Lord Supper Element Wine

So this thread is for information purposes.. Someone asked for me to post some things regarding Wine in the Lord Supper...

What I have is ALOT, so please be patient... It is going to fill up alot of posting.. LoL

Michael

A Taste of Heaven by R.C. Sproul

“[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]Wine, in Scripture, is a promise from God of the blessings of the covenant [/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif](Psa 4:7 “Thou hast put gladness in my heart, more than when the grain and new wine abound.”[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]). Though sinful men misuse and abuse this gift, yet God Himself uses it as an example of His goodness towards us. [/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif](Ps 104:14-15 “He causes the grass to grow for the cattle, and vegetation for the labor of man, so that he may bring forth food from the earth, And wine which makes man's heart glad, so that he may make his face glisten with oil, and food which sustains man's heart.”[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]).[/FONT]


[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]As in all things in creation, wine itself is a symbol, a picture, a reflection of something bigger and greater. It is a picture of the blessings that come from a right relationship with God ([/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]Isa 25:6, “And the LORD of hosts will prepare a lavish banquet for all peoples on this mountain; a banquet of aged wine, choice pieces with marrow, and refined, aged wine. Isa 27:2 In that day, "A vineyard of wine, sing of it”[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]). In fact, it is a picture of the new life we have in Christ; ([/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]Isa 55:1 "Ho! Every one who thirsts, come to the waters; and you who have no money come, buy and eat. Come, buy wine and milk without money and without cost[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif].). Jesus used wine as a symbol of the indwelling Holy Spirit, who cannot be limited by old traditions ([/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]Matt 9:17 "Nor do men put new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the wineskins burst, and the wine pours out, and the wineskins are ruined; but they put new wine into fresh wineskins, and both are preserved."[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]) This is possibly, why the very first miracle that Jesus performed before His disciples, authenticating His ministry, was to turn water into wine. ([/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]John 2:9-11 “And when the headwaiter tasted the water which had become wine, and did not know where it came from (but the servants who had drawn the water knew), the headwaiter called the bridegroom, and said to him, "Every man serves the good wine first, and when men have drunk freely, then that which is poorer; you have kept the good wine until now." This beginning of His signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory, and His disciples believed in Him.[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]). This miracle, demonstrated not only His lordship over creation, but was also a picture of what the Messiah would do in His ministry; i.e., take up common, dirty elements (water was practically undrinkable in those days) and transform them into something sweet and wonderful. Drunkenness is forbidden, for that is dissipation; instead, we are to be filled with the Spirit (Eph 5:18). The alcohol in wine is a picture of the Holy Spirit.[/FONT]


[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]How many times is the imagery of God throughout the sacred Scripture linked to certain tastes? He institutes feasts in the Old Testament, such as the Passover. The items He includes in the Passover are carefully selected to remind the people through their taste buds of their rescue from the wrath of God when the angel of death passed over them in Egypt. Calvin once wrote about how appropriate it is that the fruit of the vine is used to symbolize for us the person of our Lord. On the one hand the crucifixion is the most bitter moment in human history, and the bitter aftertaste of wine Communicates this truth.[/FONT]


[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]On this day our redemption was secured. Calvin thus concludes that wine serves well as a symbol of that which makes the heart glad. It also looks like blood, and Calvin comments that this is fitting, too, since the Lord would take something so common and set it apart and give it uncommon association just as He does with the bread. We are then to taste this and know that the Lord our God is good. Search through your concordance and see how many times the imagery of taste is used for God and for Christ throughout the Bible[/FONT]


[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]Thus for churches to use grape juice instead of wine, is to destroy the imagery of the Holy Spirit in communion. Yes, some people refrain from any alcohol because they are concerned about drunkenness. But for a church to refuse to drink wine at communion is to implicitly reject the very image God has given us of the work of the Holy Spirit. It is no accident that modern evangelicalism has widely substituted grape juice for wine.[/FONT]


[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]Thus, we need to reclaim this biblical imagery for communion celebrations to be complete. It is the Holy Spirit who gladdens our hearts, fills our lives with goodness, bursts the old wineskins and gives us new life. We want the Holy Spirit's fullness in our lives and our Churches. Therefore, as a symbol then of the Holy Spirit's work and power, real wine needs to be used instead of the "purple euphemism" in our communion.”[/FONT]


[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]Some people wonder if this is really necessary. Does it really matter if we use grape juice as a symbol of real wine?[/FONT]


[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]Sproul Continues….[/FONT]


“[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]if it's only a symbol, then why not use peanut butter and jelly? God Himself declared what symbols we are to use. The Westminster Confession of Faith, the doctrinal standards of Presbyterian Churches requires wine; hence all PCA and OPC elders are oath bound to serve wine in the Lord’s Supper. God did not choose grape juice to represent His precious Son's blood, but rather wine. He superintended creation so that sugar would ferment into alcohol, to symbolize the effects of His Holy Spirit leavening and working His will in our life. Let us not allow the wickedness of others, who abuse His good gifts, to steal from us, the imagery God Himself has provided. Let us approach His table with humility, and reverence and obedience.”[/FONT]


[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]Taken from “[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]A Taste of Heaven” by R.C. Sproul[/FONT]


[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]Also Recommend “God Gave Wine: What the Bible says about Alcohol” by Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.[/FONT]


[FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]Quote From Martin Luther “[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, sans-serif]Do not suppose that abuses are eliminated by destroying the object which is abused. Man can go wrong with wine and women. Shall we then prohibit and abolish women?"[/FONT]

PROTESTANT TRANSUBSTANTIATION
Part 1: Thesis; Biblical Witness
by Keith A. Mathison


I’ve often heard Christians lament in connection with various disputed
doctrines and practices, “If only the New Testament had simply taught this or
that in one clear verse, we would believe it or do it.” Or they will say, “There is so
much confusion surrounding this doctrine or practice historically, we may never
come to a consensus. If there had been universal consent throughout history, we
could believe it.” I would like to believe that these Christians are telling the truth.
But there is one nagging problem.


Suppose you were informed that there was a doctrine or a practice that
had abundantly clear support in Scripture – not just one verse or two, but
several. Suppose you were also informed that this doctrine or practice had been
the universal belief or practice of the church for over 1800 years. It had enjoyed
universal consent without any trace of disagreement. Suppose you discovered
that it had been agreed upon by every branch of orthodox Christianity. You might
think the conditions so many Christians cry out for had been met in at least one
area, and that at least on this one issue all Christians would joyfully concur
without disputing.


Suppose you were informed that you were wrong to come to this
conclusion, and that there were Christians today who openly and adamantly
rejected this doctrine or practice. Suppose you discovered that the rejection of
this doctrine or practice was, for the most part, limited to the United States and
the last 150 years of church history. What would you conclude about their
rejection of this doctrine or practice? Would your conclusion be any different if
you discovered that the Christian group who rejects this doctrine or practice is
primarily American Evangelicalism? What would you do if this doctrine or
practice were rejected by your church? Would you demand that it be taught or
practiced according to the clear teaching of the New Testament, and the
universal teaching of the historic Church? Of course you would, if Scripture is
your authority for faith and practice.


Would your conclusion change if you were informed that the particular
doctrine or practice was the use of wine in the Lord’s Supper?


THESIS
The use of wine in the New Testament descriptions of, and prescriptions
for, the Lord’s Supper is unambiguously clear. It simply isn’t a point of dispute between competent biblical scholars. The use of wine in the Lord’s Supper was
also an undisputed practice for over 1800 years of church history. It was agreed
upon by Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants. Among
Protestants it was agreed upon by Anglicans, Presbyterians, Lutherans,
Baptists, and others. But today, in the United States, most Evangelical churches
have, without any good reason for doing so, substituted grape juice for the
biblically mandated and historically accepted element of wine. Surprisingly, this
is common even among churches whose confessional standards clearly state
that bread and wine are the elements to be used in the observation of the Lord’s
Supper. The substitution of grape juice for wine cannot be justified on any
legitimate grounds. It cannot be justified biblically, and it cannot be justified
historically. It can only be justified by the arbitrary setting aside of Scripture and
centuries of church history in favor of an ascetic fundamentalism which sets itself
up as a higher standard of purity and holiness than God’s own word.
Rome teaches that when the bread and wine are consecrated by the
priest, the elements are mysteriously transubstantiated or changed into the
actual body and blood of Jesus. Many American Protestants teach that when the
crackers and grape juice are blessed by the pastor, they are mysteriously
transubstantiated into the proper elements of the Lord’s Supper. In neither case
is the sacrament properly administered. As the following pages will show, those
churches which have replaced wine with grape juice in the Lord’s Supper have
done so despite the clear command of Scripture, the overwhelming testimony of
church history, and the fact that the reasons they offer for doing so are
inconsistent, arbitrary and unbiblical. The biblical duty of those churches is to
renounce the man-made innovations to the Lord’s Supper and immediately reinstitute
the biblically mandated elements of bread and wine.


BIBLICAL WITNESS


We begin this inquiry by turning first to God’s inspired, inerrant and
authoritative Word. It is a well-known fact that one of the most commonly heard
objections in many American churches to the use of wine in the Lord’s Supper is
that all alcoholic beverages are inherently evil and that any use of an alcoholic
beverages is sinful. Because this assumption underlies many other suggested
reasons for rejecting wine in the Lord’s Supper, it must be proven conclusively
from Scripture to be false. In the following paragraphs, it will be repeatedly
shown that the Bible, while everywhere condemning the abuse of alcoholic
beverages, nowhere states that the use of alcohol itself is evil. It will be proven
that, in contradiction to the claims of these churches, Scripture itself declares
that wine is a good gift from God meant to be thankfully enjoyed in moderation.1
1 See Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. The Christian and Alcoholic Beverages (Grand Rapids: Baker Book
House, 1986) for a thorough biblical refutation of the prohibitionist arguments.




It will also be demonstrated that Jesus Himself not only made wine and drank
wine, but that he instituted the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper with wine.


OLD TESTAMENT


1. Godly men give wine (yayin) as a gift:
“And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; now he was a
priest of God Most High. And he blessed him and said, ‘Blessed be Abram of
God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth; And blessed be God Most
High, Who has delivered your enemies into your hand.’ And he gave him a
tenth of all” (Gen. 14:18-20).


2. God commands wine and strong drink to be brought as an offering to himself:
“Now this is what you shall offer on the altar: two one year old lambs each
day, continuously ... and there shall be one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour
mixed with one-fourth of a hin of beaten oil, and one-fourth of a hin of wine
for a libation with one lamb” (Exod. 29:38,40).
“Its grain offering shall then be two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour mixed with
oil, an offering by fire to the Lord for a soothing aroma, with its libation, a
fourth of a hin of wine” (Lev. 23:13).


“And you shall prepare wine for the libation, one-fourth of a hin, with the
burnt offering or for the sacrifice, for each lamb ... and for the libation you
shall offer one-third of a hin of wine as a soothing aroma to the Lord ... and
you shall offer as the libation one-half a hin of wine as an offering by fire, as
a soothing aroma to the Lord” (Num. 15:5,7,10).


“Then the libation with it shall be a fourth of a hin for each lamb, in the holy
place you shall pour out a libation of strong drink to the Lord” (Num. 28:7).


Comment


God always and everywhere commands that only the best be offered to him
as a sacrifice. Nothing unclean or unholy is ever to be offered to him. Yet
God commands that wine be offered as a sacrifice. Therefore it is impossible
that wine is inherently unclean or unholy.

1. Wine is a gracious blessing from God.

“Now may God give you of the dew of heaven, and of the fatness of the earth,
and an abundance of grain and new wine” (Gen. 27:28).
“Then it shall come about, because you listen to these judgments and keep
and do them, that the Lord your God will keep with you His covenant and His
lovingkindness which He swore to your forefathers. And He will love you and
bless you and multiply you; He will also bless the fruit of your womb and the
fruit of your ground, your grain and your new wine and your oil, the increase
of your herd and the young of your flock, in the land which He swore to your
forefathers to give you” (Deut. 7:12-13).


“And it shall come about, if you listen obediently to my commandments which
I am commanding you today, to love the Lord your God and to serve Him with
all your heart and all your soul, that He will give the rain for your land in its
season, the early and late rain, that you may gather in your grain and your
new wine and your oil” (Deut. 11:13-14).


“You shall surely tithe all the produce from what you sow, which comes out of
the field every year. And you shall eat in the presence of the Lord your God,
at the place where He chooses to establish His name, the tithe of your grain,
your new wine, your oil, and the first-born of your herd and your flock, in
order that you may learn to fear the Lord your God always. And if the
distance is so great for you that you are not able to bring the tithe, since the
place where the Lord your God chooses to set His name is too far away from
you when the Lord your God blesses you, then you shall exchange it for
money, and bind the money in your hand and go to the place which the Lord
your God chooses. And you may spend the money for whatever your heart
desires, for oxen, or sheep, or wine, or strong drink, or whatever your heart
desires; and there you shall eat in the presence of the Lord your God and
rejoice, you and your household” (Deut. 14:22-26).


