By Larry J. Perkins, PhD
The reference to drinking “the produce of the vine” in Mark 14:25 usually is seen as a reference to the eschatological banquet motif. In this article the argument is made that the Markan narrative does not refer to the eschatological banquet motif and so there is no intended or explicit allusion to this motif in 14:25. Rather, there is an intratextual resonance with the phrase “the fruit of the vineyard” used in Mark 12:2. Jesus prophecies his use of the “produce of the vine,” i.e., “the fruit of the vineyard”(12:2) after his death and resurrection in a “new way” in the “kingdom of his Father,” when he celebrates his ownership and victory. By this device the narrator demonstrates that the Tenant Farmers’ murder of the heir to secure the vineyard’s profits for themselves is not the end of the story. The Markan Jesus intends the reference in 14:25 to express confidence in his vindication.
Key words: fruit of the vineyard, produce of the vine, drinking, cup, new, Kingdom of God, amen.
In the Markan narrative the Passover that Jesus celebrates with his disciples just prior to his crucifixion concludes with an ἀμήν saying. The primary character, Jesus, asserts in very strong language, “Truly (ἀμήν) I tell you, I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine (ἐκ τοῦ γενήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου) until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God” (Mark 14:25). Immediately Jesus and the Twelve (Judas’ status is unclear in the narrative) adjourn to the Mount of Olives and the Garden of Gethsemane.
Almost unanimously the commentaries construe Jesus’ statement to be authentic and a reference to his imminent death, a future return of Jesus as Son of Man, and a celebration culminating in an eschatological, Messianic banquet. For example, Collins says that “this saying is an indirect prophecy by Jesus of his own death; at the same time it looks forward to the full manifestation of the kingdom of God in the future.” In particular, “the motif of drinking wine in the kingdom of God is analogous to the image of reclining at a festive banquet with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of God.” R. T. France states that “the reference to ‘new wine’ may indicate the expectation of the ‘messianic banquet’ when God will have made all things new.” In Evans’ view this text signifies that:
Jesus will not drink of the fruit of the vine; that is, he will not celebrate Passover until he may do so in the kingdom of God, when God has completed his liberation and restoration of Israel. When he does celebrate the Passover (and/or the messianic banquet), he will do so renewed, or in Christian language, glorified.
Marcus similarly identifies this statement as:
in accord with the spirit of Passover, which not only commemorates the redemption accomplished under Moses in the past but also looks forward to the messianic redemption in the future, thus melding the memory of the Exodus with the hopeful anticipation of the eschatological banquet.
This paper agrees with the thesis that the Markan Jesus is referring in this statement both to his imminent death and his final, future victory as the Son of Man. Marcus’ recognition of Exodus motifs expressed in the Passover context gives opportunity for Yahweh’s victory over the forces of Egypt to be seen as a parallel to Jesus’ own expectation. Further, Jesus is declaring that he will abstain from wine for a period. However, this paper argues that the narrator by this reference to “drinking of the produce of the vine” in Mark 14:25 is making an intratextual linkage with the “fruit of the vineyard” mentioned in the parable of the tenant farmers (Mark 12:1-9) and the heir’s legitimate right to the vineyard’s profits (καρποί) mandated by the owner, his father, for which cause he was murdered by the tenants.
The Markan narrative in 12:1-9 identifies Jesus with the son and heir in the parable, whom the tenant farmers abuse and kill. In Mark 14:25, Jesus expresses his certainty that after his crucifixion (which represents the killing of the heir) and resurrection he will use the “produce of the vine” but in a “new way” to mark his rightful role “in the kingdom of his father.” In contrast with the parable of the tenant farmers, no opposition will prevent “the beloved son” and heir from accessing and enjoying what rightfully belongs to him. The narrator connects these motifs by using the phrases ἀπὸ τῶν καρπὼν τοῦ ἀμπελῶνος (“of the fruit of the vineyard” 12:2) and ἐκ τοῦ γενήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου (“of the produce of the vine” 14:25). The focus in Mark 14:25 is on vindication, newness and the presence of the Kingdom of God which is marked by Jesus accessing “the produce of the vine.”
The narrator contrasts the experience of “the beloved son” described in 12:1-9, who was killed before he could access the profits from the estate, and the future experience of “God’s son,” who, even though killed, will gain his rightful place in his father’s kingdom. The narrator marks Jesus’ changed role in 14:25 by describing his use of “the produce of the vine” in a new way. Why would the narrator desire such symbolism, in the context of Jesus’ final week in Jerusalem, to convey to his implied audience?
The narrator in his use of the wine motif in 14:25 intends his audience to recognize a relationship between the Passover action in which Jesus deliberately engages his twelve disciples and this parable. Both are accounts of betrayal of trust. The tenant farmers betray the trust of the vineyard owner and Judas betrays the trust of Jesus. In both cases the death of the heir or hero occurs, but this is not the end of the story. In both contexts judgment is pronounced – on the tenant farmers and on Judas. In both contexts an Old Testament story serves as a point of reference for the New Testament story. In the case of the tenant farmers parable, it is Isaiah 5:1-5 and in the case of the Passover, it is various passages in Exodus.
The following arguments give some credence to this hypothesis.
1. There is no explicit reference to an anticipated eschatological/messianic banquet in Mark’s narrative.
In the Markan narrative, the author reports Jesus eating with many different people, including meals with tax-collectors and sinners and the two “feedings of the multitudes” in Mark 6 and 8. In the parable of the bridegroom in 2:19-20, the issue of eating is related to fasting, not banqueting, and the contrast is between consumption while the bridegroom is present in contrast to appropriate fasting when the bridegroom leaves. There is no reference to a return of the bridegroom in this implied parable, only his departure. The parable seems to focus on the celebration occurring because the bridegroom is present and on the change that occurs when the bridegroom leaves. Although it may be assumed that the return of the bridegroom will result in celebrations, the narrator does not reference this idea explicitly in the pericope.
Apart possibly from 14:25, there do not seem to be allusions in the Markan narrative to a Messianic banquet motif as in the Matthean or Lukan accounts. Some might argue that the “feedings of the multitudes” are anticipatory in some way of future eschatological feasting, but the Markan narrator takes no advantage of these events overtly to make such connections. Rather, resonances with Israel’s experiences of divine provision in the wilderness are of greater interest to the narrator. If Mark 14:25 does contain a reference to the eschatological banquet, there does not seem to be any preparation for this in the prior sections of Mark’s narrative, not even in the overt eschatological discourse of Mark 13.  This interpretational frame has to be supplied from materials external to the Markan narrative. Methodologically, the Markan narrative should be consulted first to explain the meaning of Mark 14:25.
