Is it the Blood of Christ or just merely "fruit of the vine"? ** Matthew 26:29 **

Hello all,

I have a quick question :confused:. If Jesus instituted the Eucharist on the last supper, and in particular transformed the wine into his blood, why does he refer to the newly transubstantiated wine as “fruit of the vine” in Matthew 26:29? It seems to indicate that the wine is, in fact, merely wine.

Here is the reference:

Matthew 26:26-29 (New International Version)

26While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”

27Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. 28This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom."

What does Jesus mean when he refers to the “fruit of the vine” which he will not drink until he drinks it in the Father’s kingdom if the wine is no longer wine but is now his Body and Blood?

Thank you all for your response :thumbsup:,


Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18 – Jesus says He will not drink of the “fruit of the vine” until He drinks it new in the kingdom. Some Protestants try to use this verse (because Jesus said “fruit of the vine”) to prove the wine cannot be His blood. But the Greek word for fruit is “genneema” which literally means “that which is generated from the vine.”

In John 15:1,5 Jesus says “I am the vine.” So “fruit of the vine” can also mean** Jesus’ blood.**

In 1 Cor. 11:26-27, Paul also used “bread” and “the body of the Lord” interchangeably in the same sentence. Also, see Matt. 3:7;12:34;23:33 for examples were “genneema” means “birth” or “generation.”

Jesus Promises His Real Presence in the Eucharist

D-R Bible, Haydock Commentary:

Ver. 29. I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine. In St. Luke, (xxii. 15, 16,) Christ said to his disciples; I earnestly desired to eat this Pasch with you before I suffer; (or this paschal sacrifice) for I say to you, that, from this time I will not eat thereof, till it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. These expressions seem to import no more, than that it was the last time he would eat and drink with them in a mortal body. And if, as some expound it, Christ, by the generation of the vine, understood the consecrated cup of his blood, he might call it wine, or the fruit of the vine; because he gave them his blood under the appearance of wine; as St. Paul calls the body of Christ bread, because given under the appearance of bread. (1 Corinthians xi. 26.) (Witham) — Fruit of the vine. These words, by the account of St. Luke, (xxii. 18,) were not spoken of the sacramental cup, but of the wine that was drunk with the paschal lamb. Though the Sacramental cup might also be called the fruit of the vine, because it was consecrated from wine, and retains the likeness, and all the accidents, or qualities, of wine. (Challoner) — As St. Paul calleth the body of Christ bread, so the blood of Christ may still be called wine, for three reasons: 1. Because it was so before; as in Genesis xi.[ii.?] 23, Eve is called Adam’s bone; in Exodus vii, Aaron’s rod devoured their rods, whereas they were not now rods but serpents; and in John ii, He tasted the water made wine, whereas it was now wine not water. 2. Because the blessed Eucharist retaineth the forms of bread and wine, and things in Scripture are frequently called from their appearance; as Tobias v, the archangel Raphael, is called a young man; and Genesis xviii, three men appeared to Abraham; whereas they were three angels. 3. Because Jesus Christ in the blessed Sacrament is the true bread of life, refreshing us in soul and body to everlasting life. (Bristow) — Drink it new, after a different manner most wonderful and hitherto unheard of, not having a passible body, but one clothed with immortality; and henceforth no longer in need of nourishment. Thus he brings to their minds the idea of his resurrection, to strengthen them under the ignominies of his passion, and eats and drinks with them, to give them a more certain proof of this grand mystery. (S. Chrysostom, hom lxxxiii.)

There were three cups of wine served at the Last Supper. I believe Jesus said of the third Cup, “This is my Blood”, so He would have already drunk from two other cups.

There was to be a fourth cup served, the Cup of Consummation, but Jesus and the Apostles left for the Garden of Gethsemane prior to the drinking from the fourth cup, after they sing the great Hallel psalms.

It would have been between the third cup and the fourth, that Jesus would have said, “I will not drink again…”

It would make it rather difficult for anyone to believe Jesus’ words in the 6th Chapter of John’s Gospel if we were only speaking about wine exclusively.