“But the vine said to them, “Shall I leave my new wine, which cheers God and
men, and go to wave over the trees?” (Judg. 9:13).


“He causes the grass to grow for the cattle, and vegetation for the labor of
man, so that he may bring forth food from the earth, and wine which makes
man’s heart glad, so that he may make his face glisten with oil, and food
which sustains man’s heart” (Ps. 104:14-15).


“Honor the Lord from your wealth, and from the first of all your produce; so
your barns will be filled with plenty, and your vats will overflow with new wine”
(Prov. 3:9-10).


“Behold the days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when the plowman will
overtake the reaper and the treader of grapes him who sows seed; when the
mountains will drip sweet wine, and all the hills will be dissolved. Also I will
restore the captivity of my people Israel, and they will rebuild the ruined cities
and live in them, they will also plant vineyards and drink their wine, and make
gardens and eat their fruit” (Amos 9:13-14).


Comment


An abundance of wine is one of the covenant blessings graciously promised
by God throughout Scripture if the people are obedient. It is inconceivable
that God would tell his people that wine is one of the blessings of the
covenant, if in fact it were actually a curse.

1. Wine was enjoyed at David’s coronation banquet.

“All these, being men of war, who could draw up in battle formation, came to
Hebron with a perfect heart, to make David king over all Israel; and all the
rest also of Israel were of one mind to make David king. And they were there
with David three days eating and drinking; for their kinsmen had prepared for
them. Moreover those who were near to them, even as far as Issachar and
Zebulun and Naphtali, brought food on donkeys, camels, mules, and on
oxen, great quantities of flour cakes, fig cakes and bunches of raisins, wine,
oil, oxen and sheep. There was joy indeed in Israel” (1Chron. 12:38-40).


Comment


In the presence of at least one-third of a million people, an enormous
coronation banquet is prepared for David. For three days, a huge assembly
of people ate and drank joyfully in the presence of God celebrating the
enthronement of their king. This feast may typify the future Messianic feast
which God promises to prepare for his people (Isa. 25:6).

1. Wine is a symbol of the gospel.

Ho! Every one who thirsts, come to the waters; and you who have no money
come, buy and eat. Come, buy wine and milk without money and without cost
(Isa. 55:1).

1. Wine is a part of the great eschatological feast.

“And the Lord of hosts will prepare a lavish banquet for all peoples on this
mountain; a banquet of aged wine, choice pieces with marrow, and refined
aged wine” (Isa. 25:6).


Comment


One wonders, when reading passages such as these, if the prohibitionist
Christians will even want to come to this glorious banquet prepared by the
Lord God himself.

7. The beauty of marital love is regularly compared to wine in the Song of
Solomon.


“Draw me after you and let us run together! The king has brought me into his
chambers. We will rejoice in you and be glad; we will extol your love more
than wine. Rightly do they love you” (1:4).


“How beautiful is your love, my sister, my bride! How much better is your love
than wine, and the fragrance of your oils than all kinds of spices” (4:10).
“How beautiful and how delightful you are, My love, with all your charms!
Your stature is like a palm tree, and your breasts are like its clusters ... And
your mouth like the best wine! It goes down smoothly for my beloved, flowing
gently through the lips of those who fall asleep” (7:6-9).


“I would lead you and bring you into the house of my mother, who used to
instruct me; I would give you spiced wine to drink from the juice of my
pomegranates” (8:2).

1. The removal of wine is part of the curse of God.

“But it shall come about, if you will not obey the Lord your God, to observe to
do all His commandments and His statutes with which I charge you today,
that all these curses shall come upon you and overtake you ... You shall
plant and cultivate vineyards, but you shall neither drink of the wine nor
gather the grapes, for the worm shall devour them” (Deut. 28:15,39).
“The Lord has sworn by His right hand and by His strong arm, ‘I will never
again give your grain as food for your enemies; nor will foreigners drink your
new wine, for which you have labored’ (Isa. 62:8).


Comment


Just as God promises an abundance of wine in the covenant blessings, he
promises the removal of wine in the covenant curses. In Scripture, Prohibition
is a curse, the result of covenant disobedience. Those who object to the use
of wine on the grounds that it is inherently evil, and that its use is sinful,
should pause to consider the fact that they are declaring to be a curse that
which God has declared to be a blessing, and a blessing that which God has
declared to be a curse.


9. The abuse of wine (drunkenness), never its use, is condemned as sin.
“They grope in darkness with no light, and He makes them stagger like a
drunken man” (Job 12:25).


“They reeled and staggered like a drunken man, and were at their wits’ end”
(Ps. 107:27).


“Wine is a mocker, strong drink a brawler, and whoever is intoxicated by it is
not wise” (Prov. 20:1).


Do not be with heavy drinkers of wine, or with gluttonous eaters of meat; for
the heavy drinker and the glutton will come to poverty, and drowsiness will
clothe a man with rags” (Prov. 23:20-21).


“Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has contentions? Who has
complaining? Who has wounds without cause? Who has redness of eyes?
Those who linger long over wine, those who go to taste mixed wine. Do not
look on the wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup, when it goes
down smoothly; at the last it bites like a serpent, and stings like a viper. Your
eyes will see strange things, and your mind will utter perverse things” (Prov.
23:29-33).


“Woe to those who rise early in the morning that they may pursue strong
drink; who stay up late in the evening that wine may inflame them!” (Isa.
5:11).


“Woe to those who are heroes in drinking wine, and valiant men in mixing
strong drink” (Isa. 5:22).
“And these also reel with wine and stagger from strong drink: the priest and
the prophet reel with strong drink, they are confused by wine, they stagger
from strong drink; they reel while having visions, they totter when rendering
judgment. For all the tables are full of filthy vomit” (Isa. 28:7-8).


Comment


Throughout the Old Testament, we see that God takes seriously the abuse of
His good gifts. Drunkenness is everywhere explicitly and implicitly
condemned as a serious sin.




NEW TESTAMENT

1. Jesus himself drank wine.

“For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine; and
you say, ‘He has a demon!’ The Son of Man has come eating and drinking;
and you say, ‘Behold, a gluttonous man, and a drunkard, a friend of taxgatherers
and sinners!’ (Luke 7:33-34).


Comment


Jesus draws a parallel between himself and John the Baptist. John was
condemned for not eating bread and for not drinking wine. Jesus was
condemned for the exact opposite: eating bread and drinking wine. It is
utterly absurd to suggest that he could have been accused of being a
drunkard if in fact he had only been drinking grape juice.


2. Jesus miraculously changed water into fine wine at Cana.
“Now there were six stone waterpots set there for the Jewish custom of
purification, containing twenty or thirty gallons each. Jesus said to them, ‘Fill
the waterpots with water.’ And they filled them up to the brim. And He said to
them, ‘Draw some out now, and take it to the headwaiter.’ And they took it to
him. And when the headwaiter tasted the water which had become wine, and
did not know where it came from (but the servants who had drawn the water
knew), the headwaiter called the bridegroom, and said to him, ‘Every man
serves the good wine first, and when men have drunk freely, then that which
is poorer; you have kept the good wine until now.’ This beginning of His signs
Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory, and His disciples
believed in Him (John 2:1-11).


Comment


The word used throughout this passage is oinos, which means the fermented
juice of the grape, or wine.2 There is absolutely no evidence that the word
oinos as used in the Bible meant unfermented grape juice.3 When grape juice
is referred to in the Bible (cf. Gen. 40:10-11), it is not called wine. Jesus
created this wine in order for the guests to continue to enjoy the feast and
rejoice in the goodness of God. And not only did he create wine, he created
good wine. Perhaps it was another reminder of the glorious banquet which
God has promised to prepare for his people (Isa. 25:6).


3. The abuse of wine (drunkenness), not its use, is explicitly and implicitly
condemned.


“Be on guard, that your hearts may not be weighted down with dissipation
and drunkenness and the worries of life, and that day come on you suddenly
like a trap” (Luke 21:34).


“Let us behave properly as in the day, not in carousing and drunkenness, not
in sexual promiscuity and sensuality, not in strife and jealousy” (Rom. 13:13).


“But actually I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he
should be an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a
drunkard, or a swindler – not even to eat with such a one” (1 Cor. 5:11).


“Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of
God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,
nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor
drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God” (1
Cor. 6:9-10).


“Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity,
sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger,
disputes, dissentions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things
like these, of which I forewarn you just as I have forewarned you that those
who practice such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (Gal. 5:19-21).
2 Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature . Second Edition. Eds. William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker.
(Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1979), 562.
3 See Pierard, R.V. “Alcohol, Drinking of” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology . Edited by Walter
Elwell. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984), 28; and “Wine” in The Eerdmans Bible
Dictionary . Edited by Allen C. Myers (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1987),
1058.


“And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the
Spirit” (Eph. 5:18).


“An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife,
temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted to
wine or pugnacious, but gentle, uncontentious, free from the love of money”
(1 Tim. 3:2-3).


“Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double tongued, or addicted to
much wine or fond of sordid gain, but holding to the mystery of the faith with
a clear conscience” (1 Tim. 3:8).


“Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious
gossips, nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good” (Tit. 2:3).


“For the time already past is sufficient for you to have carried out the desire
of the Gentiles, having pursued a course of sensuality, lusts, drunkenness,
carousals, drinking parties and abominable idolatries” (1 Pet. 4:3).


Comment


As in the Old Testament, the New Testament condemns the sinful abuse of
wine, not its rightful use.

THE INSTITUTION OF THE LORD’S SUPPER


“And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying,
‘Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out
for many for forgiveness of sins. 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’” (Matt. 26:27-29; cf. Mark 14:23-25; Luke 22:15-20).


The institution of the Lord’s Supper is recorded in all three of the synoptic
Gospels. It is in the preparation for this Supper that Jesus initiates a sequence
of events that culminates in his death, burial and resurrection. Several times in
the context, we are reminded that this meal that is being prepared is the
Passover meal (Matt. 26:17-19). It will be Jesus’ reinterpretation of the meaning
of this meal that will begin the fateful events leading to the cross.4
4 It is beyond the scope of this work to go into all of the details surrounding the full course of a
normal Passover meal. For such details see the standard work by Joachim Jeremias, The
Eucharistic Words of Jesus . (London: SCM Press, 1966), 84-88.


The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread and after giving
thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body which is broken for you, do this in
remembrance of me.” Then after supper, he took the cup and said, “This cup is
the new covenant in My blood, do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance
of me.” In the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke), Jesus identifies the
contents of the cup as the “fruit of the vine.” As the following selection of
standard references and commentaries will indicate, the phrase “the fruit of the
vine” is, in this context, the functional equivalent of “wine.”


Philip Schaff, ed. A Religious Encyclopedia of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal and
Practical Theology, 1887.


“The expression the “fruit of the vine” is employed by our Savior in the
synoptical Gospels to denote the element contained in the cup of the Holy
Supper. The fruit of the vine is literally the grape. But the Jews from time
immemorial have used this phrase to designate the wine partaken of on sacred
occasions, as at the Passover and on the evening of the Sabbath. The Mishna
(De. Bened, cap. 6, pars I) expressly states, that, in pronouncing blessings, “the
fruit of the vine” is the consecrated expression for yayin... The Christian Fathers,
as well as the Jewish rabbis, have understood “the fruit of the vine” to mean
wine in the proper sense. Our Lord, in instituting the Supper after the Passover,
availed himself of the expression invariably employed by his countrymen in
speaking of the wine of the Passover. On other occasions, when employing the
language of common life, he calls wine by its ordinary name” (p. 2537-2538).5
John D. Davis. Illustrated Davis Dictionary of the Bible, 1973.


“Fruit of the vine, the designation used by Jesus at the institution of the
Lord’s Supper ... is the expression employed by the Jews from time immemorial
for the wine partaken of on sacred occasions, as at the passover and on the
evening of the Sabbath (Mishna, Berakoth, vi. 1). The Greeks also used the term
as a synonym of wine which was capable of producing intoxication (Herod i. 211,
212)” (p. 868).


Gerhard Kittel, ed. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 1967
“It is obvious ... that according to custom Jesus was proffering wine in the
cup over which He pronounced the blessing; this may be seen especially from
the solemn genema tes ampelou [fruit of the vine] ... which was borrowed from
Judaism” (Vol. V, p. 164).
5 As quoted in Gentry, Ibid., p. 55.


T.K. Cheyne and J. Sutherland Black. Encyclopaedia Biblica, 1903.
“In the Gospels we find wine designated ‘the fruit of the vine’… a
periphrasis doubtless already current in Jewish speech, since it is found in the
time-honoured benediction over the wine-cup in Berakh 6.1…” (p. 5309).