When other New Testament authors make reference to some sort of eschatological banquet, the emphasis seems to be upon humans enjoying the banquet in the kingdom context that God has provided. For instance, in Matt 8:11, Jesus says that “many will come from east and west and will eat [recline at the table] with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven….” In Luke 13:29, Jesus’ emphasis is the same. If the parable of the wedding banquet in Matt 22:2-12 reflects the eschatological banquet concept, here again the focus is upon those invited by the king to participate and their various responses. Similarly in Luke 14:16-24 Jesus presented the parable of the Great Dinner in response to a dinner guest’s declaration “Blessed is anyone who will eat bread in the kingdom of God” (v.15). The focus of the parable in the Lukan narrative is upon the surprising response of people to the invitation, indicating that those who will eat bread in the kingdom will not be the ones that Jesus’ contemporaries expected. In each of these Matthean and Lukan narrative contexts, the words of Jesus condemn those who reject the invitation offered by Jesus to engage with God’s kingdom according to Jesus’ direction.In contrast, the ἀμήν saying in Mark 14:25 is spoken by Jesus in first person singular and only in reference to himself. Although this is spoken in the context of the Passover meal, there is no explicit reference in this context to a future banquet or large gathering of people for a feast per se, only his personal declaration as to when he will drink wine. Further, with 14:25 he did not connect any message of condemnation for those who reject him. The assumption might be, however, that the act of drinking wine implies a social context that involves friends. This may also be the case in the parable told in Mark 12:1-9, where the expectation would be that the heir, when he received “some of the fruit of the vine,” would do so in the context of a meal with friends and perhaps the tenant farmers. If this is the case, however, the narrative makes no explicit use of this social convention.
- The Markan author’s use of intratextual references.
The Markan author is careful in constructing his narrative and often he intentionally signals to his reader/listener intratextual linkages. His characteristic use of “sandwich narratives” presents one form of these linkages. Also, many have noted the frequent cases of “Markan duality,” that may be another way to generate intratextual linkage. Jesus twice feeds multitudes of people, healings of blind people bracket the “journey to Jerusalem,” and Jesus calms storms twice. In addition, Jesus prophecies his treatment in Jerusalem four times (Mark 8-10); parallel with these prophecies are his frequent explanations about the nature of discipleship. Jesus announces several times that the gospel will be proclaimed to the nations (13:10; 14:19) and several pronouncements are made about the coming of the Son of Man (8:38; 13:26; 14:62). The narrator also seems to weave parallels between the character of John the Baptist and Jesus into his story.
The narrator employs selective repetition of key terms or synonymous phrases as a device to signal intratextual linkages. For example, the use of the verb σχίζειν in 1:10 to describe “the rending of the heavens” often is linked by commentators with its only other use in the Markan narrative to describe the “rending of the temple veil” in 15:38. The repeated use of the phrase ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός in 1:11 and 9:7 is usually considered an important clue to understanding the import of υἱὸν ἀγαπητόν in 12:6. The sequential use ἡ πωρώσις τῆς καρδίας (3:5), ἦν αὐτῶν ἡ καρδία πεπωρωμένη (6:52), along with πεπωρωμένην ἔχετε τὴν καρδίαν ὑμῶν (8:17), similarly does not seem accidental. These references to “hard-heartedness” are related to the use of σκληροκαρδία in 10:5. Perhaps one of the most striking examples is this author’s repeated use of the rare word συμβούλιον in 3:6; 15:1, two passages which share additional lexical and thematic similarities. Additional examples could be provided, but these may suffice to show that this writer knew how to employ specific lexical relationships to guide his audience in making interconnections between various parts of the narrative so that they would grasp his intended purpose. The phrases ἀπὸ τῶν καρπῶν τοῦ ἀμπελῶνος (12:2) and ἐκ τοῦ γενήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου (14:25), although using different, but related, lexical items, are intended to refer to the same product, i.e., wine, and can be considered within this category of intentional repetitions as another example of intratextual linkage.
3. Drinking “the produce of the vine” does not imply a renewal of Passover celebration.
The Passover setting of 14:25 within the narrative is indisputable. Presumably the consumption of wine as part of the Passover ritual prepares the audience in some sense for Jesus’ statement in 14:25. In the Passover, Jewish people looked back to their liberation from Egypt orchestrated by Yahweh through the death of Pharaoh’s firstborn and the crossing of the Red Sea. In this sense it was retrospective. However, it also expressed hope that once again in the future Yahweh would remember his covenant promises and bring final redemption and restoration to Israel among the nations. In the case of Mark 14, Jesus links one of the wine drinkings in the Passover ritual with his imminent, violent death; i.e., “my blood of the covenant poured out for many” (14:24). But Jesus immediately moves in 14:25 to assure the Twelve that his death does not mean the failure of his mission because a day is coming when he “will drink it [the produce of the vine] new in the kingdom of God.”
The temporal complexity of the Messiah’s mission, as explained by Jesus in the Markan narrative, incorporates Messianic death, the lapse of a period of time, and then a future event in which the Messiah “will drink it [the produce of the vine] new in the kingdom of God.” This sequence, as well as the reference to “new,” suggests that in 14:25 the Markan Jesus was not referring to a future instance of Passover celebration, but something quite different. The annual Passover celebration may have anticipated a new redemptive act but, according to the Markan narrative, Jesus is engaging a new kingdom activity which does not merely repeat traditional religious actions. The Passover celebration for the Messiah’s people appropriately will cease with the death and resurrection of Jesus because “liberation,” however conceived in the Markan narrative, is being achieved through his death. When Jesus drinks the “produce of the vine” in the coming days, he will drink it “new,” not as a Passover meal, but in a new context – his vindication and victory as the triumphant divine warrior.
- The Theme of Messianic death, absence and vindication.