We are all a little prone to becoming “conditioned” to our faith in the way that we have learned it. Taking a second look at the passages of Matthew quoted, we discover that verses 26,27 & 28 do not identify precisely what is originally in the cup - it only says “He took the cup” ; hence the need for confirmation in verse 29 because nowhere else in Chapter 26 of Matthew are we told what is in the cup… what is to be consecrated.

This would be my personal primary interpretation of the verse, based on what one of the Church Fathers said -

From **Clement of Alexandria The Instructor Book II **:

And that it was wine which was the thing blessed, He showed again, when He said to His disciples, “I will not drink of the fruit of this vine, till I drink it with you in the kingdom of my Father.”

Symbolically speaking , the drinking of wine was associated with joy and feasting, so our Blessed Lord might further be alluding to the joy that awaits in the kingdom of Heaven.

Finally the way the verse is rendered in *Clement of Alexandria The Instructor Book II *, a subtle difference is contained in the wording:

As opposed to the OP quote (NIV) “I will not drink of this fruit of the vine” , Clement quotes it this way: “I will not drink of the fruit of this vine” , opening the door to additional interpretation.


29 A bowl full of vinegar stood there; so they put a sponge full of the vinegar on hyssop and held it to his mouth. 30 When Jesus had received the vinegar, he said, “It is finished”; and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

Note that after drinking of the sour wine [or vinegar] on the cross Jesus says “It is finished”. In the older bibles quote “It is Consummated.” [If you can get hold of a pre-VII missal see the reading of the Passion on Good Friday.] That made better sense when I recently learned that the Fourth Cup is the Cup of Consummation.


So I guess what you are saying is that while Jesus sat with them in his own body, he drank his own blood with them and then will do the same in the Kingdom? In other words when we are with Jesus in the kingdom and he is physically present in his body, then we will be drinking his blood from his body and so will he?

Are there Masses in heaven? I wasn’t aware of that.

It would make it rather difficult for anyone to believe Jesus’ words in the 6th Chapter of John’s Gospel if we were only speaking about wine exclusively.

Just curious where in John 6 it mentions anything about wine? Or the Lord’s supper. In the “eat my flesh” passage, he was speaking to a group of Jews, not the church. The church was not mentioned, a priest was not mentioned and there was no future tense, i.e. nothing was mentioned about this being a future event. He was talking about eating his flesh right then and there. Jesus also never said anything about physical bread being present, nor was there physical wine present. The word wine never appears in the chapter, nor is there any reference to “fruit of the vine” or grape juice, just blood. Nor did Jesus ever say in Jn 6 anything about it “becoming” flesh later on. He said “eat my flesh” now!! These are all observations about the text, if I have missed something, let me know!

In the verse, “28This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sin”. We know that this cannot be taken literally, because in Hebrews 9:16
“For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it.”

First and the most obvious, is there was no blood shed yet.

But in Hebrews it makes it clear that there was no New Covenant, since there was no death yet. Since Christ is saying “THIS IS (PRESENT TENSE) the blood of the covenant” was he mistaken, since there was no new covenant yet. Or was he speaking figuratively? If you say he really meant that for the future, you cannot in turn say he was saying that it is turning to blood then, you would also have to say that it future, therefore it was still “fruit of the vine”, just like Jesus said it was. The blood of the New Covenant and the New Covenant is when he dies!!

There was a time when the Church had people in it that were also questioning the real presence. But, in the 8th century, a significant miracle happened (or started really) and continues to this day. It’s the miracle of Lanciano. I’d like to know what informed Protestants say about this kind of “flesh and blood” confirmation.

(To be clear, these kinds of miracles are viewed as “private revelation” from the Church and are not a part of the “deposit of faith”. Catholics are free to believe these or not. But, I’d just like to know if it is generally decided by Protestants that these Eucharastic miracles are held as fakes, just a strange coincident, or possibly indicating something else entirely.)

Didn’t Jesus say “which will be offered up for you,” which meant it was not consumated as yet on the cross, but is his blood, and his precious body and about to be offered up for them and for many for sins. This is the lamb of God on the eve of his sacrifice.

The quote you have from Hebrews 9:16 is not correct. Please go check your chapter and verse.