Joachim Jeremias. The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, 1966.
“Jesus and his disciples drink wine at the Last Supper … the annual
festivals provided an occasion for the drinking of wine, especially the three
pilgrimage festivals (Passover, Pentecost, Tabernacles); the drinking of wine
was prescribed as part of the ritual of Passover” (pp. 50-51).
“to genema tes ampelou (‘the fruit of the vine’) for ‘wine’ is in the Judaism
of the time of Jesus a set liturgical formula at the blessing of the cup, both before
and after the meal” (p. 183).


Leon Morris. The Gospel According to Matthew, 1992.
“Jesus took a cup, and though Matthew does not mention the contents
specifically … the meaning is a cup containing wine” (p. 660).
“Jesus speaks of ‘this fruit of the vine,’ which clearly means ‘wine’” (p.
661- 662).


William Hendriksen. The Gospel of Matthew, 1973.
“By speaking of ‘the fruit of the vine’ Jesus undoubtedly refers to wine.
Note close relation between ‘vine’ and ‘wine’ in Isa. 24:7. See also Num. 6:4;
Hab. 3:17. At this time of the year (April), and under conditions then prevailing in
Judea, it is hard to think of anything but fermented grape juice, that is, wine, the
kind of wine used at Passover; hence, diluted or paschal wine” (p. 911).


D.A. Carson. Matthew, (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary), 1984.
“The wine was not grape juice, though it was customary to cut the wine
with a double or triple quantity of water” (Vol. 8, p. 536).


“The ‘fruit of the vine’ is a common Jewish way of referring in prayers to
wine (cf. M Berakoth 6:1)” (Vol. 8, p. 539).


Craig L. Blomberg. Matthew, (The New American Commentary), 1992.
“In vv. 27-28 Jesus turns from the bread to the cup. This is the third of
four cups of wine drunk at various stages throughout the evening festivities. It
was probably a common cup passed around for all to drink. ‘Offered’ is the same
verb as ‘gave’ in v. 27 and does not imply that drinking was optional. Each of the
four cups was linked to one line of Exod 6:6-7a. This one tied in with God’s
promise, ‘I will redeem you,’ in v. 6c and hence specifically to his original
liberation of the Israelites from Egypt (m. Pesah. 10:6-7). But again Jesus adds
new meaning. As they all drink (the ‘all’ refers to all the disciples, not to all of the
wine!), he proclaims that the cup stands for his blood about to be shed in his
death on the cross. The ‘blood of the covenant’ harks back to Exod 24:8. The
use of ‘cup’ rather than ‘wine’ links this passage with 20:22-23 and 26:39. ‘Fruit
of the vine’ (v. 29) was a stock phrase used in thanksgiving prayers for the wine
(m. Ber. 6:1) and therefore does not refer to unfermented beverage, though it
was customary to cut the wine with a double or triple quantity of water” (pp. 390-
391).


William Lane. The Gospel According to Mark, (New International Commentary
on the New Testament), 1974.
“By his prophetic action in interpreting these familiar parts of the ancient
paschal liturgy Jesus instituted something new in which the bread and wine of
table-fellowship become the pledge of his saving presence throughout the period
of time prior to the parousia and the establishment of the Kingdom of God in its
fulness” (pp. 507-508).


“The cup from which Jesus abstained was the fourth, which ordinarily
concluded the Passover fellowship. The significance of this can be appreciated
from the fact that the four cups of wine were interpreted in terms of the four-fold
promise of redemption set forth in Exod. 6:6-7: ‘I will bring you out … I will rid
you of their bondage … I will redeem you … I will take you for my people and I
will be your God’ (TJ Pesachim X. 37b). Jesus had used the third cup,
associated with the promise of redemption, to refer to his atoning death on
behalf of the elect community. The cup which he refused was the cup of
consummation, associated with the promise that God will take his people to be
with him. This is the cup which Jesus will drink with his own in the messianic
banquet which inaugurates the saving age to come. The cup of redemption
(verse 24), strengthened by the vow of abstinence (verse 25), constitutes the
solemn pledge that the fourth cup will be extended and the unfinished meal
completed in the consummation, when Messiah eats with redeemed sinners in
the Kingdom of God (cf. Lk. 14:15; Rev. 3:20f.; 19:6-9)” (pp508-509).
Norval Geldenhuys. Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, (New International
Commentary on the New Testament), 1951.


“All that is taught in Matthew, Mark, and I Corinthians xi in the original
Greek is that on the occasion of the Passover the Saviour instituted the Holy
Communion by giving bread and also by giving wine” (p. 554).


R. C. H. Lenski. The Interpretation of St. Luke’s Gospel, 1946.
“The efforts that are put forth to read wine out of this account are
unavailing. Because oinos, the word for ‘wine,’ does not occur, the presence of
wine is at least gravely questioned, which means practically denied. Luke’s ‘the
fruit of the vine’ … the lovely liturgical term for the wine that was used in the
Passover ritual, which Matthew makes even more specific by writing ‘this fruit of
the vine,’ the one that was regularly used in the Passover and was used at this
Passover by Jesus, is misunderstood by these commentators, for they assert
that grape juice fits this phrase better than does wine – although such a thing as
grape juice was an impossibility in April in the Holy Land of Christ’s time. It could
be had only when grapes were freshly pressed out, before the juice started to
ferment in an hour or two” (pp. 1043-1044).


Summary


The “fruit of the vine” that Jesus used was, without any doubt, the same
wine which was used in the Passover. Our Lord Jesus chose wine to symbolize
his precious blood. It cannot, therefore, be evil. Jesus and the disciples ate
bread and drank wine at this first Lord’s Supper, and Jesus commanded them
and us to continue to “do this” in remembrance of him (1 Cor. 11:23-26).


Conclusion
We have seen that Scripture declares wine to be a good gift of God, a
part of his good creation to be received with thankful hearts and used in
moderation. This directly contradicts the idea that wine and all other alcoholic
beverages are inherently evil and not to be used at all. Thus, we have seen that
Scripture refutes the idea that wine should not be used in the Lord’s Supper
because all use of wine or alcohol is inherently sinful.


We have also seen that Scripture repeatedly declares that moral
creatures must take the responsibility for their own sin. Unfortunately, in a move
which is ironically very similar to that of liberals who place the responsibility for
sin in the environment, Christian Prohibition declares that alcohol is responsible
for much sin. Both liberalism and Prohibition deny Scripture by removing the
responsibility of sin from the sinner and placing it on something external.
We have seen that Scripture nowhere prohibits the moderate use of
alcohol, and that Jesus himself drank wine. This ought to be a strong example to
those Christian Prohibitionists who condemn all use of alcohol. Like the
Pharisees, they implicitly claim to have a higher standard of righteousness than
God himself has. If we carry their logic through consistently, their substitution of
man-made laws for the holy law of God actually indicts the Lord Jesus Christ of
contributing to and participating in sin. Our examination of Scripture forces us to
conclude that Jesus used wine in the Lord’s Supper. We have no legitimate
biblical grounds for arbitrarily substituting grape juice or any other substance for
the wine. So, wine is the proper element to be used in this sacrament until he
returns.

PROTESTANT TRANSUBSTANTIATION
Part 2: Historical Testimony


In the previous section we examined some of what Scripture has to say
about the use of wine. Virtually all competent biblical scholars recognize that
Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper with bread and wine. In this and the next
section, we turn to the witness of the historical church. The following testimony is
taken from several sources only to show that the practice of using wine in the
Lord’s Supper has been the universally accepted practice of the church
regardless of denomination. Some of these individuals, denominations and
churches disagree with each other about the meaning of the wine, but they are
in complete agreement over the use of wine. Because of the importance of
modern Reformed, Presbyterian and Baptist denominations in this controversy,
the testimony of their historic founders, theologians, and confessions will be
discussed in the following section.


EARLY CHURCH


Justin Martyr (ca. A.D. 100-165)


“There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of
wine mixed with water; and he, taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father
of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and offers
thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these
things at his hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings,
all the people present express their assent by saying ‘Amen.’ This word ‘Amen’
is the Hebrew for ‘so be it.’ And when the president has given thanks, and all the
people have expressed their assent, those of us who are called deacons give to
each of those present to partake of the bread and the wine mixed with water
over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they
carry away a portion” (The First Apology; 65).


Comment


The second century apologist Justin, in elaborating on the order of the
Lord’s Supper, indicates that the elements are bread and wine. The wine in this
case was mixed with water, a common practice among the Jews, but it was wine
nonetheless, not juice.
IIIM Magazine Online, Volume 3, Number 1, January 1 to January 7, 2001


Clement of Alexandria (ca. A.D. 150-215)
“The Scripture, accordingly, has named wine the symbol of the sacred
blood” (The Instructor; Book II, ch. II).


Hippolytus (ca. A.D. 170 - ca. 236)
“By thanksgiving the bishop shall make the bread into an image of the
body of Christ, and the cup of wine mingled with water according to the likeness
of the blood” (Quoted in J.G. Davies, The Early Christian Church, p. 151).


Cyprian (ca. A.D. 200-258)
“But when the blood of grapes is mentioned, what else is shewn than the
wine of the Cup of the Blood of the Lord?” (The Epistles of St. Cyprian; Epistle
63.4).


“I marvel much whence this practice has arisen, that in some places,
contrary to Evangelical and Apostolic discipline, water is offered in the cup of the
Lord, which alone cannot represent the Blood of Christ...we see that in the water
the people are intended, but that in the wine is shewn the Blood of Christ” (Ibid,
63:7-10).


Comment


Cyprian is here dealing with the only other instance in church history in
which the use of wine in the Lord’s Supper was rejected. Interestingly, the issue
wasn’t raised by orthodox Christians. Instead, heretical Gnostic sects were
substituting water for wine in the Lord’s Supper. Cyprian argues for the use of
wine mixed with water.


The Synod of Constantinople (A.D. 753)
“The only admissible figure of the humanity of Christ, however, is bread
and wine in the holy Supper. This and no other form, this and no other type, has
he chosen to represent his incarnation” (Creeds of the Churches by Leith; p. 55).


Comment


This early declaration was written during the height of the image
controversy in order to reject the practice of using icons in worship. It points out
that Jesus chose only the symbols of bread and wine to represent his flesh and
blood. Although the synod’s rejection of icons was later nullified at the Seventh
Ecumenical Council of Nicea in A.D. 787, the use of bread and wine was not an
issue.


LUTHERAN


Martin Luther (1483-1546)
“The operative cause of the sacrament is the word and institution of
Christ, who ordained it. The substance is bread and wine, prefiguring the true
body and blood of Christ, which is spiritually received by faith” (Tabletalk; No.
313).


Luther’s Small Catechism (1529)
Question: “What is the Sacrament of the Altar?”
Answer: “Instituted by Christ himself, it is the true body and blood of our
Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, given to us Christians to eat and to
drink.”


The Augsburg Confession (1530)
“It is taught among us that the true body and blood of Christ are really
present in the Supper of our Lord under the form of bread and wine and are
there distributed and received. The contrary doctrine is therefore rejected”
(Article X).


ANGLICAN
The Thirty-Nine Articles (1563)
“Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine)
in the Supper of the Lord, can not be proved by Holy Writ” (Article XXVIII).


Comment


This Anglican confession, in its rejection of transubstantiation, indirectly
declares that the true elements are bread and wine.


ANABAPTIST
The Dordrecht Confession (1632)
“We also believe in and observe the breaking of bread, or the Lord’s
Supper, as the Lord Jesus instituted the same (with bread and wine) before his
sufferings, and also observed and ate it with the apostles” (Article X).
Comment


Even the radical Reformers who rejected everything which they believed
was a holdover from Catholicism did not reject the biblical elements of bread and
wine.

PROTESTANT TRANSUBSTANTIATION
Part 3: Historic Reformed & Baptist Testimony


We turn now to the testimony of the historic Reformed and Baptist
churches. Because American Baptists and Presbyterians have been among
those at the forefront in rejecting the biblical and historical practice of using wine
in the Lord’s Supper, the following list of quotations from prominent Reformed
and Baptist theologians and confessions is provided to show that the historic
position even of these denominations was the same as the rest of the church.
Some of the quotations provide evidence that the use of wine was simply taken
for granted, that it was not an issue in the church. Others argue more forcefully
that the use of wine is not an optional matter. All testify against their
denominational descendants who have rejected the use of wine in the Lord’s
Supper.


John Calvin (1540)


“When we see wine set forth as a symbol of blood, we must reflect upon
the benefits which wine imparts to the human body. We thus come to realize that
these same benefits are imparted to us in a spiritual manner by the blood of
Christ. These benefits are to nourish, refresh, strengthen and gladden” (Treatise
on the Lord’s Supper; as quoted in Alister McGrath, Reformation Thought, p.
185).


John Calvin (1559)


“First, the signs are bread and wine, which represent for us the invisible
food that we receive from the flesh and blood of Christ” (Institutes of the
Christian Religion; Book IV, xvii, 1).


“But as for the outward ceremony of the action – whether or not the
believers take it in their hands, or divide it among themselves, or severally eat
what has been given to each; whether they hand the cup back to the deacon or
give it to the next person; whether the bread is leavened or unleavened; the
wine red or white – it makes no difference. These things are indifferent, and left
at the church’s discretion” (IV, xvii, 43).


Comment


Calvin states that the elements to be used are bread and wine. He then
wisely points out several matters of indifference in the observance of the Lord’s
Supper. One of these matters of indifference is the kind or color of the wine, but
wine itself is not a matter of indifference.


Theodore Beza (1560)
“It must be noted that we understand by this name sign not only the
material things which are used in the Sacraments, as the water in Baptism, the
bread and wine in the Supper; but we also understand under the name sign the
ceremonies themselves of these mysteries, for they are not without significance:
that is why we also hold that it is not lawful to add to, or subtract from them” (The
Christian Faith; 4:38).


Belgic Confession (1561)
“To represent to us this spiritual and heavenly bread Christ has instituted
an earthly and visible bread as the sacrament of his body and wine as the
sacrament of his blood” (Article 35).


Heidelberg Catechism (1563)
Question 79: Why then does Christ call the bread his body and the cup
his blood, or the new covenant in his blood? (Paul uses the words, a
participation in Christ’s body and blood).
Answer: Christ has good reason for these words. He wants to teach us
that as bread and wine nourish our temporal life, so too his crucified body and
poured-out blood truly nourish our souls for eternal life.


The Second Helvetic Confession (1566)
“Likewise, in the Lord’s Supper, the outward sign is bread and wine, taken
from things commonly used for meat and drink; but the thing signified is the body
of Christ which was given, and his blood which was shed for us, or the
communion of the body and blood of the Lord” (Chapter XIX).


Robert Bruce (1589)
“Every ceremony which Christ instituted in the Supper is as essential as
the bread and wine are, and you cannot leave out one jot of them without
perverting the whole institution; for whatever Christ commanded to be done,
whatever He spoke or did in that whole action, is essential, and must be done”
(The Mystery of the Lord’s Supper; p. 43).


“In Baptism, the thing that represents Christ is water; in the Supper, the
things that represent Christ are bread and wine. Water is appointed to represent
Christ in Baptism, because it is most appropriate to represent our washing with
the Blood of Christ... In the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, He has appointed
bread and wine, because there is nothing more appropriate to nourish the body
than bread and wine. Thus the Lord has not chosen these signs without a
reason” (The Mystery of the Lord’s Supper; p. 76).


Comment
This Scottish Presbyterian points out that Christ did not use the elements
simply because that was all he had available at the time, but that He chose the
elements for a reason. They are the most appropriate elements to symbolize the
spiritual reality to which they point. But they are not only the most appropriate
elements that Jesus could have chosen – they are also essential to the proper
observance of the sacrament. Bruce also rightly points out that to change the
sacrament is to pervert the sacrament.


William Ames (1623)


“Bread and wine are to be used, for nothing more fitly expresses the very
close union we gradually come to enjoy with Christ, a union founded on the
sacrifice of his body and the shedding of his blood” (The Marrow of Theology,
Book One, Chap. XL, sect. 21; p. 212).
Westminster Directory for the Publick Worship of God (1645)
“The minister is to begin the action by sanctifying and blessing the
elements of bread and wine set before him.”


Westminster Confession of Faith (1647)
“The Lord Jesus hath, in this ordinance, appointed His ministers to
declare His word of institution to the people; to pray, and bless the elements of
bread and wine” (Confession of Faith 29:3).


Westminster Larger Catechism (1648)
Question 168: What is the Lord’s Supper? (See also WSC 96.)
Answer: The Lord’s supper is a sacrament of the New Testament, wherein,
by giving and receiving bread and wine according to the appointment of Jesus
Christ, his death is shewed forth; and they that worthily communicate feed upon
his body and blood, to their spiritual nourishment and growth in grace; have their
union and communion with him confirmed; testify and renew their thankfulness,
and engagement to God, and their mutual love and fellowship each with the
other, as members of the same mystical body.


Question 169: How hath Christ appointed bread and wine to be given and
received in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper?
Answer: Christ hath appointed the ministers of his word, in the administration
of this sacrament of the Lord’s supper, to set apart the bread and wine from
common use, by the word of institution, thanksgiving, and prayer; to take and
break the bread, and to give both the bread and the wine to the communicants:
who are, by the same appointment, to take and eat the bread, and to drink the
wine, in thankful remembrance that the body of Christ was broken and given,
and his blood shed, for them.


Question 177: Wherein do the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper
differ?
Answer: The sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper differ, in that
baptism is to be administered but once, with water, to be a sign and seal of our
regeneration and ingrafting into Christ, and that even to infants; whereas the
Lord’s supper is to be administered often, in the elements of bread and wine, to
represent and exhibit Christ as spiritual nourishment to the soul, and to confirm
our continuance and growth in him, and that only to such as are of years and
ability to examine themselves.


Comment
The Westminster Confession and Catechisms state that the Lord’s
Supper consists externally in the use of bread and wine. This confessional
standard singles out these as the elements Christ ordained, and as the elements
ministers of the gospel are to set apart, bless, and give to the people. Many of
the churches which have replaced wine with grape juice are led by elders who
have taken ordination vows indicating their agreement with and subscription to
the Westminster standards.


Francis Turretin (1679)
“As to the symbols which hold the place of the external matter with the
actions performed about them, two were instituted by Christ which hold the place
of elements (the bread and wine), neither more nor fewer” (Institutes of Elenctic
Theology; Vol. 3, p. 429).


The Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689
“The Lord Jesus hath, in this ordinance, appointed his ministers to pray,
and bless the elements of bread and wine” (Chap. 30, sect. 3).
Comment
One of the earliest Baptist confessions repeats the doctrine of the
Westminster Confession almost word for word. It again points out that the
elements of bread and wine are those that Jesus appointed for this sacrament.


Thomas Watson (1692)
Question 2: What is the Lord’s Supper?
Answer: It is a visible sermon, wherein Christ crucified is set before us; or,
it is a sacrament of the New Testament, wherein by receiving the holy elements
of bread and wine, our communion with Christ is signified and sealed up to us; or
it is a sacrament divinely instituted, wherein by giving and receiving bread and
wine, Christ’s death is showed forth, and the worthy receivers by faith are made
partakers of his body and blood, and all the benefits flowing from thence” (Body
of Divinity; p. 385).




Wilhelmus a Brakel (1700)
“The second matter to be considered in reference to this sacrament is the
external signs... The signs are identical to those used in meals in order to
nourish and refresh the body: bread and wine. One is to be neither superstitious
nor concerned regarding the kind of bread and wine. The bread and wine which
Christ used were such as were available and in common use” (The Christian’s
Reasonable Service, Vol. II, p. 528).
Comment
Like Calvin, this influential Dutch theologian wisely points out that there
are matters of indifference in the Lord’s Supper, but the use of bread and wine is
not one of them.


Jonathan Edwards (1746)
“Christ, by the speeches and actions of the minister, makes a solemn
profession of his part in the covenant of grace: he exhibits the sacrifice of his
body broken and his blood shed; and in the minister’s offering the sacramental
bread and wine to the communicants, Christ presents himself to the believing
communicants, as their propitiation and bread of life; and by these outward signs
confirms and seals his sincere engagements to be their Saviour and food, and to
impart to them all the benefits of his propitiation and salvation” (The Works of
Jonathan Edwards; Vol. I, p. 458).


John Gill (1767-1770)
“The wine is another part of this ordinance, and of the matter of it, and
one of the outward elements of it, a symbol of the blood of Christ...It is also a
question, whether the wine used was mixed or pure; since it was usual with the
Jews, whose wines were generous, to mix them, Prov. 9:2. But there is no need
to dilute them in our climates; and as the quantity is so small drank at the
ordinance, there is no danger of intoxication in those who are least used to it” (A
Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity; p. 918).
Comment
Gill, a Baptist, points out that although the purity of the wine used by
Christ is a matter impossible to ascertain and thus indifferent, it shouldn’t be a
concern. Even if perfectly pure wine is used, there is no danger of intoxication
since the amount used in the Lord’s Supper is so small.


Herman Witsius (1822)
“It does not appear, whether Christ mixed the wine, or drank it pure. Yet
we grant the former to be probable... Certainly those plainly shew, that they put a
greater value on their own imaginations, than on the very institution of Christ,
who have thought it superfluous to use wine in the holy supper, which by the
command and prescription of our Lord, is a necessary part: but on the contrary,
have judged water necessary, which is of human appointment, as if we were left
to our own liberty by the divine institution” (The Economy of the Covenants
Between God and Man; Vol. II, p. 449-450).


Comment
In the context of discussing whether or not it is necessary to use wine
mixed with water, Witsius points out the fact that it is the wine that is required.
Whether or not it is mixed is indifferent.

John L. Dagg (1858)
“The Jewish ceremonies were typical of Christ to come; but the Lord’s
Supper is a memorial of Christ already come. It is, therefore, not included in the
meat and drink intended by the apostle... Paul says, ‘Let no man judge you in
meat or in drink.’ The abrogated ceremonies are now without divine authority;
and, therefore, he calls these meats and drinks the commandments of men. But
the bread and wine of the Supper, are commandments of the Lord” (Manual of
Church Order; p. 208).


“In this, we have ascertained, that Christ designed a literal use of bread
and wine, and, this point being ascertained, our duty is determined; whatever
doubt and obscurity may remain respecting any other subject” (Ibid. p. 209).
Comment


This early Southern Baptist theologian points out that although there may
be confusion and uncertainty on a number of issues surrounding the Lord’s
Supper, the use of bread and wine is not one of them. Since Christ clearly
ordained the use of bread and wine, it is our duty to follow this command.
Southern Baptist Abstract of Principles (1859)


“The Lord’s Supper is an ordinance of Jesus Christ to be administered
with the elements of bread and wine, and to be observed by His churches till the
end of the world.”


Comment
This early Southern Baptist statement of faith unambiguously states that
the Lord’s Supper is to be administered with the elements of bread and wine, not
bread and grape juice.


A.A. Hodge (1860)
“What is the meaning of the term oinos, wine, in the New Testament, and
how does it appear that wine and no other liquid must be used in the Lord’s
Supper?”


“It is evident from the usage of this word in the New Testament that it was
designed by the sacred writers to designate the fermented juice of the grape –
Matt. 9:17; John 2:3-10; Rom. 14:21; Eph. 5:18; 1 Tim. 3:8; 5:23; Titus 2:3. This
is established by the unanimous testimony of all competent scholars and
missionary residents in the East... That wine and no other liquid is to be used is
clear from the record of the institution, Matt. 26:26-29, and from the usage of the
apostles” (Outlines of Theology; p 633-634).


Comment
Hodge plainly argues that wine is the only element to be used with bread
in the Lord’s Supper.
Charles Hodge (1871-1873)
“By wine as prescribed to be used in this ordinance, is to be understood
‘the juice of the grape;’ and ‘the juice of the grape’ in that state which was, and
is, in common use, and in the state in which it was known as wine. The wine of
the Bible was a manufactured article. It was not the juice of the grape as it exists
in the fruit, but that juice submitted to such a process of fermentation as secured
its preservation and gave it the qualities ascribed to it in Scripture. That oinos in
the Bible when unqualified by such terms as new, or sweet, means the
fermented juice of the grape, is hardly an open question. It has never been
questioned in the Church, if we except a few Christians of the present day”
(Systematic Theology; Vol. 3, p. 616).


Comment
Hodge points out first that the element to be used in the Lord’s Supper is
wine and not grape juice. He also points out that, until his day, this practice has
never been questioned in the history of the church.
Robert L. Dabney (1871)
“The elements are bread and wine” (Systematic Theology; p. 801).
James Petigru Boyce (1887)


Question: In what does this ordinance [The Lord’s Supper] consist?
Answer: In eating bread and drinking wine in remembrance of Christ” (A
Brief Catechism of Bible Doctrine; In Abstract of Systematic Theology; p. xxiii).


Comment


Boyce, a Southern Baptist and the principal founder of the first Southern
Baptist Seminary, states that bread and wine are the elements to be used in the
Lord’s Supper.


W.G.T. Shedd (1889)
“The bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper are specially and divinely
appointed symbols, differing in this respect from all natural symbols” (Dogmatic
Theology; Vol. II, p. 573).


Comment


Shedd notes that these symbols are unlike symbols chosen by men. They
are specifically chosen by God.


A.A. Hodge (1890)
“The contents of the cup were wine. This is known to have been ‘the juice
of the grape,’ not in its original state as freshly expressed, but as prepared in the
form of wine for permanent use among the Jews. ‘Wine,’ according to the
absolutely unanimous, unexceptional testimony of every scholar and missionary,
is in its essence ‘fermented grape juice.’ Nothing else is wine. The use of ‘wine’
is precisely what is commanded by Christ in his example and his authoritative
institution of this holy ordinance. Whoever puts away true and real wine, or
fermented grape juice, on moral grounds, from the Lord’s Supper sets himself up
as more moral than the Son of God who reigns over his conscience, and than
the Saviour of souls who redeemed him. There has been absolutely universal
consent on this subject in the Christian Church until modern times, when the
practice has been opposed, not upon change of evidence, but solely on
prudential considerations” (Evangelical Theology; p. 347-348).


Comment


Hodge states that not only is the use of wine in the Lord’s Supper clearly
commanded by Christ, and that it has been the universal practice of the church
until his day, but he also correctly points out that to reject the use of wine on
moral grounds is implicitly to proclaim oneself to be more moral than God.


B.B. Warfield (1901)
“The bread and wine of which we partake at the Lord’s table are in like
manner, according to our Lord’s precise declaration, the representations of his
body and blood - his body given, his blood poured out for us” (Selected Shorter
Writings of B.B. Warfield; Vol. I, p. 333).


J. Gresham Machen (1914)
“The breaking of the bread and the pouring out of the wine signify the
death of the Lord. In this sacrament, as elsewhere in the New Testament, the
death of Christ is put in the very centre of the Christian faith” (The New
Testament; p. 317).


Baptist Faith and Message (1925)


“…the Lord’s Supper, in which the members of the church, by the use of
bread and wine, commemorate the dying love of Christ.”
Comment


It is quite ironic to note that even at this late date when virtually all
Southern Baptists had already rejected the God-ordained use of wine, their
statement of faith (in an accidental oversight?) bore witness against their actual
practice.


John Murray (1937-1966)


“They [the sacraments] are ordinances in which material elements and
visible signs are used, in baptism water and washing with water, in the Lord’s
supper bread and wine and the oral participation of these” (Collected Writings;
Vol. 2, p. 366).
“VALIDITY
What is necessary to their administration?
1. The elements.
2. The actions.
3. Intention - of doing what Christ commanded” (Collected Writings; Vol.
2, p. 369).
Comment
Murray argues that several factors must be present in order for the
sacraments to be valid and properly administered. One of these factors is the
use of the correct elements, which he states are water, bread, and wine. Since
the proper administration of the sacraments is one of the marks of a true church,
the rejection of one of the proper elements is not a trivial matter.


Louis Berkhof (1933-1939)
“Each one of the sacraments contains an external element, namely, the
water in baptism, and the bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper. Where these
elements are administered and appropriated, there we have the entire external
matter of the sacrament” (Manual of Christian Doctrine; p. 311).
“The external matter of the sacrament includes not only the elements that
are used, namely, water, bread, and wine, but also the sacred rite, that which is
done with these elements” (Systematic Theology; p. 617).
Comment
Berkhof points out that it is where these elements (water, bread and wine)
are properly used that we have the Lord’s Supper.


G.H. Kersten (1947)
“Moreover, at the Supper the Lord took wine, and He did not mix it with
anything. Neither must the wine be replaced with water, as the Ebionites,
Gnostics, and Manichees would have it. We must abide by the institution of the


Lord, and He gave bread and wine as the signs of the Lord’s Supper” (Reformed
Dogmatics; Vol. II, p. 519).


Comment


Kersten points out the little known fact that until recent years the only
groups that ever objected to the use of wine in the Lord’s Supper were early
heretical sects with radical ascetic tendencies. In the orthodox community of
believers it was never questioned.


Herman Hoeksema (1966)


“It is true that in the institution of the Lord’s Supper Jesus did not use the
symbol of water, but that of wine. For this we can find two reasons. In the first
place, wine is the color of blood, and the wine at the communion table is the sign
of the blood of Jesus Christ. And, secondly, wine is a symbol of communion, of
prosperity and joy, according to Scripture [Gen. 14:18; 27:27, 28; 49:10-12;
Deut. 7:13; 33:28; Psalm 104:14, 15]. Wine is the symbol of heavenly joy, and
therefore it was very fitting at the wedding of Cana that the heavenly bridegroom
should change the water into wine. And thus we can understand that at the
Lord’s Supper it is not water but wine that is used as the proper sign of the blood
of the Lamb, by which not only our sin is changed into righteousness, but also
our earthly life is translated into the joy of God’s heavenly tabernacle” (Reformed
Dogmatics; p. 706-707).


Comment


Hoeksema provides one of the reasons why the choice of wine by Jesus
was not an arbitrary choice. Jesus chose wine because of what it symbolized in
the Old Testament and because of what He would ordain it to symbolize in the
New. It already symbolized heavenly joy in the Old Testament, and by declaring
it also to symbolize His shed blood in the New, Jesus subtly demonstrated their
inseparability. By partaking of wine in the Lord’s Supper, we point back to His
shed blood and forward to the wedding supper of the Lamb, and we symbolically
declare that only those who participate in the reality of the first will participate in
the reality of the latter.


G.C. Berkouwer (1969)
“There is then no longer a contrast between symbol and reality for him
who knows that through these signs communion is experienced and salvation is
represented and given. He who sees this profound meaning in the institution of
the Supper by Christ himself will understand the sacramental manner of


speaking, which is not a meaningless and exaggerated phraseology but which
indicates the conjunction between the believing eating of the bread and the
drinking of the wine and the blessing and efficacy of Christ’s reconciling
suffering and dying” (The Sacraments; p. 217).


James Montgomery Boice (1986)
“The sacraments are ordinances in which material elements are used as
visible signs of God’s blessing. In baptism the sign is water. In the Lord’s Supper
two signs are used: bread, which signifies the broken body of the Lord Jesus
Christ, and wine, which signifies his shed blood” (Foundations of the Christian
Faith; p. 595).


Wayne Grudem (1994)
“Just as ordinary food nourishes our physical bodies, so the bread and
wine of the Lord’s Supper give nourishment to us” (Systematic Theology; p.
990).
“Today most Protestants would say, in addition to the fact that the bread
and wine symbolize the body and blood of Christ, that Christ is also spiritually
present in a special way as we partake of the bread and wine” (Systematic
Theology; p. 995).


The Book of Church Order of the Presbyterian Church in America
“The table, on which the elements are placed, being decently covered,
and furnished with bread and wine, and the communicants orderly and gravely
sitting around it (or in their seats before it), the Elders in a convenient place
together, the Minister should then set the elements apart by prayer and
thanksgiving” (58-5).


Comment


The PCA’s Book of Church Order, in agreement with its doctrinal
standards, declares that the proper elements of the Lord’s Supper are bread and
wine.


Conclusion
The testimony of historic Presbyterians and Baptists is remarkable in its
agreement on this subject. Until the middle of the 19th century, the use of wine in
the Lord’s Supper in accordance with Christ’s institution was a non-issue for
most of these theologians. Because no one since the early gnostics had made
any argument or attempt to change the elements, they simply state the use of
these elements as a given fact. Those Presbyterians and Baptists, such as A.A.
Hodge and John L. Dagg respectively, who were forced in the 19th century to
deal once again with radical ascetic and gnostic tendencies within the church
were adamant in their refusal to change the elements of the Lord’s Supper in
order to pacify the spirit of the age. Sadly, their followers have not been as
careful, in some cases going so far as to ignore the clear statements of
confessions and directories for worship to which they have vowed to adhere.
It is clear from our survey, not only of Presbyterian and Baptist sources
but of sources from the entire spectrum of historic Christianity, that the use of
wine in the Lord’s Supper has been the unexceptional and universal practice of
all orthodox Christian churches from the time of Jesus until today. The only
historic precedent for the recent American evangelical alteration of the
sacrament is found in the practice of ancient heretical sects.

PROTESTANT TRANSUBSTANTIATION
Part 4: Origins of and Reasons for the Rejection of Wine


Origins Of The Rejection Of Wine


The Temperance Movement


The historical origin of the modern practice of substituting grape juice for
wine in the Lord’s Supper is not found in Scripture or the teaching of the church.
It can be traced instead to the 19th century Temperance movement. In the early
1800s the abuse of alcohol was widespread in the United States (as it was prior
to then and as it has been since). Whiskey was the drink of choice on the
western frontier, and saloons were extremely popular. In 1785, Dr. Benjamin
Rush had published the first widely distributed article on the effects of alcohol
entitled, “An Inquiry into the Effect of Ardent Spirits.” It is believed that this
publication was a primary cause of the movement which spread across the
country.


The Methodist churches were the first to begin a notable Christian protest
to this abuse of alcohol. The revivals of the Second Great Awakening throughout
this century added strength to the growing protest which eventually evolved into
the Temperance movement. The innovation of the movement was its teaching
that alcohol itself was evil, and that any use of alcohol was sinful. While using
the word “temperance,” it had as its ultimate goal the prohibition of the
manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages. This was one of the fundamental
flaws of the movement. All Christians should support temperance or moderation
with respect to the use of alcohol. The Temperance movement, however,
confused temperance with abstinence and prohibition. The evils associated with
widespread drunkenness are all too real. But we must emphasize again that the
Christian answer to abuse is not disuse. The Temperance movement, in its
quest to combat very real evils, never grasped this distinction.


The movement met with initial success. In 1826 a group largely composed
of clergy organized an American Temperance society. By the 1850s, thirteen
states had forbidden the sale of liquor. Of course, the teaching that alcohol was
evil had an impact on the practice of the Lord’s Supper. The logic worked its way
back to the institution of this sacrament. If the use of alcohol is inherently sinful,
and if Jesus never sinned, then Jesus could not have used an alcoholic
beverage such as wine in the Lord’s Supper. He must have used some other
beverage, it was reasoned, and isn’t grape juice also the fruit of the vine?


Churches which had adopted the Temperance gospel followed suit, and the
sacrament was changed.


During and after the Civil War, there was a reaction against the
movement, but it quickly regained momentum. In 1869 a national Prohibition
Party was formed. In 1873 The Women’s Christian Temperance Union was
started. The tactics of the WCTU are well known. They would dress in their
Sunday best, march into the saloons on Friday night, and begin loudly singing
songs with titles like “Lips that Touch Liquor Shall Never Touch Mine.” Religious
tracts and pamphlets teaching that alcoholic beverages were drinks created by
the devil himself were distributed to churches and Sunday schools nationwide.
Some of these tracts taught that the devil inhabited the liquor and that he gained
entrance into a person who partook of it. This kind of fanatical nonsense, which
had more in common with pagan superstitions than with Christianity, soon
captured the minds of a large number of Christians.


In 1895 the National Anti-Saloon League was organized. By 1900, thirty
states allowed local governments to decide whether or not to allow the
manufacture and sale of alcohol in their jurisdictions, and by 1916, nineteen
states had forbidden alcoholic beverages altogether. Finally, in 1919 the 18th
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was ratified forbidding “the
manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors therein, the
importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States.” The
prohibition of alcoholic beverages was a political cause which had united most
Protestants. It was supported by modernist liberals who saw it as one application
of their social gospel, and it was supported by conservative Christians who saw
it as one step back towards the “good old days” or one step forward toward the
Kingdom of God.


Despite the initial illusion of success, the temperance and prohibitionist
movement ultimately failed miserably. Like every other movement which places
the responsibility for sin on some external “thing,” it did not get rid of evil and sin
in the heart of man. In fact, sin and evil raised their heads in uglier ways.
Organized crime was able to gain a foothold, for example, and this country is still
feeling the effects. The movement also failed to maintain its external success, for
only a decade later the 18th amendment was repealed. The movement failed also
because it allowed itself to be deceived into setting up a higher standard of
righteousness than the Word of God. In doing so, it fell into the ditch of legalism
and destroyed Christian liberty. The only thing the temperance movement
succeeded at was permanently removing the biblical sacrament of the Lord’s
Supper from a large number of Protestant churches in the United States. Those
Christians who have replaced wine with grape juice should at least be aware that
the origins of this practice are not found in the Bible or in the practice of the
apostolic church. They are found in a 19th century American moral/political
movement which swept the church along in its crusade.


We Don’t Smoke, Drink or Chew – The Heritage of Legalism
The theological origin of the use of grape juice instead of wine is legalism.
The term “legalism” has been used to describe many aberrant doctrines in the
history of the church. The error with which we are here concerned is the
establishment of a set of man-made laws and taboos, human rules and traditions
which intentionally or unintentionally nullify the moral law of God. The churches
and Christians who compile these lists of rules normally begin by consciously or
unconsciously rejecting God’s own revealed moral laws. This rejection is usually
hidden in statements such as, “That’s in the Old Testament; we’re New
Testament Christians.” Having rejected God’s standards of righteousness, they
impose their own. In our case, the taboo is wine. God Himself, as we noted
earlier, has declared in his inspired and inerrant written revelation that wine is a
good gift that he gives to man. The abuse of this gift is called drunkenness, a sin
which he everywhere condemns. Jesus, our standard of perfect holiness, made
wine, drank wine, and gave wine to others to drink, but he was never drunk. The
legalist, however, is not satisfied with God’s standards of righteousness. He
arrogantly thinks he can do better. And so he prohibits what God allows, and as
a result often allows what God prohibits. Like the Pharisees, he nullifies the
Word of God with his man-made traditions, and enslaves the church of God to
his unbiblical rules.


What About the Regulative Principle?
One of the most disturbing aspects of this entire discussion is the fact that
many of the churches which have replaced wine with grape juice adhere to the
regulative principle of worship. The regulative principle may be summarized as
follows: In the worship of God, that which is not commanded is forbidden. It is
stated in opposition to those who teach that in worship, that which is not
forbidden is allowed. In other words, any church or Christian who claims to do
only what the Bible commands in their worship practice is at least implicitly
stating the regulative principle. Others, specifically conservative Presbyterian
churches, formally subscribe to this principle.


The story of Nadab and Abihu (Lev. 10:1-2) is often used as an illustration
of the regulative principle. God issued specific commands about how he was to
be worshipped. Nadab and Abihu decided that it would be acceptable to change
something. It was just a minor change, God wouldn’t mind, would he? God
answered by immediately destroying them for offering the strange fire. They
wanted to worship God their way, and the penalty was severe.
The regulative principle of worship was clearly stated in order to shield
and guard the Church from what Calvin termed the “perpetual factory of idols”
that is our human heart (Institutes of the Christian Religion; I, xi, 8). The ultimate
origin of all man-made changes to the worship of God is found in this idolfactory.
Calvin’s theological heirs were especially sensitive to additions and
innovations with respect to the worship of God. Centuries of accrued worship
practices with no biblical basis convinced them of the need to base their worship
on the commandments of God alone.


Whether or not one formally adheres to the regulative principle is not the
issue here. The issue is that many who claim to agree that it is scriptural are
blatantly violating it by changing the elements of the Lord’s Supper without any
scriptural warrant. It is extremely inconsistent to maintain that the regulative
principle is true, while offering “strange fire” at the Lord’s Supper. Jesus
instituted the Supper with specific elements: bread and wine. We have no more
authorization for changing them than we do for changing the element of water in
the sacrament of baptism.

Reasons Given for Rejection of Wine
The following is a collection of quotations by 20th century theologians who
have rejected the use of wine in the Lord’s Supper as either indifferent or
immoral. These quotations were selected because the authors are among the
few who have at least made some attempt to justify their replacement of wine
with grape juice.


A. H. Strong – Baptist (1907)
“Although the wine which Jesus poured out was doubtless the ordinary
fermented juice of the grape, there is nothing in the symbolism of the ordinance
which forbids the use of unfermented juice of the grape, obedience to the
command ‘This do in remembrance of me’ requires only that we should use the
‘fruit of the vine’” (Systematic Theology; p. 960).


Answer
1. It should first be pointed out that even Strong admits that it was “doubtless
the ordinary fermented juice of the grape” that Jesus used.
2. As noted earlier “fruit of the vine” is a common Jewish phrase referring to
wine used on sacred occasions such as the Passover.
3. Since Christ’s command “requires” that we should use the “fruit of the vine,”
and since the “fruit of the vine” in this context means nothing other than wine,
then Christ’s command requires us to use wine.


William W. Stevens – Southern Baptist (1967)
“The bread used by Jesus was doubtless the unleavened bread of the
Passover meal, as the wine he used was doubtless the fermented juice of the
grape. But this does not mean that we must of necessity use unleavened bread,
nor does it mean that we cannot use the unfermented juice of the grape.
Unleavened bread is what Jesus had at hand, and his phrase ‘fruit of the vine’ in
Matthew 26:29 would include unfermented juice as well. The bread and the cup
are symbolical only. To insist on literalism would be tantamount to legalism”
(Doctrines of the Christian Religion, p. 344).


Answer
1. It must again be observed that the author here admits that it is “doubtless”
that Jesus himself used wine, not grape juice. If this is admitted to be the
case, one wonders why the author would even desire to change it in the first
place.
2. In this context, as virtually all standard reference works will testify, the phrase
“fruit of the vine” does not include unfermented juice. It means wine.
3. This “argument” is inconsistent with the one presented by the same author
for the proper administration of the other sacrament. If the bread and the cup
are symbolical “only,” then in baptism the element of water and mode of
administering the water are symbolical only and can be arbitrarily changed
without protest from Baptists.
4. The implication that the only reason Jesus used wine was that it was simply
the drink he had at hand because of Passover should not be confused with
an argument. It is at best merely an assertion, and an unverifiable one at
that.


Charles C. Ryrie – Dispensationalist (1982)
“The Scriptures do not use the word ‘wine’ in connection with the Supper,
only ‘the cup’ or ‘the fruit of the vine.’ Of course it was juice from the grape, but
whether fermented or not is not stated… For the sake of converted alcoholics or
even to forestall anyone beginning to drink, unfermented juice is preferable in
the light of today’s worldwide problem with alcohol” (Basic Theology; p. 425).


Answer
1. It doesn’t need to be explicitly stated that the “fruit of the vine” is fermented
when that concept is included in the phrase itself in the context. “Fruit of the
vine” in this context is a Jewish liturgical synonym for wine. Ryrie’s argument
is somewhat deceptive in that it leads the reader to believe that there is some
real dispute over whether or not the drink used by Jesus was actually wine.
His statement is all the more disappointing in light of the honesty on the part
of the other authors cited in this section who frankly admit the fact that Jesus
used wine at the institution of the Lord’s Supper.
2. Ryrie’s major objection seems to assume that drinking any alcohol is a sin,
an objection which has already been demonstrated to be anti-biblical, and
one which would convict Jesus himself of sin.
3. The argument that we should use grape juice for the sake of converted
alcoholics and a world addicted to alcohol abuse does not follow.
A. It wrongly assumes that the world Jesus lived in didn’t have a problem
with drunkenness.
B. The church cannot ignore or change the clear teaching of Christ
because of someone’s personal problem with that teaching. That
person should be taught and conformed to the truth. The Church
should not be changed to conform to his misguided standards.
C. The abuse of God’s gifts must not cause us to do away with its rightful
use. Many Christians are converted sex addicts (i.e. fornicators).
Should the church institute mandatory celibacy for the sake of their
distorted consciences? Clearly not. It is wrong for the church to
deprive Christians of their liberty and freedom in Christ – and of God’s
good gifts – based on the fear that they might abuse them.


Millard Erickson – Baptist (1985)
“What elements we decide to use in celebrating the Lord’s Supper will
depend, at least in part, upon whether our chief concern is to duplicate the
original conditions as closely as possible or to capture the symbolism of the
sacrament... With respect to the cup, duplication of the original event would call
for wine... If, on the other hand, representation of the blood of Christ is the
primary consideration, then grape juice will suffice equally well ... suitability to
convey the meaning, not similarity to the original circumstances, is what is
important as far as the elements are concerned” (Christian Theology; p. 1125).


Answer
1. What elements we decide to use will not concern duplication, it will concern
obedience. If bread and wine were the elements Christ commanded the
church to use to signify his body and blood, then we must use them.
2. It would be interesting to see Erickson apply the same reasoning to his
chapter on baptism. The method of argument he uses here is exactly the
opposite of the method he uses to argue for baptism by immersion only in
water only. Baptists, including Erickson, argue from the example of Christ
and the early church for the element and mode of baptism. Why change
gears when it comes to the Lord’s Supper? This is simply inconsistent.
3. Suitability to convey the meaning is not what is important. Again, obedience
to Christ’s commands is what is important. May the church legitimately
baptize people with liquid soap just because soap suitably conveys the
meaning of cleansing? Or may the church immerse a person in a hole in the
ground and throw shovelfulls of soil on them? Dirt would certainly symbolize
burial better than water, wouldn’t it (cf. Rom. 6:3-4)?


J. Rodman Williams – Pentecostal (1992)
“In the three synoptic accounts of the Lord’s Supper the content of the
cup is called ‘the fruit of the vine’ (Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18). This
doubtless was wine; however, since wine is not directly mentioned in any of
these accounts, it is irrelevant to insist (as some do) that wine must be used.
Grape juice equally comes from “fruit of the vine” (Renewal Theology; Vol. 3, p.
261, n. 178).


Answer
1. If it is “doubtless” that the ‘fruit of the vine’ mentioned was wine, then wine is
directly mentioned in all of these accounts. Therefore, it is not irrelevant – in
light of Jesus’ command to “Do this” – to insist (as I do) that wine must be
used in the Lord’s Supper.
2. It is entirely irrelevant that grape juice also comes from the fruit of the vine.
So do raisins. If the church may use any fruit of the vine, why would it not be
legitimate to use tomato juice? After all, tomatoes grow on vines, and their
juice is red like blood. There are numerous other fruits and berries that also
grow on vines. Why limit ourselves to grapes?


Conclusion
It must be noted after a review of the previous paragraphs that nowhere
has a cogent and consistent argument for the rejection of wine been offered. The
most that each argument attempts to prove is that the use of wine is an
indifferent matter. Each author attempts to argue that the bread and wine are
basically arbitrary symbols. But in each case the author is forced to
inconsistency – he is forced to change his hermeneutical standard as he
proceeds from his discussion of baptism to the discussion of the Lord’s Supper.
Each of these men argues strenuously for water baptism by immersion only, and
they argue for it based upon the practice of Jesus and the apostolic church.
They strongly reject the argument that water and immersion are indifferent
matters in the sacrament of baptism. Yet, when the discussion turns to the Lord’s
Supper, the practice of Jesus and the church suddenly becomes irrelevant. The
fact that Jesus used wine at the institution of the Lord’s Supper is admitted by
almost all who oppose continued use. And yet each argument assumes that the
church can reject its use without providing any legitimate biblical reason for
doing so. I submit that if wine is indifferent, then so is the bread; and in the case
of baptism, so is the water.

Other Potential Objections
In the previous section we examined the arguments of several important
20th century theologians who have opposed the use of wine in the Lord’s Supper.
Their arguments were found to be inconsistent and invalid. Because some of the
stronger and more commonly heard objections were not presented clearly by
these theologians, they will be discussed in this section.


The Use of Alcohol is Sin
The use of alcohol is sin, and Jesus never sinned. Therefore Jesus must
have used grape juice and not wine at the Lord’s Supper. If Jesus didn’t use
wine, then we have no obligation to use wine now.


Answer
The argument that alcohol itself is evil, and that any use of alcohol is sin
is a common one. This particular objection was refuted in detail earlier. We have
seen that this objection is contrary to all of Scripture, that it casts doubt upon the
goodness of God’s creation and gifts, and that it implicates Jesus Christ in
numerous sins. Advocates of this argument have continually confused the sinful
abuse of alcoholic beverages (drunkenness) with the mere use of alcoholic
beverages. In response, it must again be pointed out that people have found
ways to abuse many, if not all, of God’s good gifts. In addition to alcohol, people
abuse the good gifts of food (gluttony), sex (adultery, homosexuality, etc.),
property (theft), speech (lying), land (pollution), and time (laziness). Obviously,
the abuse of something is not a valid reason for its disuse. If it were, the large
number of gluttons and gossips would have to give up eating and talking.
Absolutely no one has the right to declare evil something that God created and
that he declares to be a blessing. To do so is the height of arrogance and a
perfect description of legalistic Phariseeism. Since the premise of this argument
is blatantly false, there is no valid objection here to the use of wine in the Lord’s
Supper.


The Potential Alcoholic
Some people are born with a genetic predisposition toward alcoholism. If
they were to drink wine at the Lord’s Supper, it could potentially lead them to
become alcoholics.


