I have, not the words in a book written by fallible men.

 

[swainkas]

If He did drink, He was dead when He drank.

Not to contradict you, but I know for a fact that I am not tempted to drink on the way to my cross and if Jesus had drank, I would be.

Gottservant,

I understand from what you wrote that you think there is no way Jesus drank fruit of the vine on the cross. Why are you so against His doing do? I would like to understand your thought process better.

Thanks, Keith

 

[Anto9us]

I can see the vineagr as Fruit of the vine and I guess I can even see the fish as a continuation of the last supper meals-for-the-week

I would personally prefer Lamb every day of the week - I am not crazy about fish

but yer right, anything kosher without leaven would be okay

as for us, there will be turkey the first day
turkey the second day
eventually turkey sandwiches
and turkey salad

starting tomorrow

as far as the KINGDOM starting on the day of the Cross but having an "overlap" period between Cross and 70 AD Temple Destruction; I do agree with that - its what Hebrews gets into - the old covenant "nigh unto passing away"

doeth away with the first to establish the second

we have the rent veil on the day of the Cross - though sacrifices and oblations did not LITERALLY CEASE then

we have the words "It is finished"

but I see Hebrews as indicating the overlap period as the old Mosaic covenant did not COMPLETELY pass away til 70 AD

sacrifices continued in the Jerusalem Temple even after that rent veil, and the apostle Paul even participated in a "vow ceremony" there and had his head shaved

a strange period, when the old covenant was NIGH UNTO PASSING AWAY but had not completely passed away in some sense

Jesus' KINGDOM and the NEW COVENANT are established; yet there is still a more full "passing away" of the Old covenant

yet to come when Hebrews was written

 

[Gottservant]

If He did drink, He was dead when He drank.

Not to contradict you, but I know for a fact that I am not tempted to drink on the way to my cross and if Jesus had drank, I would be.

Gottservant,

I understand from what you wrote that you think there is no way Jesus drank fruit of the vine on the cross. Why are you so against His doing do? I would like to understand your thought process better.

Thanks, Keith

It's just a fact, no one is tempted by anything on the way to Heaven because of Jesus Christ. If they were, that would break scripture that Christ tempts no one.

Sorry but it is a sticking point. I think to be fair what Christ meant is that by the time he next drank from the vine again, He would be dead. Christ tasted the sour wine, died and as a consequence of dying he drank the sour wine that he had tasted. All on the cross. This fulfilled the prediction that He would be in His Father's kingdom.

I am at a bit of a loss as to the significance of this scripture so I am happy to just take it that he tasted but did not drink, if you want to argue that He did drink then I argue that He was dead and in Heaven, but I know its not really sufficient to argue like that. I think the point was that He knew exactly what He would enjoy and what He would not, but not "How" He would enjoy it, thus necessitating that He go through it to find out.

What is interesting is that He knew He would be in His Father's kingdom, that points to a direct connection with the eternal that meant something more like a dream than a belief. He was obviously lead to enter that kingdom, by faith, and so having an understanding of the cross He was able to predict when the two would coincide. This is important, because it raises the bar for what we should be able to prophesy about our lives and our own cross.

In any case the scripture has not been broken and as I said, someone whose whole life is centered around that particular end is not going to get it wrong in a hurry.

 

[swainkas]

In any case the scripture has not been broken and as I said, someone whose whole life is centered around that particular end is not going to get it wrong in a hurry.

Gottservant,

I don't believe that scripture was broken either. I think Jesus drank the fruit of the vine on the cross to tell us that the kingdom He came and died for was there and then accomplished by what He did on the cross. Could it be that His kingdom’s domain is to be only within the hearts of people, and is to pour out from their hearts into their governments and economies, and not the other way around? Could it be that Jesus is satisfied with His actions on planet Earth when He came and that He intends no future climactic cataclysmic events to usher in an earthly kingdom of forced fellowship and worship of Himself?

Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or, ‘There it is!’ For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst.” Luke 17:20-21