Word Studies in the Bible

By E. M. Zerr

BREAD-WINE

[Page 10]

     Readers of this column have observed that for a number of issues the articles have had a hyphenated heading. The two parts have usually been related as to meaning, either by likeness or by contrast. The two words in this heading are not thus related, but have been selected because each is related to a common subject, namely, the Lord's Supper. The first word occurs 80 times in the King James Version, and in every case it is from the Greek ARTOS. This same original has been translated by "loaf" (either singular or plural) 23 times. Hence there is no difference in the basic meaning of "bread" and "loaf," and the use of one is as correct as the other. Strong defines the original: "Bread; (as raised) or a loaf." Thayer defines it as follows: "Bread; food composed of flour mixed with water and baked; food of any kind.

     As historical information Thayer makes the following statement: "The Israelites made it in the form of an oblong or

[Page 11]

round cake, as thick as one's thumb, and as large as a plate or platter, hence it was not cut, but broken." This information accounts for the form of expression used in the scriptures, whether in the Lord's Supper or partaking of a common meal. Had bread been baked in large or thick units, we would have read expressions such as "he took bread, and when he had cut or sliced it," etc. From this it can be seen that the act of breaking the bread has no religious significance, but was merely a physical convenience for serving those who were to partake. So when peopIe "broke bread" in their temporal life, they performed something that was as religious as when they did so in the Lord's Supper, as far as the term "breaking" is concerned.

     It is true that Jesus said (1 Corinthians 11:24), "this is my body which is broken for you." This is figurative, for we know that no one is to make a literal use of the body of Christ. Had bread been prepared in large pieces as mentioned above, then it would have been just as appropriate (as far as meaning is concerned) for the Lord to have said "this is my body which is sliced for you." The literal body of Christ was not really broken, for the bones (which constitute the principal part of it) were not to be broken (John 19:36). The entire body of Christ was used in a sacrifice for the world. In conclusion, it is as scriptural to say "he took the loaf" as it is to say "he took bread," since both come from the same original.

     The word "wine" is in the King James Version of the New Testament 32 times as a separate term. It is from OINOS, which Strong defines thus: "A primitive word (or perhaps of Hebrew origin); "wine" (literal or figurative). Thayer defines it as follows: "Wine; a love-potion; a vine." Since the drink used in the Lord's Supper has been in use for many centuries, it will be well to consider some passages in the Old Testament. "Thy presses shall burst out with new wine" (Proverbs 3:10). The presses mentioned are the vats where grapes were placed to get the juice pressed from them. Of necessity the juice would be sweet at such a time, yet it is called wine. That is justified by the original Hebrew TIYROSH, which Strong defines as follows: "Must as fresh grapejuice (as just squeezed out); by implication (rarely) fermented wine." The same Hebrew word is used in Isaiah 65:8 where the passage says, "new wine is found in the cluster." We know there could be no fermentation while the juice is still in the cluster, yet the inspired writer calls it wine. In 12 other passages in the Old Testament we have the phrase "new wine," and in 2 places we have "sweet wine." All of this concludes that the simple word "wine" will not tell us whether the fermented or the unfermented juice is meant. The context only can help us to determine which is meant.

     In view of the foregoing it may be asked which meaning does the context show where the Lord's Supper is the subject. In answer I will remind the reader that the word "wine" is never used in connection with that institution. Instead, when the product to be drunk is mentioned, it is always called the "fruit of the vine." (See Matthew 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18.) A reason for this may be seen in Webster's definition of "wine" as follows: "2. The fermented, or, loosely, the unfermented juice of any fruit or plant used as a beverage; as, currant wine." Had Jesus merely said "wine," we might have concluded to use cider since it is the juice of a fruit. Or we could have been confused as to whether He meant the fermented or the unfermented, since the word means either. And since the Lord was particular as to what plant the juice was to be taken from, but not whether it was fermented or unfermented, He merely called it the "fruit of the vine." When brethren insist on either form of the juice, to the exclusion of the other, they are more exacting than was the Lord.