Answer
Those who use the argument that some people are genetically
predisposed to alcoholism or that alcoholism is a disease rather than a sin use a
flawed and inconsistent argument. First, God in his word has revealed to us that
drunkenness is a sin, a moral and ethical failure, not merely a physiological or
genetic defect (Jer. 13:13-14; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:18). Drunkenness,
like all other sins, is an ethical matter, an act of moral disobedience against God.
Unfortunately many fundamentalist Christians have unwittingly followed the Pied
Piper of liberal theology and removed drunkenness from the realm of sin by
renaming it “alcoholism” and placing it in the realm of disease. Even if they are
correct that a genetic tendency toward alcoholism exists in some people, this is
not an excuse to disobey God’s commandments. One does not avoid one sin by
committing another. Moreover, since drunkenness is a sin, and since believers
are indwelt by the Holy Spirit and thereby enabled to resist sin, those who may
be predisposed to particular sins are not without recourse or help in resisting
those sins. There is no reason to think that God will abandon believers to
succumb to genetic imperfections when they obediently participate in his
sacraments.


A second point that must be made is that this argument implicates Jesus
in an act of sheer stupidity at best, and willful sin at worst. If there are people
with a genetic predisposition to alcoholism now, then there were people with the
same predisposition at the time of Jesus. Yet, he created wine at the wedding
feast at Cana and instituted the Lord’s Supper with wine. He then commanded
that the sacrament be observed by his church until he returns. If there is a
genetic predisposition to alcoholism which is triggered by the use of even the
smallest amount of alcohol, then Jesus is guilty of causing untold multitudes to
become “alcoholics.” Since the premise of this argument contradicts Scripture,
the argument is invalid.


Separation from the World (Rom. 12:2; 2 Cor. 6:17)


Scripture commands us to be separate from the world and worldliness.
The use of alcohol is a worldly activity. Therefore we should not use wine in the
Lord’s Supper.


Answer
This argument is also based upon an incorrect premise. The use of
alcohol is not worldly; the abuse of alcohol is worldly. To declare the use of
alcohol a worldly activity is to declare Jesus himself to be worldly. Jesus drank
wine. He made wine. He gave wine to others to drink. Any one of these activities
would be labeled “sin” by many modern American churches. But they aren’t sin,
and the church must come to grips with this fact. Separation from the world does
not mean separation from material things. That false doctrine comes from the
ancient pagan heresy of Gnosticism. It assumes that sin and evil are things
external to us that we can somehow avoid by not coming into contact with certain
people, places, and things. But sin and evil are within us, and the fact that we
don’t smoke or drink or go to movies does not alter that fact. Separation from the
world means separation from sinfulness, from the world’s way of thinking, its
worldview. It occurs by the inward transformation of the heart and mind, not by
the external avoidance of material things. As Paul wrote,
“If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the
world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit
yourself to decrees, such as, ‘Do not handle, do not taste, do not
touch!’ (which all refer to things destined to perish with use) – in
accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? These
are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in
self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the
body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.”
The Lord’s Supper is not a “worldly” institution that must be altered to
meet some legalist standard of moral purity higher than God’s own Law. It is a
divine sacrament that must be observed as Christ commanded it to be observed.


Abstain From All Appearance of Evil (1 Thess. 5:22)
Scripture commands us to abstain from all appearance of evil. Alcohol is
associated with all kinds of evil; therefore we should abstain from use of it in the
Lord’s Supper.


Answer
There are several problems with this argument. First, like many of the
previous arguments, it assumes alcohol is evil. This argument has already been
shown to be unbiblical. Second, this argument, like many of the others,
implicates Jesus in sin. If this verse means what it is claimed to mean by some,
then Jesus was guilty of sin. Jesus associated with sinners, prostitutes, the
outcasts of society. The Pharisees viciously accused him of not abstaining from
all appearance of evil. They accused him of being a drunkard and a glutton.
When the prostitute anointed his feet with her tears, they accused him of
indiscreet behavior at best (Luke 7:36-50). We are commanded to abstain from
every form and appearance of real sin, as defined by the Bible, not the imagined
sins of modern day Pharisees. If Jesus is our example of a godly life, then we
will inevitably offend the Pharisees among us. Our thankful enjoyment of God’s
creation and our compassion for lost sinners will infuriate Jesus’ enemies now
just as it infuriated Jesus’ enemies then. In any case, it is preposterous to
suggest that a sacrament of the church instituted by Jesus himself has the
appearance of evil.

Cultural Argument


In many Middle-Eastern and European cultures, wine is regularly used at
weddings, meals, and other celebrations. In our culture alcohol has entirely
different connotations, and therefore it should not be used in the Lord’s Supper
by Christians who desire to maintain a credible witness.


Answer
Our obedience to the explicit commands of Christ cannot be compromised
to conform to our worldly culture’s perspective. Christ commands the church to
baptize with water and to partake of bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper. We
must obey regardless of what our culture thinks. The church simply has no
choice in this matter.


But what about the use of wine outside the Lord’s Supper? In contrast to
our culture’s abuse of God’s gifts, the church should demonstrate the godly use
of them. God’s good gift of sex is abused in our culture and has numerous
degrading connotations placed upon it by the world. Should the church’s
response be total abstinence? No. The church must demonstrate the right use of
this good gift within marriage, and by doing so glorify God and bear a credible
witness to the world. Christians who are sexually active only in marriage are not
guilty of somehow condoning fornication, adultery, homosexuality or any other
sinful abuse of God’s gift of sex. And neither is the Christian who thankfully
partakes of God’s good gift of wine in moderation implicitly condoning
drunkenness, the sinful abuse of this gift. Christians simply must be shown from
Scripture that it does not glorify God to abstain from every gift of his that
unbelievers abuse. This would be an impossible task anyway, since unbelievers
find a way of abusing everything that God has given us. In order to glorify God
and bear a joyful witness to a depraved world Christians should obediently and
thankfully use God’s gifts, including wine, in the way that God intended them to
be used, not reject them altogether. A rejection of the gift is an ungrateful
rejection of the Giver.


Moreover, since this argument is concerned with a “credible witness,” it is
important to remember that the proper celebration of the Lord’s Supper is itself a
credible witness. It is the proclamation of the gospel in visible form. As Paul told
the Corinthians, “As often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim
the Lord's death until he comes.”


The Weaker Brother (Rom. 14; 1 Cor. 8)


The use of alcohol is allowable, but many Christians believe its use is
sinful. Therefore we should abstain from using alcohol in the Lord’s Supper in
order that we do not offend these weaker brothers.


Answer
In the preceding argument we argued that it is not right to reject God’s
good gifts simply because unbelievers constantly abuse them. But what if there
are Christian brothers who are offended by the use of alcoholic beverages? How
would Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 apply?
First, it should be pointed out that in these passages eating meat and
drinking wine are in and of themselves indifferent matters. In fact, Paul clearly
stated that neither is inherently sinful (Rom. 14:14,20).
Second, these passages are not referring to social drinking or to alcohol
use in general. In both contexts Paul is addressing a specific religious use or
non-use of certain foods and drinks.


Third, it should be pointed out that if prohibitionists applied these verses
consistently, they would also have to become vegetarians (Rom. 14:21).
Fourth, the primary teaching of these passages is that we should put love
for our brothers in Christ ahead of some concern for our “rights.” If that means
voluntarily abstaining from the public use of some food or drink when a brother
with a sensitive weaker conscience is present, we should not object.


Fifth, and most importantly, legalist Pharisees (ancient or modern) are not
who Paul is talking about when he speaks of “weaker brothers.” Paul’s
description in both of these passages is of one who has a weak and sensitive
conscience, who is perhaps new in the faith, who isn’t sure what to do in these
practical situations, who isn’t sure if certain things are biblical or not, but who is
at least teachable. Legalists do not fall into this category. These are arrogant,
unteachable, self-appointed judges whose conscience isn’t weak but hardened
and cold. Unlike a weaker brother, they think they know exactly what is right and
wrong in every conceivable situation. If a Christian partakes of wine in their
sight, their conscience is not wounded – it is outraged. Unlike a weaker brother,
the legalists are not tempted to imitate this action while remaining unconvinced
that it is biblical to do so. They know for sure that this action is wrong because it
violates the man-made moral standard which they have substituted for the Word
of God. This is why Jesus, who was and is kind and patient with weaker
Christians, would seemingly go out of his way to offend the self-righteous
Pharisees. The weaker brother, despite his weakness, is still a Christian brother.
The legalist Pharisee, on the other hand, is either unsaved, or he is a Christian
with desperately poor theology and a terribly inflated opinion of his own
righteousness. The weaker brother is unsure about the holiness of many of his
actions. The legalist Pharisee has no doubt of the holiness of any of his. The
weaker brother needs scriptural instruction and maturity, the legalist Pharisee
needs repentance and/or salvation. Now, this is not to say that anyone who
insists on the use of grape juice in the Lord’s Supper is a Pharisee, but it is to
say that anyone who does so is at least acting like a Pharisee and needs to
repent.


Finally, two other facts must also be taken into consideration. First, the
elders of the church have a responsibility to help the weaker brother to grow to
maturity, not to coddle him and allow him to remain a spiritual infant forever.
Second, nothing in these passages has any bearing whatsoever on the Lord’s
Supper. However else these passages are used, they may not be used to
negate the command of Christ in the institution of the sacrament. Even if we
voluntarily give up every other use of alcoholic beverages for the sake of weak
consciences, we cannot allow this argument to be used as an excuse to change
the Lord’s Supper. Believers must be conformed to Christ’s will. Christ must not
be forced to bow to theirs.


Grape Juice wasn’t an Option


Wine was used in the Lord’s Supper only because it was what Jesus had
on hand. Grape juice wasn’t a real option because it was difficult to store prior to
the invention of refrigeration.


Answer
Occasionally one hears the argument that the use of wine by Christ and
the universal use of it for over 1,800 years in the church carries no weight due to
the fact that they had no other choice. Grape juice quickly spoils if not stored
properly. So it wasn’t an issue, they argue, because grape juice wasn’t an
option. But even if it were granted that until the invention of refrigeration the use
of grape juice was not an option, that would not prove that we should now use
grape juice. The mere fact that we can do something now is not proof that we
should do it now.


Perhaps an illustration would clarify this point. For almost two thousand
years the universally accepted practice of the church has been to gather
together to receive the sacraments and to hear the preaching of the word.
Today, technology has made it possible for Christians to stay in the comfort of
their homes as they watch and listen to the sermon via satellite feed. The bread
and juice can be delivered to them weekly, monthly or quarterly (depending upon
the church or denomination), and at the appropriate time in the video worship
they can be instructed to eat and drink. This was never an option for the church
until modern advances in technology made it possible. But is the mere fact that
this is now possible a legitimate argument for changing the biblical and historical
practice of the church? No, it is not. And neither should we reject the biblical and
historical use of wine in the Lord’s Supper simply because we can.


Summary


Because of the irrefutable fact that wine was used in the biblically
revealed institution of the Lord’s Supper, and because the use of wine in the
Lord’s Supper was also an undisputed practice for over 1,800 years of church
history, the burden of proof rests upon those who have substituted grape juice
for wine. After reviewing the most commonly heard objections to the use of wine
in the Lord’s Supper, we are forced to conclude that this burden of proof has not
been met. In fact, there has never even been an attempt to meet this burden of
proof in many churches which have made this change.


There is simply no legitimate reason for the replacement of wine with grape juice
in the sacrament. Each of the preceding arguments against the use of wine in
the sacrament fails either because it is based upon a false and unbiblical
premise, or because it is a biblical command taken out of context and radically
misapplied. All of these arguments also fail for the same reason that every
possible argument against the biblical observance of the sacrament will fail: they
all inescapably involve Jesus Christ himself either in gross incompetence, utter
stupidity, or willful sin.


Conclusion


This is a challenge and a plea to those churches which have rejected the
God-ordained use of wine in the Lord’s Supper, a usage which for over 1,800
years was undisputed among all orthodox Christians. As we have seen, there is
absolutely no valid biblical, historical, theological, or practical reason to replace
wine with grape juice. This 150-year-old man-made tradition should be rejected
immediately, and the biblical practice should be restored. It is time for churches
which claim to worship only as Christ commands (i.e. Presbyterian churches that
adhere to the regulative principle) to conform their teaching to the Bible’s actual
commands and example. Baptists who use grape juice instead of wine, yet claim
that baptism must be by immersion because we are to “follow Jesus in baptism,”
also need to address their own inconsistencies and double standard in their
interpretations of the sacraments.


Undoubtedly the reinstitution of the biblical and historical practice will
cause difficulties in churches with members who either falsely believe that any
use of alcohol is sin, or whose weaker consciences have held the remainder of
the church captive for years. But the solution is not to continue in a manifestly
unbiblical practice which, from one perspective, results in the withholding of the
cup from God’s children (a de facto sentence of excommunication). The solution
is gently to correct those who have been taught false doctrine by teaching them
the truth, to help the weaker brother to grow up into Christian maturity, and to
call to account those Christian teachers who continue to alter the Lord’s
sacrament despite the teaching of Scripture and the practice of the historic
church. The sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is a blessed and glorious
communion with our Lord Jesus Christ in which we proclaim his death until he
comes again. We must always keep this in mind and remember that in
comparison with whom and what they signify, the physical elements of bread and
wine pale in significance. But we must also remember that precisely because of
whom and what they signify, the physical elements are not insignificant.

John Gill’s Systematic Theology called “A Body of Divinity”:




2ndly, The wine is another part of this sacrament, and of the matter of it, and one of the outward elements of it, a symbol of the blood of Christ. It is a question, whether the wine used at the first institution of the sacrament was red or white; at the Passover that which was the best, whether red or white, was ordered to be used, the red was generally so accounted; see Prov. Xxiii. 31, Isa xxvii. 3, I cannot but be of opinion, that the red, called the blood of the grape, is most expressive of, and bears a greater resemblance to the blood of Christ, it is a symbol of, Gen. xlix. 11, Isa. Lxiii. 2.

1. The wine is a symbol of the blood of Christ; for Christ says of it, This is my blood, that is, a figure and representation of it; not that it was really changed into the blood of Christ, for it is called, the fruit of the vine, as before observed, after it was poured into the cup and blessed, Matt. Xxvi. 28, 29, and the apostle Paul says, the Cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? 1 Cor iv. 6 and it is a symbol of it, not as in his veins, but as shed from the various parts of his body, particularly his hands, feet, and side, when pierced; and as wine is squeezed out of the grape in the wine-press, so the blood of Christ was pressed from him, when it pleased the Lord to bruise him, and when he trod the wine-press of divine wrath; and as wine cheers the heart of man, so the blood of Christ, applied by the Spirit, speaks peace and pardon to guilty minds, and puts joy and gladness into broken hearts and wounded spirits. The wine in the supper is called, The blood of the New Testament; and the cup, The New Testament in Christ’s blood; by which is meant, the covenant of grace, sometimes called a testament or will, which became of force by the death of Christ, the testator, and which was ratified, its blessings and promises by the blood of Christ; which is therefore called, The blood of the everlasting covenant, Heb. Xiii. 20.

1. The wine in the supper is a symbol of the love of Christ, shewn in the shedding of his blood to obtain the remission of sins of his people; which love is better than wine, than the most ancient, the most generous, the most pure and refined; therefore the church determines to remember it more than that; We will remember thy love more than wine, and which is particularly done in the ordinance of the supper, Cant. i. 2,4.

Now the bread and the wine being two separate articles, may denote and shew forth the death of Christ; the body or flesh being separated from the blood, and the blood from that, in which the life is, death follows; and these being distinctly attended to, is expressive of that separation; and yet both together make a feast, and afford nourishment, refreshment, and delight: with food there must be drink, and when with bread, and wine, both made a banquet; Christ’s church is a banqueting-house, and the banquet in it, like Esther’s, is a banquet of wine; such is the sacrament of the supper, a feast of fat things, of wine on the lees well refined.

Fermentation Issues written by Me, MikhaelDavid to a friend



But what about fermentation you asked? Well I am only assuming that you have read some modern theologians work that fermentation was different in that era. That is a false claim…. Let me give you a bit of winemaking 101 today and in biblical times…


This a process description that is taken out from a Winery…
“After the harvest, the grapes are crushed and allowed to ferment. Red wine is made from the must (pulp) of red or black grapes that undergo fermentation together with the grape skins, while white wine is usually made by fermenting juice pressed from white grapes, but can also be made from must extracted from red grapes with minimal contact with the grapes' skins. Rosé wines are made from red grapes where the juice is allowed to stay in contact with the dark skins long enough to pick up a pinkish color, but little of the tannins contained in the skins.
During this primary fermentation, which often takes between one and two weeks, yeast converts most of the sugars in the grape juice into ethanol (alcohol). After the primary fermentation, the liquid is transferred to vessels for the secondary fermentation. Here, the remaining sugars are slowly converted into alcohol and the wine becomes clear. Some wine is then allowed to age in oak barrels before bottling, which add extra aromas to the wine, while others are bottled directly. The time from harvest to drinking can vary from a few months for Beaujolais nouveau wines to over twenty years for top wines. However, only about 10% of all red and 5% of white wine will taste better after 5 years, compared to after one year.”
You see the Grapes ferment on their own… Nothing is added… Grapes have the unique quality of having a natural parasite, or bacteria, on their skin, which is a leaven that causes the grape juice to ferment. Age has nothing to due with the alcohol levels… Once the sugars in the grapes are exhausted by the parasites the fermentation process is done…. This held true in biblical times and it holds true today…. Aged wine only means it has ages and has taken on aromas which make it taste better. But the Alcohol levels do not change… Bad quality wines have impurities to the wine that the Filtering process removes. When Christ brought the best wine it was the best tasting wine because all the impurities had been removed by the filtering process if it was made without a miracle. Nothing of the Alcohol levels changed…
The issue is today we have bred our own problems…. We have had a stance of total abstinence in our nation’s history that today some peoples bodies are not use to the level of alcohol… Do you know that in the Puritan Era the monthly allowance of alcohol was 130 gallons.. The same held true in Luther’s Germany and Calvin’s Geneva. If I was to drink a 130 gallons today in one month in my life I would be in danger of drunkenness’s.. The little in the Lord’s Supper would never ever ever make anybody drunk or have a problem with Alcohol. In fact one gets more Alcohol in a tablespoon of Cough Med, or in Cookies made with Vanilla then in a little tumble glass at the Lord’s Supper.
You see the body of Christ is perfect and without sin and leaven is a symbol of sin throughout the scriptures. So Christ body must be represented by unleaven elements…. Here is a run down of all the processes…
“As we use unleavened bread, likewise we use unleavened drink, which is wine. The unleavened state of the "fruit of the vine" (Matt. 26:29) is wine; not grape juice.
Grapes have the unique quality of having a natural parasite, or bacteria, on their skin, which is a leaven that causes the grape juice to ferment. Natural. grape juice, be it fresh or cooked, has this leaven in it. The only way to totally free grape juice of it's leaven, is to allow it to completely ferment. In the process of fermentation, the leaven or other impurities of grape juice, are separated, as wine is produced. Impurities settle to the bottom, and the wine (pure and free of leaven) can be drawn off. So, the fruit of the vine is made unleavened by removing the leaven, which is already, by nature, there.
So, the bread is made unleavened by withholding leaven; and the juice is made unleavened by taking away the leaven. Although, in both cases, the end result is an unleavened product.
So Grape Juice has leaven in it since it is not fermented and leaven is symbolized throughout scripture as sin…. This is why the Hebrews removed ALL leaven from their households before the Passover as a sign of purging the leaven (sin)… Christ is our Passover, He is our Sacrifice…. We partake of the Sacrificial meal by Spiritually feasting through the holy spirit by way of a conduit to which the true believer will receive that nourishment by the sign (the unleaven bread and the unleaven Wine) through which it represents and it seals our participation in the Covenant of Grace (The New Covenant) by the body and blood of Christ.
Even if the fermentation process was different some how which I believe I have proven to not be the case…. Christ did tell us to use the Fruit of the Vine which is only ever used as a liturgical phrase for fermented Wine….

Shalom MichaelDavid,
Great study. I haven't finished it yet, lots of reading for bad eyesight. Will probably finish it tomorrow.

One question I would like to ask, though. Do you oppose the use of grape juice for youngsters and for those who medically cannot drink alcohol? Should they be barred from the Table? Or can acceptions be made?
The reason I ask is because my other half is a severe diabetic, he cannot drink alcohol. The first time I found this out personally was at kiddush a few years back. Being a church-goer from many years back he took the cup thinking it was juice. I knew it was wine but didn't think one sip would hurt. Within 1/2 hour after downing it (it was already going down his throat when he realized it was wine) his blood sugars had dropped to below 55. He was one very sick puppy.
The next week, we figured we raise his blood sugars too high so the wine would bring him back to normal but that logic didn't work either and again, we had a very sick puppy on our hands. Is he to just be on the sidelines or are allowances to be made? (Even the Jewish fast of Yom Kippur makes allowances for those who cannot go for 24 hours without food due to medical reasons.)

Shalom Yedida,

Here are my thoughts on the two scenarios you gave...

First, Regarding children.. Scripture nowhere gives us a drinking age.. In fact it has been proven that those who are children who drink and do not overindulge will not have a drinking problem when they are adults.. I find it quite amusing that the founders of Methodism, the Wesleys who they themselves drank, the later Methodism supported Prohibition, John and Charles Wesley's mother Susanna wrote a child rearing book and talked about giving beer to small children. I need to dig that quote up again..

As for the legal ramifications since underage drinking is illegal in the US. I did some research into this and found out that each state has clauses to that underage drinking statue.. Most states give exemption for the following reasons, 1. Religious Reason, 2. Medical Reason, 3. If the parents personally give them a drink (can not be extended relations). So for the Lord Supper, Kiddush, Passover, etc would fall under Religious reason.


Your second wander about wine and grape juice was about medical conditions that does not allow for wine.. This is a harder one to answer... Personally if I was in the boat of having to abstain from wine because it could cost me my life I would have to abstain.. That is just me.. I would pray that the Lord would know my heart and wanting to partake but out of providence of God I can not..

I suppose one could explore the potential of dealcoholize wine (which is different then grape juice) for those who are medically (severe) unable to drink.. But that might be hard since I also believe that the Lord Supper requires a Common Cup.. Wine needs to be in a cup to kill any germs..

*Edit* Second Thoughts, dealcoholize wine removes the gladdening and rejoicing part of the element of wine that is suppose to be there.... So I would discount the potential of dealcoholize wine..

My sister in law is a juvenile diabetic.. Of course they are part of the fundamentalist part of the family that abstains always, but once they visited a church where real wine was being used at the supper and they did not know it.. I don't remember hearing any problems after she consumed it... Maybe it acts differently on different people...

I am wondering if the wine your husband consumed had been stopped in it's fermentation process mid-way and left alot of sugar in the wine.. If fermentation goes all the way through all the sugar should be consumed by the yeast.

What else is there in wine besides sugar that could effect a diabetic? Not sure... That would be an interesting subject to research...

Anyway, for myself, if I was in that boat... I would abstain... Grape Juice just does not symbolize what wine symbolizes...

Michael

yedida said:

Shalom MichaelDavid,
Great study. I haven't finished it yet, lots of reading for bad eyesight. Will probably finish it tomorrow.

One question I would like to ask, though. Do you oppose the use of grape juice for youngsters and for those who medically cannot drink alcohol? Should they be barred from the Table? Or can acceptions be made?
The reason I ask is because my other half is a severe diabetic, he cannot drink alcohol. The first time I found this out personally was at kiddush a few years back. Being a church-goer from many years back he took the cup thinking it was juice. I knew it was wine but didn't think one sip would hurt. Within 1/2 hour after downing it (it was already going down his throat when he realized it was wine) his blood sugars had dropped to below 55. He was one very sick puppy.
The next week, we figured we raise his blood sugars too high so the wine would bring him back to normal but that logic didn't work either and again, we had a very sick puppy on our hands. Is he to just be on the sidelines or are allowances to be made? (Even the Jewish fast of Yom Kippur makes allowances for those who cannot go for 24 hours without food due to medical reasons.)

Click to expand...

Very interesting study! didnt finish reading all yet, but i will.My biggest point of contention with southern baptism abou their prohibition of alcohol. Views of some of them literally make Jesus a sinner. thanks, Michael.

Kitchen remodeling project stirs your creative juices, hah, does you good? You come up with productive material.Maybe we should advise Mrs. to come up with another task after that,like build a porch

Shalom MD,
Personally, I have no problem seeing younguns partaking of the cup with wine. I just interjected the question knowing it would come up.

What was really strange is that the wine worked in a way opposite the way I would have thought. Sugar in foords raise the normal blood sugars in our bodies by increasing the insulin produced. When one is completely dependant upon supplying the needed insulin by an outside source you'd think the blood sugars would be raised drastically, not lowere!! It was really strange how quickly that happened too.
The second time he did not give himself a booster before eating breakfast, so his count was up by an extra 110 pts but it still took an extreme dive to around 60 after the kiddush, even with the eating of the food served.
Hopefully, it doesn't affect most diabetics this way. It was pretty scary.

Have you contacted your Dr with this yedida? Also it is best to know what brand of wine was used. If it was Manischewitz that is known for much added sugar.

The Passover wine is less sugary because they can't use corn syrup during passover.

It's best to find out the kind of wine he drank to help solve the mystery.

Otherwise, if you have a medical reason Jewish Halakha follows that you needed eat of something that will harm you. I have Celiac disease and can't eat Matzoh. I have to make my own special from uncontaminated oats. This also goes for those who can't fast even on Yom Kippur, small children, Pregnant or nursing women, those of ill health or in need of some small bit of food for medication taking.

HaShem does not want us to become ill or worse keeping the mitzvot, they are for life, not death.