Was the Fruit of the Vine Fermented?

As to the nature of the fruit of the vine employed during the Passover supper, the New Testament (Matt. 26:26-29, etc.) itself is not explicit in its definition of the expression. Linguistically, "fruit of the vine" could denote grape juice or what we commonly call wine with some degree of fermentation.

Some contend that it must have been fermented wine because at the time of the Passover feast in the spring, grapes were not yet ripe. They claim that since there was no way of preserving fresh juice, the substance used by the Lord must have been fermented.

But that argument is not conclusive. Here's why. We know from ancient sources that preserving unfermented grape juice was common practice. The ancient Roman statesman, Cato, said:

If you wish to have must [grape juice] all year, put grape juice in an amphora and seal the cork with pitch; sink it in a fishpond. After thirty days, take it out. It will be grape juice for a whole year (De Agri Cultura CXX).

Citations to this effect could be multiplied many times.

On the other hand, there is considerable historical evidence that the common Passover beverage among Jews in the first century was fermented. Dr. Jack Lewis states:

Wine was ordinarily used at the Passover and is called "fruit of the vine" in Berakoth 6:1 (1976, 147; for an extended discussion, see Lightfoot 1979, 346ff).

This does not prove Jesus used wine, but it might be considered a strong likelihood in that direction.

It should be noted in passing, however, that the common wine of the first century was lightly fermented. It did not have nearly the potency of modern wines or numerous varieties of alcoholic beverages. Note the following quote from Professor R. Laird Harris:

All the wine [of Bible times] was light wine, i.e., not fortified with extra alcohol. Concentrated alcohol was only known in the Middle Ages when the Arabs invented distillation ("alcohol" is an Arabic word) so what is now called liquor or strong drink (i.e., whiskey, gin, etc.) and the twenty per cent fortified wines were unknown in Bible times. Beer was brewed by various methods, but its alcoholic content was light. The strength of natural wines is limited by two factors. The percentage of alcohol will be half of the percentage of the sugar in the juice. And if the alcoholic content is much above 10 or 11 percent, the yeast cells are killed and fermentation ceases. Probably ancient wines were 7-10 per cent . . . . To avoid the sin of drunkenness, mingling of wine with water was practiced. This dilution was specified by the Rabbis in NT times for the wine customary at Passover (1980, 376).

Expediency, therefore, might be the prevailing factor in the case posed. If both grape juice and wine are available, one would think grape juice would be the wiser choice. It would avoid the appearance of evil, perhaps be less offensive, and avoid being an avenue of temptation for some (who might have a weakness for alcoholic beverages).

It might also be mentioned that in some regions where grape juice is not readily available, wine could be used, but boiled first to destroy any alcoholic content. Alcohol evaporates at 173° Fahrenheit (78.3° Celsius).

In the final analysis, interpreting the phrase "fruit of the vine" as fermented or unfermented juice should not be pressed as a matter of doctrine and fellowship.

NOTE: Using this as an argument to justify modern social drinking is completely unwarranted.