The Markan narrative references the theme of Jesus’ absence several times in chapters 11-14. For example, his visit to the Jerusalem t emple in 11:15-17 may be read as the return of an absent owner to his household, i.e., “my house,” accompanied by a very negative evaluation of the way his servants have cared for his estate. “You have made it a den of robbers!” he claims. The perfect form πεποιήκατε with the expressed subject ὑμεῖς gives prominence to this accusation. The absentee landlord motif occurs again in 12:1-9. In this context the tenants seek to take ownership of the estate for themselves in the absence of the owner, but end up being destroyed by ὁ κύριος τοῦ ἀμπελῶνος (“the owner of the vineyard” v. 9). Another use of this motif comes in the parable in 13:34-35. The owner gives specific instructions to his servants to keep vigilant because they do not know when ὁ κύριος τῆς οἰκίας will return. The parable of the bridegroom who is present but soon will depart in 2:19-20 might be added to this list, but there is no explicit statement of return in that story. A period of absence is also implied in 14:25 when no wine is drunk, but it is followed by drinking it “new” at some future point. Jesus does not explicitly express this as a “return,” but certainly communicates resumption of his practice, but under new conditions.
Jesus refers to a future time (ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης) when he will drink “it” καινὸν (“new”) in the kingdom of God, but affirms that until that time οὐκέτι οὐ μὴ πίω ἐκ τοῦ γενήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου (“I will no longer ever again drink of the fruit of the vine” (my translation)). He has just declared that one of the cups of wine used in the Passover meal represents “my blood of the covenant which is poured out for many,” referencing his death. His absence is implied (but not his destruction). Abstinence from wine for him will occur during this period, but it will end at some point. When he resumes his consumption of wine, it will not be to mark the establishment of another covenant, but to mark an eschatological turning point because this action will be καινὸν ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ — he will drink wine “in a new way” and “in the kingdom of God.” The following reference to the smiting of the shepherd, citing Zech. 13:7 and his resurrection in 14:27-28 reinforce this sense of absence through death, but not destruction. Jesus immediately promises that προάξω ὑμᾶς εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν. This sequence of narrative segments, in which the motif of absence and return finds different expressions, provides an important contextual frame within which to set and interpret Jesus’ statements in 14:24-25.
Galileans probably would know stories of absentee estate owners returning personally to enjoy the benefits of the estate, only to find tenants in revolt. In between those times representatives of the owner might be sent to collect some of the profits for the owner’s use. “Wicked” tenants might attempt to appropriate the profits and, in extreme cases, even the estate itself for their own benefit. In the parable in Mark 12:1-9, the narrator seems to express the viewpoint that current Jewish religious leaders, compared to wicked tenants, refuse to acknowledge God’s ownership of the people of Israel and thus fail to recognize Jesus as the “owner’s beloved son.” When the owner discovers that these tenants have killed his son, the heir, he attacks and kills them. The estate is then given to a new set of tenants, described as ἄλλοις (Mark 12:9; Luke 20:16) or ἄλλοις γεωργοῖς (Matt 21:41). The implication is that these new tenants will honour the request of the owner and faithfully preserve the “fruits of the vineyard” for his use, whenever he desires.
In Mark 11-15, the narrator portrays Jesus as owner of the temple (“my house”), the one who should expect fruit on the fig tree, i.e., Israel or temple, and the beloved son who has right to the proceeds of his father’s estate, and the King of the Jews who should be honoured as such. In each of these portrayals of Jesus, the implication is that he has a right to receive and use the proceeds of his kingdom. Perhaps the statement in Mark 12:17 summarizes this expectation as Jesus says, “The things of Caesar give to Caesar and the things of God to God.” The action of the Jewish leaders to kill him delays his appropriation of the kingdom profits but this will not be a permanent outcome. His prophecies about his personal resurrection and his return “on the clouds” with great and glorious might (13:26) signal his intent to appropriate fully the “fruit of the vineyard.”
Fruit-bearing and harvest function as significant metaphors in Mark’s narrative to signal the expected results of a life lived in loyalty to the Messiah and the consummated kingdom. In 4:8, fruit-bearing is the result of those who “hear the word and receive and bear fruit (καρποφοροῦσιν).” In the parable presumably “the sower” is the one who will benefit from the harvest. In the unique parable of the seed growing secretly (4:26-29), it is the land that produces fruit (καρποφορεῖ) (v. 28) which then results in “the fruit” (ὁ κάρπος) (v.29) and the harvest, secured and enjoyed by the farmer. While these parables more generally define people’s response to the kingdom message and the nature of the kingdom’s development, they also imply that God’s and/or Jesus’ investment in the kingdom will be rewarded in some way. A more direct narrative connection occurs in 11:12-14 where Jesus seeks fruit from a fig tree, fails to find any, and curses the tree (μηκέτι εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ἐκ σοῦ μηδεὶς καρπὸν φάγοι).
God’s desire is to receive ‘the fruit of the vineyard’ (12:2). The parable thus parallels closely the ‘enacted parable’ of the fig-tree. In both, God shows his desire and his rightful expectation to receive ‘fruit’ from his people Israel – indicated respectively, by the fig and the vineyard.
Based upon the Markan narrative context and content, there is no warrant for thinking that the Markan author wanted his audience to interpret Jesus’ saying in 14:25 with reference to an eschatological banquet. What Jesus does declare, in a literary form that emphasizes authority, i.e., an ἀμήν saying, is that he will be absent for a period of time and during this time he will not be drinking wine. However, there is coming a time when he will drink “from the produce of the vine new in the kingdom of God.” A note of celebration is expressed in this activity and most probably this celebration arises from his victory over his enemies.
5. The similarities and differences between the phrases ἐκ τοῦ γενήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου (14:25) and ἀπὸ τῶν καρπῶν τοῦ ἀμπελῶνος (12:2).
The two phrases ἐκ τοῦ γενήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου (14:25)  and ἀπὸ τῶν καρπῶν τοῦ ἀμπελῶνος (12:2) use different terms to express a similar idea and this creates some challenges for this thesis. The prepositions ἐκ and ἀπό can express the partitive idea, i.e., “some of,” and so in this respect the two phrases function syntactically in similar ways within their clauses. In 14:25 the subject is first person, “May I never drink some of…” (οὐ μὴ πίω ἐκ…), and the action is drinking, expressed as a very strong denial using the aorist subjunctive. In 12:2 the subject is third person, “in order that…he may receive some of…” (ἵνα…λάβῃ ἀπὸ…), and the action is receiving, expressed as an anticipated activity (aorist subjunctive) in a purpose clause. However, in both cases the idea of sharing or participating in something is present.