It does not say covenant. It says “will” as in a person who makes a will to give an inheritance to his children after he dies.

I think this has confused your interpretation.


I think you have incorrectly quoted Hebrews 9:16. What translation are you using?

In the various translations I have, Hebrews 9:16 does not mention a covenant but speaks of a will and the death of the one who made the will, the death of the testator. Verse 16 is not about a covenant, but about inheritence and execution of a will.

*For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. (RSV)

Now where there is a will, the death of the testator must be established. (NAB)

**For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. **(KJV)

**For where there is a testament, the death of the testator must of necessity come in. *(Houay-Rheims)

The entire passage is below.

For this reason he is mediator of a new covenant: since a death has taken place for deliverance from transgressions under the first covenant, those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance. Now where there is a will, the death of the testator must be established. For a will takes effect only at death; it has no force while the testator is alive. (Hebrews 9:15-17)

That’s the whole passage.

Jesus shed his own blood not to ratify the new covenant, but to satisfy the demands of the Old Covenant. That is the whole point of Paul’s letter to the Hebrews.

The covenant made with Moses and Isreal at Sinai demanded death for transgression of the rules of the covenant, and that is why they sacrificed animals. The priest and sinner would lay their hands on the animal, transfer the sin of the sinner to the animal, and then kill it. The demands of the covenant were thus satisfied.

Paul argues however, that the fact that animal sacrifice was repeated was an indication of its ineffectiveness. Paul states that Jesus’s death “Once for all” and the fact that it was not repeated, was a clear indication of it’s effectiveness and that the sacrifice was accepted by God. That’s the whole point of Paul’s letter to the Hebrews. Jesus died to fulfill the demand of the old covenant that there be a death for transgression of that old covenant.

Paul then uses Jewish laws about inheritence as a teaching tool. Jewish law about inheritance is not too far from our own.

those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance. Now where there is a will, the death of the testator must be established. For a will takes effect only at death; it has no force while the testator is alive.

The “Eternal inheritance” is Heaven --> Nobody gets an inheritance until the person who made the will dies --> Jesus who promised us the inheritence of Heaven died --> We get the eternal inheritance of Heaven.

But blood does ratify a covenant. You are absolutely correct about that. And you are also 100% correct that the Blood of Jesus on the Cross is what ratified the new covenant. Jesus both satisfied the demans of the old covenant with his death, and at the same time his blood ratified the new covenant.

But the fact that the blood in the cup was prior to Jesus death on the cross is not relevant. Jesus is God, the Second Person of the Trinity, through whom the universe was created out of nothing.

By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear. (Hebrews 11:3)

It was no mystery to Paul that the contents of the cup could appear to be wine yet be the unseen blood of the invisible Jesus. Paul clearly understood that something which apeared to be made out of one substance could indeed be made out of something else which was in fact invisible.

When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them. And their eyes were opened and they recognized him; and he vanished out of their sight. (Luke 24:30-31)

Jesus vanished. Poof! Gone. Invisible. After the ressurection, Jesus could just appear and vanish at will. Is this not amazing? And is it not exactly consistent with what Catholics call the “Sacramental presence” of Jesus?

Something which is seen made out of something that is not seen. Appearing and then vanishing. The sacramental presence of Jesus. Paul understood this clearly. It was no mystery to him. He accepted it without hesitation, as did all the disciples and the early Christians immediately after Christ’s death and ressurection.

There was no question in their minds, nor mine either.


Yes, Jesus did appear before his ascension. We should keep in mind that he never appeared after the ascension. Jesus did open eyes through the breaking of bread, but we never see him doing that after the ascension when he is seated at the “right hand of the Father” which I would guess is one reason why some still don’t see this as proof.

Except on the Road to Damascus. :wink:

Nope. That was Pre-Ascension and Post-Ressurection. (Easter Sunday)

Damascus not Emmaus.

1* In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commandment through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen.

Acts 1:1

3 Now as he journeyed he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed about him. 4 And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” 5 And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting; 6 but rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.”

Acts 9:3-6

5* and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8* Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

1 Corinthians 15:5-8
Nothing critical, just nit-picking.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit