Protestant Transubstantiation

pillarreformed
Apr 2
65 min read

Part One: Thesis and Biblical Witness

This series of articles was written by Dr. Keith Mathison and originally appeared at thirdmill.org.

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 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

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, â€˜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).
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.
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.
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" (1 Chron 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).
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).
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.
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).
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, â€˜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.
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

Jesus himself drank wine.
"For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine; and you say, â€˜He has a demon!' The Son of Man has come eating and drinking; and you say, â€˜Behold, a gluttonous man, and a drunkard, a friend of tax-gatherers 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.
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, â€˜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).
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).
"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 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).

T.K. Cheyne and J. Sutherland Black. Encyclopaedia Biblica, 1903.

"In the Gospels we find wine designated â€˜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 (â€˜the fruit of the vine') for â€˜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 â€˜this fruit of the vine,' which clearly means â€˜wine'" (p. 661- 662).

William Hendriksen. The Gospel of Matthew, 1973.

"By speaking of â€˜the fruit of the vine' Jesus undoubtedly refers to wine. Note close relation between â€˜vine' and â€˜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 â€˜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. â€˜Offered' is the same verb as â€˜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, â€˜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 â€˜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 â€˜blood of the covenant' harks back to Exod 24:8. The use of â€˜cup' rather than â€˜wine' links this passage with 20:22-23 and 26:39. â€˜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: â€˜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 â€˜wine,' does not occur, the presence of wine is at least gravely questioned, which means practically denied. Luke's â€˜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 â€˜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.

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.
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.
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.
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.
As quoted in Gentry, Ibid., p. 55.

Part Two: 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 â€˜Amen.' This word â€˜Amen' is the Hebrew for â€˜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.

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.

Part Three: 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" (Ibid., 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 â€˜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. â€˜Wine,' according to the absolutely unanimous, unexceptional testimony of every scholar and missionary, is in its essence â€˜fermented grape juice.' Nothing else is wine. The use of â€˜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.

Part Four: 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 idol-factory. 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

It should first be pointed out that even Strong admits that it was "doubtless the ordinary fermented juice of the grape" that Jesus used.
As noted earlier "fruit of the vine" is a common Jewish phrase referring to wine used on sacred occasions such as the Passover.
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

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.
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.
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.
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

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.
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.
The argument that we should use grape juice for the sake of converted alcoholics and a world addicted to alcohol abuse does not follow.
1. It wrongly assumes that the world Jesus lived in didn't have a problem with drunkenness.
2. 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.
3. 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

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.
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.
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

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.
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.

Part One: Thesis and Biblical Witness

Part Two: Historical Testimony

EARLY CHURCH

LUTHERAN

ANGLICAN

ANABAPTIST

Part Three: Historic Reformed & Baptist Testimony

Part Four: Origins of and Reasons for the Rejection of Wine

Origins of the Rejection of Wine

The Temperance Movement

We Don't Smoke, Drink or Chew - The Heritage of Legalism

What about the Regulative Principle?

Reasons Given for Rejection of Wine

Conclusion

Other Potential Objections

The Use of Alcohol is Sin

The Potential Alcoholic

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

Abstain From All Appearance of Evil (1 Thess 5:22)

Cultural Argument

The Weaker Brother (Rom 14; 1 Cor 8)

Grape Juice wasn't an Option

Summary

Conclusion

Comments