The terms ἡ ἄμπελος (14:25) and ὁ ἀμπελών (12:2) mean respectively vine/grapevine and vineyard. Kloppenborg indicates that the expression ἀμπελῶνα…ἐφύτευσεν (Mk 12:1) reflects the language of Isa 5:1 (ἀμπελὼν ἐγενήθη) and 5:2 (καὶ ἐφύτευσα ἄμπελον σωρηχ). However, it should be noted that the Old Greek translation of Isaiah also used two different terms in this song. In 5:1 it is the term ὁ ἀμπελών, i.e., “vineyard,” and in 5:2 it is ἡ ἄμπελος, i.e., “the vine,” describing a particular kind of grapevine that was planted in the vineyard. Therefore Greek Isaiah used both terms found in Mark 12:2 and 14:25. Similarly in Isa 5:7 the ownership of the vineyard is described as ὁ γὰρ ἀμπελὼν κυρίου σαβαωθ and this language may be reflected in Mark 12:9 ὁ κύριος τοῦ ἀμπελῶνος. Moulton and Milligan refer to the use of ἄμπελος “in a collective sense” and “this use of ἄμπελος…makes it equivalent to ἀμπελών….” These two terms as employed in Mark 12:2 and 14:25 are not entirely synonymous, but the resultant sense is essentially equivalent, i.e., the fruit of the vineyard is in fact the produce of the vine. The fact that they can have a similar sense, i.e., refer to a vineyard, in Koine Greek usage underscores a potential intratextual relationship between these passages. Also the fact that Greek Isa 5:1-2 used both ἡ ἄμπελος and ὁ ἀμπελών may be another reason to suggest an intratextual connection between Mark 12:2 and 14:25.
Then there are the terms ὁ καρπός (12:2) and τὸ γενήμα (14:25). As noted previously, the Markan author used καρπός several times in his narrative (4:7, 8, 29; 11:14; 12:2). In addition, it occurs in the compound verb καρποφορεῖν (4:20, 28). In contrast γενήμα only occurs once in this narrative. In the papyri γενήμα normally refers to any vegetable produce, often describing “the year’s produce of an estate.” Although regarded as synonymous with καρπός, this usage is censured by Phrynicus as “un-Attic.” The “fruit of the vineyard” (12:2) and the “produce/annual production of the vine” (14:25) would both be interpreted as a reference to grapes or grape juice/wine. Perhaps Jesus in Mark 14:25 is referring to a specific vine, as Isaiah did, a vine that represented Israel. Alternatively, the reference to an individual vine may just be metonymy for vines in general which produce an annual vintage.
Maimondes in Mishneh Torah describes the Pesach Haggadah (12th century CE). He constantly refers to Yahweh as “our God, king of the universe, who creates the fruit of the vine (פרי הגפן).” This usage also occurs in the Babylonian Talmud. The phrase τὸ γένημα τῆς ἀμπέλου is a reasonable translation of פרי הגפן. It is precarious to argue from later rabbinic materials that the Markan author used such a phrase in 14:25 because it was somewhat formulaic in the Passover context. However, the parallel is worth noting and the influence of the Passover context of 14:25 might explain why the specific form of the phrase was used in 14:25 rather than οἱ καρποὶ τοῦ ἀμπελῶνος which occurs in 12:2. Alternatively, the Markan author in 14:25 may be emphasizing the yearly production of wine from the vine.
Another difference that needs to be considered is that in the 14:25 narrative, Jesus himself is the actor drinking from the fruit of the vine. In this case, “the son,” i.e., Jesus, is the beneficiary. In 12:1-9 the owner of the vineyard, after commissioning many other employees and servants, sends his son to secure the proceeds from the estate. The son is killed and the father then re-asserts ownership, punishing the tenant farmers, but at some point in the future he anticipates receiving the “fruit of the vineyard.” Given the strong sense of identity between the actions of God, i.e., the father, and the mission of Jesus, i.e., the son, this difference may not be significant because in 12:7 the son is recognized as the “heir” and thus is the proleptic owner. In 12:10-11 the Markan narrator indicates how he perceives their respective roles unfolding.
6. The meaning of καινὸν.
Scholars puzzle over the sense of καινὸν and its referent. It may function adverbially, modifying πίνω and defining the manner in which Jesus will drink “the fruit of the vine,” i.e., in a fresh or new way. Alternatively, it may be adjectival, modifying the neuter singular pronoun αὐτὸ, which in turn references “the fruit of the vine,” i.e., “whenever I drink it [the fruit of the vine] new/fresh.” This would be “new wine.” Evans suggests that the original Aramaic wording carried the sense: “until I drink it having been renewed in the kingdom of God.” However, as he himself admits, this is “speculative.”
Prior use of the adjective καινός in the Markan narrative describes the difference between Jesus’ kingdom message and the teaching and actions of contemporary Jewish religious leaders. The teaching of Jesus in 1:27 is described as διδαχὴ καινή. The adjective occurs twice in the parables found in 2:21-22. The new patch of unshrunken cloth used to repair the old garment forms the contrast in the expression τὸ καινὸν τοὺ παλαιοῦ. Further, Jesus says that οἶνον νέον εἰς ἀσκοὺς καινούς. These three usages, early in the Markan narrative, serve to contrast Jesus’ kingdom message and actions with contemporary Judaism. The controversies between Jesus and the religious leaders in Mark 11-12 emphasize their fundamental difference of perspective. If Jesus is establishing his own covenant and altering key aspects of covenant obedience, e.g., dietary regulations, Sabbath observance, and definitions of ritual cleanliness, he may also in the Passover context have indicated a fundamental change in this celebration. If this is the case, then the application of the concept of “newness” is probably not to the wine per se but rather the new state of affairs that Jesus inaugurates and enjoys, beginning with his death and resurrection and culminating “in that day when I drink it in a new way in the kingdom of God.” If the Markan narrator had wanted to emphasize that the wine is new, he probably would have juxtaposed αὐτό and καινόν. Further, the current word order allows the phrase ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ to modify καινόν specifically and to link “new” closely with the context of the ruling power of God. Perhaps the inclusion of Ps 118 (117 LXX):22-23 with the parable in Mark 12:10-11 and its reference to the significant change, i.e., the rejected stone becomes the cornerstone and that this is θαυμαστή, expresses in a different way this notion of newness. The covenant and key aspects of covenant obedience will not remain the same.
The drinking motif and reference to a cup occur in two other Markan settings. In 10:38-39, Jesus used it to describe the path of suffering he would have to walk in order to fulfill God’s plan. He affirms that his followers will experience similar suffering. Again, in Mark 14:36, Jesus prays in Gethsemane παρένεγκε τὸ ποτήριον τοῦτο ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ. The context confirms that the “cup” refers to his imminent crucifixion. The reference to “drinking in a new way” may then distinguish between the immediate “cup” that includes suffering and death, reflected in the Passover cup that he said is “my blood of the covenant which is poured out for many,” and a future “cup” described in 14:25 and imbibed in a new way that he associates with reigning in the kingdom and signifies his victory and rightful appropriation of the “fruit of the vine.” The “owner of the vineyard” (ὁ κύριος τοῦ ἀμπελῶνος 12:9) in the parable may parallel the role of God to whom the kingdom belongs (ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ 14:25). The son, as designated heir, gains rightful access to its produce.
7. Differences with Matthew and Luke.
The Matthean parallel (26:29) has several differences. Οὐκέτι is replaced by ἀπ’ ἄρτι, the demonstrative τούτου modifies τοῦ γενήματος, the phrase μεθ’ ὑμῶν modifies the verb πίνω, and τοῦ πατρός μου replaces τοῦ θεοῦ. τούτου in modifying τοῦ γενήματος seems to relate this “produce of the vine” to the cup of wine mentioned in v. 27-28. The insertion of μεθ’ ὑμῶν makes explicit that Jesus intends his followers to participate with him in that future event, however this event should be construed. This addition also creates greater distance between αὐτὸ and καινὸν, providing further support for its adverbial function. One other minor difference might be noted. In Matt 21:34, the produce from the vineyard is described as τοὺς καρποῦς αὐτοῦ, in contrast to Mk 12:2 ἀπὸ τῶν καρπῶν τοῦ ἀμπελῶνος. This change reduces slightly the intratextual relationship in Matthew’s Gospel with 26:29. The Matthean version adds specificity and probably relates 26:29 to the messianic banquet motif that occurs in the Matthean narrative, but does not contradict the interpretation of Mark 14:25 that this paper is arguing. The Markan text is silent about who joins Jesus in this future event and the situation in which this wine-drinking occurs, but does not exclude the possibility that his followers will be present with him. Matthew chooses to identify the context of the Son of Man’s victory as the eschatological banquet, something that Mark does not choose to make explicit.
In Luke this saying precedes the distribution of the bread and wine (Luke 22:18). Again there is a replacement for οὐκέτι, namely ἀπὸ τὸ νῦν. As well, the Lukan narrative collapses the Markan ἕως…ὅταν into ἕως οὗ, omits the second reference to drinking, and relates this event to ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ἔλθῃ. The statement in Luke 22:16 makes a similar affirmation regarding bread (οὐκέτι οὐ μὴ φάγω αὐτὸ ἕως ὅτου πληρωθῇ ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ), but it has no parallel in the Markan text. Luke’s version, as Mark’s, does not specifically intimate that others will join Jesus in this activity. This may or may not be a solitary activity.
In summary, in the Markan narrative there are no explicit references to an eschatological banquet and in 14:25 the narrator does not encourage his audience to interpret this saying in the light of such a belief. Jesus’ statement in Mark 14:25 probably was intended by the implied author to resonate intratextually with “the fruit of the vineyard” mentioned in 12:2. The Matthean and Lukan narratives that presumably postdate the Markan narrative connect the future action described in Mark 14:25 specifically with the messianic banquet motif.
Within the Markan narrative, Jesus makes a strong affirmation that he would enjoy “the produce of the vine,” i.e., benefit from the kingdom’s activity, in contrast to his current rejection, suffering and death perpetrated by the tenants who refuse to let the son of the owner receive the fruit that rightfully belongs to him as “the heir.” In this way, the narrator encourages his audience to interpret Jesus’ statement in 14:25 in light of the parable in 12:1-9. As well, this intratextual reflection enables the audience to locate Jesus’ actions in the hours leading to his passion within the parabolic frame of 12:1-9. However, the ἀμήν saying in 14:25 encourages the audience to conclude that the death of the heir is not the last word. The opponents of Jesus do not “win.” Jesus will triumph and show this by drinking wine in a new way in celebration of his victory.
Larry J. Perkins is Professor Emeritus in Biblical Studies and President Emeritus of Northwest Baptist Seminary. He has been teaching for forty years in Greek language, biblical studies, Septuagint Studies, and Leadership at masters and doctoral level. He is the author of The Pastoral Letters. A Handbook on the Greek Text (Waco, TX: Baylor University Text, 2017) and The Art of Kubernēsis (1 Corinthians 12:28): Leading as the Church Board Chairperson. He also contributed Exodus, in A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under that Title, ed. Albert Pietersma and Benjamin Wright (New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007).
Perkins, Larry. “Drinking It New in the Kingdom of God (Mark 14:25) – An Assertion of Ownership?” Northwest Institute for Ministry Education Research. www.nimer.ca (retrieved Date Accessed). Peer reviewed.
1New International Version (2011). According to Adela Yarbro Collins, Mark. A Commentary. Hermeneia (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, an imprint of Augsburg Fortress, 2007), footnote 90, this prophetic word may also have some parallels with Jesus’ statement in 9:1.
 Hans Bayer, Jesus’ Predictions of Vindication and Resurrection (WUNT 2.20; Tübingen: J.C.B.Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1986), 41. “Against the authenticity of Mk 14:25 no substantial arguments have been advanced.”
 J. Jeremias, Eucharistic Words of Jesus (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1977) argues that Jesus is avowing abstinence (204-218). Some scholars suggest a parallel with a Nazarite vow. C.E.B. Cranfield, The Gospel According to St Mark (Cambridge at the University Press, 1968), 428, references Num. 6:3 (LXX) ἁγνισθήσεται ἀπὸ οἴνου, καὶ ὄξος ἐξ οἴνου καὶ ὄξος ἐκ σίκερα οὖ πίεται,… Evans, Mark 8:27-16:20 Word Biblical Commentary (Volume 34B; Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2001), 395 allows that this may be the case, but notes that “nothing is said of not cutting his hair.” Although abstinence is certainly part of the prophecy, its purpose is to emphasize the anticipated eschatological action. A. M. Ambrozic, The Hidden Kingdom. A Redaction-Critical Study of the References to the Kingdom of God in Mark’s Gospel (CBQMS 2; Wash. D. C.: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1972), concludes that “Jesus is taking leave of his disciples; the association with him to which they have grown accustomed is nearing its end. The manner of his departure will appear to be catastrophic. But they should not lose heart, for the meal which they are sharing now will find its counterpart in the kingdom of God” (195).
 Adela Yarbro Collins, Mark, 657.
 Ibid. She references Matt 8:11-12 and Luke 13:28-29. However, this begs the question whether drinking of wine, in Jesus’ day or the time this narrative was written, is associated with social, political, or religious events other than banquets.
 This requires us to take καινὸν in 14:25 as a modifier of οἶνον which is possible, but the word order might discourage such a reading.
 R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark NIGTC (Grand Rapids, Minn.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2002), 572.
 Craig A. Evans, Mark 8:27-16:20, 396.
 Joel Marcus, Mark 8 – 16. The Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2009), 968.
 By the term “narrator” I mean the perspective taken by the author in his presentation of the story. While the distinction between the author’s perspective and that of the narrator may be slight or even unknown, this distinction should be maintained.
 There is considerable debate whether the quotation from Psalm 118:22 in Mark 12:10-11 was originally part of the parable. However, within the Markan narrative their attachment to the parable indicates how the narrator intended his audience to understand the meaning of the parable. Deciding this issue does not affect the argument of this paper.
 This hypothesis challenges the generally accepted understanding of Jesus’ statement expressed in the Markan narrative. However, it is good from time to time to challenge the accepted consensus and consider whether another explanation might be more consistent with the narrator’s purpose. It is with this intent that I propose this hypothesis and seek to argue the case for its acceptance.
 The characterization of the son as υἱὸν ἀγαπητόν (Mark 12:6) coincides with similar expressions used in the baptism and transfiguration narratives.
 Some celebration may also attend the son’s reception of the inheritance, but the narrator does not describe the nature of any celebration other than by reference to drinking wine. Again, this may imply a banquet setting, such as the Passover meal in which context this saying occurs. However, there is no explicit connection made in this setting to an eschatological or messianic banquet motif.
 Jesus’ abstinence from wine (14:25) perhaps is paralleled with this fasting motif.
 Possible references to an eschatological banquet motif in Matthew’s narrative would include 8:11 (which imagery John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew (NIGTC: Grand Rapids, Minn.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2005), 44, suggests is based upon Isa 25:6-8), 22:2-14, 26:29 (par. Mark 14:25), and perhaps 5:6. In reference to Luke’s narrative one might cite 13:29 (par. Matt 8:11) and 14:15. Luke 22:16 somewhat parallels Mark 14:25, but is constructed quite differently. Matthew, by adding the words μεθ’ ὑμῶν (26:29), makes explicit the connection with the eschatological banquet. George Ossom-Batsa, The Institution of the Eucharist in the Gospel of Mark. A Study of the Function of Mark 14,22-25 within the Gospel Narrative (European University Studies, Series XXIII Theology; Bern: Peter Lang, 2001), 145-47 assumes that Mark refers to an eschatological banquet. In the New Testament, Rev. 19:9 is another specific reference to an eschatological banquet hosted by the Messiah. D. Rhoads, J. Dewey, and D. Michie, Mark as Story (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1999), 5 note that it is important to “read Mark independently from the other Gospels.” While this principle needs to be applied carefully, there is wisdom in its general application.
 It is probable that the narrator expects his audience to discern the contrast between Jesus who shepherds the common people by teaching and feeding them and Herod Antipas who hosts a banquet for his “great ones,” celebrating his birthday and concluding with the execution of God’s prophet. Yet for all that, the narrator seems to set this contrast in the context of first century Palestine, not end time expectation.
 Jesus’ preparations for the Passover celebration (14:12-16) might be viewed as an anticipation of his preparations for a future messianic banquet. However, the narrator does not seem to take any advantage of this possibility
 For example, in the Matthean parallel (26:29), we read πίνω μεθ’ ὑμῶν, an inclusion that (in contrast to the Markan text) suggests a banquet scene. The Matthean narrative removes any ambiguity about the communal context for Jesus’ next use of wine.
 Reference frequently is made to 1QSa2 The Rule of the Congregation in which the “table of community” at which the Messiah acts as host is described. “After, [the Me]ssiah of Israel shall ent[er] and before him shall sit the chiefs 15 [of the clans of Israel, each] one according to his dignity, according to their [positions] in their camps and their marches. And all 16 the chiefs of the cl[ans of the congre]gation with the wise [men and the learned] shall sit before them, each one according 17 to his dignity. And [when] they gather at the table of community [or to drink] the new wine, and the table of 18 community is prepared [and] the new wine [is mixed] for drinking, [no-one should stretch out] his hand to the first-fruit of the bread 19 and of the [new wine] before the priest, for [he is the one who bl]esses the first-fruit of bread 20 and of the new wine [and stretches out] his hand towards the bread before them. Afterwards, the Messiah of Israel shall stretch out his hand 21 towards the bread….” This translation is taken from F. G. Martínez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated. The Qumran Texts in English (2d ed.; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996), 127.
 It should also be noted that the “Institution of the Lord’s Supper” is framed by two ἀμήν sayings. In 14:18-21, Jesus warns the Twelve that one of them will betray him. However, this is part of God’s intended plan for the Son of Man because ὑπάγει καθὼς γέγραπται περὶ αὐτοῦ (21). 14:25 then offers a second ἀμήν saying that gives comfort to the Twelve that this betrayal and its consequences do not mean the failure of Jesus’ mission. Rather, they form a necessary stage in the plan by which he will drink wine in a new way in the kingdom of God.
 In the parallel text (Matt. 26:29), Jesus adds the words “with you” (αὐτὸ πίνω μεθ’ ὑμῶν καινὸν), thereby including the disciples in his prediction.
 Some might argue that the Passover context implies this, because the wine-drinking associated with the Passover is used to prophecy a new Passover celebration in the future. Such an eschatological Passover would necessarily be held with close associates. I would argue, however, that Jesus explicitly says he is going to participate in this future drinking “new” and that this “newness” suggests a context different from the Passover celebration.
 The longer ending (16:15) also expresses this mandate.
 Larry Perkins, “Mark’s Language of Religious Conflict as Rhetorical Device,” BBR 11.1(2001), 43-63.
 Note the use of σκληροκαρδίαν in 16:14.
 Joanna Dewey, Markan Public Debate (Chico, Cal.: Scholars Press, 1980), 188-189.
 The use of the verb σκανδαλισθήσεσθε in 14:27 may relate to prior uses of this verb in this Gospel. Cf. Larry Perkins, assisted by Eric Fehr, “Mark’s Use of the Verb Σκανδαλίζειν and the Interpretation of Jesus’ Visit to Nazareth (Mark 6:1-6),” CTR 1(2012): 23-36. We might also note the repeated use of “hearing/seeing/understanding” language (4:10-12; 8:18-21).
 Hans Bayer, Jesus’ Predictions of Vindication and Resurrection: the Provenance, Meaning and Correlation of the Synoptic Predictions (WUNT 2.20; Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (H. Siebeck), 1986), 39 notes that in the Passover meal (and during other meals as well) “the housefather proclaimed: ‘Blessed art thou, Yahweh our God, King of the universe, who hast made the fruit of the vine.’” That Jesus used the expression “the produce of the vine” in Mark 14:25 may underscore the connection of this saying with the Passover context. However, it is difficult to date when such terminology became associated with Passover ritual. Conversely, it plainly is a common expression which simply refers to production of grapes and wine. Cf. Benjamin M. Austin, Plant Metaphors in the Old Greek of Isaiah (SCS 69; Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 2019), 101-03 indicates that “In the ostraca and papyri we find the word γένημα used in connection with wine,” specifically in legal texts that discuss the produce of vineyards.
 E.P. Sanders. Judaism. Practice and Belief. 63 BCE – 66 CE (London: SCM Press, 1992), 138. Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread merged into an eight day ritual. “Since the feast embodied the theme of national liberation, it is not surprising that it was sometimes an occasion when unrest at Israel’s current state led to riot.”
 Two other references to drinking wine occur in the crucifixion scene. In Mark 15:23, the soldiers crucifying Jesus offer him ἐσμυρνισμένον οἶνον but Jesus οὐκ ἔλαβεν (cf. Matt. 27:34 οἶνον μετὰ χολῆς μεμιγμένον – Jesus tastes it but does not drink it). This action, as Craig Evans, Mark 8:27-16:20, 501 indicates, is part of the mockery with which the soldiers ridicule Jesus. This kind of scented wine was a delicacy (Pliny, Hist.nat. 12.33-35 §§66-71). Whether the wine the soldiers offered Jesus was of this quality cannot be determined. Regardless, Jesus refuses to accept. No comment is made in the Markan narrative as to why Jesus refuses it. Perhaps Jesus is being consistent with his prophecy in 14:25 as C.E.B. Cranfield, The Gospel According to St Mark (Cambridge at the University Press, 1968), 455 proposes, although Evans denies this. Adela Yarbro Collins, Mark, 743 notes that “Jesus’ refusal could call to mind for the audiences his prophecy that he would surely not drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when he drinks it new in the kingdom of God (14.25).”
The other reference is 15:36 (parallel in Matt. 27:48) when someone γεμίσας σπόγγον ὄξους περιθεὶς καλάμῳ ἐπότιζεν αὐτὸν. The imperfect ἐπότιζεν indicates that this person “was offering it to him.” Mark leaves unstated whether Jesus actually drank any. In the Johannine account Jesus says “I thirst” and ὄξος is offered, which he drinks (19:29-30). ὅξος is cheap wine with a high vinegar content.
 In the context of the Markan narrative Jesus returns repeatedly to the Temple precinct over several days (11-14), but there is no change in his reception by the religious leaders in Jerusalem.
 John S. Kloppenborg, The Tenants in the Vineyard (WUNT 195: Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 219-220. He notes the “intimate connection to the plot of Mark’s gospel.”
 The fact that this “drinking it new” occurs “in God’s kingdom” should be considered another purposeful connection with the victory motif. God’s rule prevails over those who resist his purposes. It is the “human kingdom” that will be destroyed (Mark 13).
 The curse language in 11:14 should be compared. Μηκέτι εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ἐκ σοῦ μηδεὶς καρπὸν φάγοι (“May no one ever eat fruit from you again.”). Bayer, Jesus’ Predictions of Vindication and Resurrection, 42 observes that “Pesch crystallizes a pattern which is common to these predictions in which a negative future statement, complemented by a time reference in the following subordinate clause, points to a promise of future fulfillment” (cf. Mark 9:1; 10:15; 13:30).
 We cannot determine from the Markan narrative whether Jesus drank wine in this Passover context.
 As noted previously in 15:36, immediately prior to his death an anonymous person witnessing the crucifixion fills a sponge with ὄξος, sour wine, wine vinegar, and offers it to Jesus. In response Jesus shouts and dies.
 In the longer ending of Mark’s Gospel (16:19-20) Jesus ascends into heaven, but he continues to work with his followers to sustain his mission (τοῦ κυρίου συνεργοῦντος καὶ τὸν λόγον βεβαιοῦντος διὰ τῶν ἐπακολουθούντων σημείων). Absence does not mean abandonment.
 Martin Hengel, “Das Gleichnis von den bösen Weingärtnern, Mc 12:1-12 im Lichte der Zenonpapyri und der rabbinschen Gleichnisse,” ZNW 59: 1-39. PCairZen I 59018  (258 BCE).
 Klyne Snodgrass, The Parable of the Wicked Tenants (WUNT 27; Tübingen: J. C. B.Mohr, 1983), 72-110; Stories with Intent. A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2008), 276-299; John S. Kloppenborg, The Tenants in the Vineyard, 220-221; N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress 1996), 178-79, 232, 497-501, 565-66.
 In a section unique to Matthew’s Gospel this group is further defined as ἔθνει ποιοῦντι τοὺς καρποῦς αὐτῆς. There is debate in the literature whether this refers to the people of Israel or to non-Israelites.
 The reference to “building a tower” (ᾠκοδόμησεν πύργον Mark 12:1; also referred to in Isa 5:2 as ᾠκοδόμησα πύργον) may be a reference to the Jerusalem Temple because with respect to 4Q500 and 4Q162, as J. Kloppenborg states, the former identifies “some of the features of Isa 5:2 with an eschatological temple and the latter [applies] the polemic of Isa 5:5-6 to the ‘men of mockery in Jerusalem’, perhaps the Sadducees or the priestly élite. It does not, then, seem impossible that an early tradent of the parable knew of the positive application of Isa 5:2 to the temple.…” (John S. Kloppenborg, The Tenants in the Vineyard, 226). Similar references in the Isaiah Targum may also be relevant, but the dating of this tradition is uncertain.
 In 1 Samuel 8:14-15 Samuel warns Israel that if they appoint a king, “He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants.” In the Markan narrative (6:17-29) Herod Antipas regards himself as entitled to use the resources of his kingdom for his own enjoyment.
 Perhaps the Markan narrator creates purposeful parallelism between the form of this curse and Jesus’ absolute declaration in 14:25 οὐκέτι οὐ μὴ πίω ἐκ τοῦ γενήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ἑκείνης…. The repeated negative, the prepositional ἐκ phrase, the time indicator, reference to produce/fruit, and verbs of consumption (φάγεσθαι, πίειν) are present in both. John Kloppenborg, The Tenants in the Vineyard, 222 notes the “association of Mark’s parable with Mark 11:12-25 is made yet stronger by a verbal link. Jesus’ curse of the fig tree uses the key term of Mark’s parable, καρπός (‘fruit’): ‘let no one ever eat fruit from you’ (11:14).”
 P. W. L.Walker, Jesus and the Holy City: New Testament Perspectives on Jerusalem (Grand Rapids, Minn.: Eerdmans, 1996), 7. Cf. Timothy Gray, The Temple in the Gospel of Mark. A Study in its Narrative Role (Grand Rapids, Minn.: Baker Academic, 2010), 90. In several Old Testament passages Yahweh is portrayed as the estate owner who seeks to benefit from the estate’s produce (usually figs or grapes), but is disappointed (Isa 5:1-7; Jer 2:21; 24:1-10; Ezek 19:10-14).
 The Markan author used the same prepositional structure in 11:14 (ἐκ σοῦ μηδεῖς καρπὸν φάγοι), but the sense is more source than partitive in this instance.
 Elliott C. Maloney, Semitic Interference in Marcan Syntax (SBLDS 51; Chico, Cal.: Scholars Press, 1981), 136. “In Hellenistic Greek (but beginning already in classical times) the prepositional phrase with either ἀπό or ἐκ replaced the partitive genitive.”
 Cf. John 18:11.
 J. A. L. Lee, A Lexical Study of the Septuagint Version of the Pentateuch (SBLSCS 14; Chico, Cal.: Scholars Press, 1983), 107. “Surprisingly this word is not attested before the Koine period, except for an uncertain reading in Aeschin. 2.156…. It is extremely common in the papyri from iii B.C. onwards,…In the Pentateuch it occurs some 18 times, mostly rendering כרם.”
 BDAG, 54-55.
 John Kloppenborg, The Tenants in the Vineyard, 224.
 Moulton, J. and G. Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament (London: Hodder and Stoughton Limited, 1972), 27.
 G. P. Shipp. Modern Greek Evidence for the Ancient Greek Vocabulary (Sydney University Press, 1979), 193. Consider its usage in Greek Leviticus 25 where A New English Translation of the Septuagint renders it as “crop.” This noun occurs frequently in papyri from the Roman period to describe produce or a crop.
 Blass, F, A. Debrunner, and R. Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Cambridge, At the University Press, 1961), 7-8, §11.2. J.A.L.Lee, A Lexical Study…, 99. “The word is common in the papyri from iii B.C. onwards, being the normal term for vegetable produce of all kinds:…” (99). In Greek Deuteronomy 22:9, Moses gives instructions to Israel and the translator used the phrase μετὰ τοῦ γενήματος τοῦ ἀμπελῶνός σου. This is one example where the noun is linked with the produce of vineyards. Greek Isaiah 32:12 used the expression καὶ ἀμπέλου γενήματος “and for a fruitful vine.” Cf. Greek Hab. 3:17 and Zach 8:12 ἡ ἄμπελος δώσει ὑμῶν τὸν κάρπον τῆς γῆς.
 In John 15:1 Jesus says ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἄμπελος ἡ ἀληθινή. Branches that do not bear fruit are “purged.”
 http://www.come-and-hear.com/berakoth/berakoth_35.html. R.T. France, The Gospel of Mark, 571 notes that this phrase was “used in the traditional thanksgiving for wine.”
 Isa 32:12 על־גפן פריה is translated as ἀπὸ…ἀμπέλου γενήματος. Hab 3:17 ואין יבול בגפנים is rendered as καὶ οὐκ ἔσται γενήματα ἐν ταῖς ἀμπέλοις.
 S. Stein, “The Influence of Symposia Literature on the Literary Form of the Pesaḥ Haggadah,” JJS 8(1957), 13-44. He concludes that “no fixed Seder liturgy was in existence before the second third of the second century C.E.”
 George Ossom-Batsa, The Institution of the Eucharist, 147 indicates that καινόν describes “a new mode of drinking.” Yet previously he mentioned that “Jesus’ drinking of new wine will take place at the future banquet after God has vindicated him” (145). However, the adverb normally would not modify two different elements in the same sentence.
 C. A. Evans, Mark 8:17 – 16:20, 395.
 The only other occurrence of this adjective is in 14:25, unless the textual variant 14:24 (τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης) should be considered an original reading. However, it would seem more difficult to explain its omission rather than its addition to the text and thus probably it is not original to the narrative. Even if it were considered original, it would only reinforce the idea expressed in the earlier uses of distinction between Jesus’ message and mission and the religious understanding of the contemporary Jewish leaders.
 The motif of inheritance occurs primarily in Mark 12:7. The man in Mark 10:17 desires to know how to “inherit eternal life.”
 αὐτοῦ in this context might refer to the vineyard owner, i.e., the fruits that are his, rather than the fruits from the vineyard. “He sent his slaves to the farmers to receive his fruits.”