How important is the issue of wine vs grape juice?

[Ploutos]

IntI see what you did there

The pun was intentional. Any references to MASH or allusions of an ungodly or unseemly nature were not intentional.

 

[Alive in Christ]

Here is the thing: the alcoholic / intoxicating properties of wine aren't treated in the bible as some accidental, unimportant part of the drink.

Instead, they are spoken of as part of the reason God made wine.

God gave "wine that maketh glad the heart of man." (Ps. 104:15; Judges 9:13; Eccl. 10:19)

I like juice as much as the next guy, but to say it "makes the heart glad" would be a gross exaggeration.

The Passover feast was a celebration of God's deliverance of the people of Israel, and the still future sacrifice of the Messiah.

The Lord's Supper is a celebration of Christ's work on the cross.

Having a drink that makes the heart glad in this divine celebration is not a minor detail that we're free to ignore. I, for one, have no interest in turning the Lord's feast into a fast.

You have to be careful, though. I would imagine it would be very easy to use such an approach to justify a sinful lifestyle, and those who are waging a battle against alcoholism, or who have recently come out of the world and are fighting to be free from such devices, would find it very convenient to latch on to that kind of thinking as a means to ease the weight of their cross. What good is Christian liberty if it murders your brother?

Enjoying a glass or two of a good Merlot at bedtime, or at a celebration, is one thing. I do not believe it to be sinful. Slamming back a bottle a Jack Daniels Whiskey under the pretense of Christian liberty? God help such a man.

 

[Charles Johnson]

You have to be careful, though. I would imagine it would be very easy to use such an approach to justify a sinful lifestyle, and those who are waging a battle against alcoholism, or who have recently come out of the world and are fighting to be free from such devices, would find it very convenient to latch on to that kind of thinking as a means to ease the weight of their cross. What good is Christian liberty if it murders your brother?

Enjoying a glass or two of a good Merlot at bedtime, or at a celebration, is one thing. I do not believe it to be sinful. Slamming back a bottle a Jack Daniels Whiskey under the pretense of Christian liberty? God help such a man.

Sure. But that's true of all Scripture.

"As also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures."

2 Peter 3:15-16.

 

[Andres]

I have read and appreciated what Keith Mathison has written on the topic. He makes a good case for wine being the drink we should use in the Lord's Supper. Unfortunately, the name of the book where he addresses that escapes me.

I believe this might be the book you are referencing.

 

[Ploutos]

I believe this might be the book you are referencing.

Maybe. It's been some years, and I thought the cover looked different. Anyway, the section I read was very clear and helpful.

 

[BertMulder]

I do think the way that most churches celebrate the Lord's Supper rather lame (and most attempts to remedy that theologically questionable at best),

Would you like to elaborate on this?

I do think the way that most churches celebrate the Lord's Supper rather lame (and most attempts to remedy that theologically questionable at best),

Would you like to elaborate on this?

 

[Ploutos]

Would you like to elaborate on this?

No.

 

[TylerRay]

Why don't we just use what Jesus used when he instituted the Supper? The Lord said, "This do in remembrance of me." Who are we to say, "Why don't we just do something like what he did?" Just do what he did. That's the prescription.

As for the argument from the "fruit of the vine" language, how far are you willing to take that? Would you use brandy? Grape jelly? The argument breaks down into absurdity when you try to apply it consistently. Our Lord's meaning is obvious--why try to twist the language to mean something different?

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

Why don't we just use what Jesus used when he instituted the Supper?

Ok that sounds good. So, let's drill down on that a bit.

What cultivar of grape was used to make the wine used at the Institution of the Supper?
Does that cultivar still even exist?
How long did the juice from those grapes ferment?
What was the alcohol content of the wine that resulted?
Was it red wine or white wine?
Was it sweet or dry?
Was it straight wine or was the wine mixed 10:1 with water?


To quote someone else in this thread, "The argument breaks down into absurdity when you try to apply it consistently."

Our Lord's meaning is obvious--why try to twist the language to mean something different?

Wholeheartedly agree. Stick to the drinkable liquid that comes from squeezing regular grapes and everything is fine.

 

[TylerRay]

Ok that sounds good. So, let's drill down on that a bit.

What cultivar of grape was used to make the wine used at the Institution of the Supper?
Does that cultivar still even exist?
How long did the juice from those grapes ferment?
What was the alcohol content of the wine that resulted?
Was it red wine or white wine?
Was it sweet or dry?
Was it straight wine or was the wine mixed 10:1 with water?


To quote someone else in this thread, "The argument breaks down into absurdity when you try to apply it consistently."




Wholeheartedly agree. Stick to the drinkable liquid that comes from squeezing regular grapes and everything is fine.

What isn't revealed isn't part of the prescription. This is basic RPW stuff.

 

[Ploutos]

What isn't revealed isn't part of the prescription. This is basic RPW stuff.

Playing devil's advocate here: should we be partaking of the Lord's Supper reclining around a common table?

 

[TylerRay]

Playing devil's advocate here: should we be partaking of the Lord's Supper reclining around a common table?

The reclining was incidental--it's just how people sat at a table in those days. The table itself is part of the prescription. So, we should sit around a table as we would for a common meal.

 

[Ye_Olde_Heidelberger]

Playing devil's advocate here: should we be partaking of the Lord's Supper reclining around a common table?

Yes. In our congregations, the Lord's Supper is administered at the front of the sanctuary with the congregation seated around a common table. I believe this is -- in addition to the use of real wine and the common cup -- the most faithful application of the RPW. You can read several of our Reformed fathers on the subject here: https://reformedbooksonline.com/topics/topics-by-subject/the-lords-supper/sitting-at-the-table/.

 

[Ploutos]

The reclining was incidental--it's just how people sat at a table in those days. The table itself is part of the prescription. So, we should sit around a table as we would for a common meal.

Who determines what is incidental and what isn't?

 

[TylerRay]

Who determines what is incidental and what isn't?

Ultimately, Christ does. We are to receive the intentional, symbolic, sacramental actions of Christ in the institution as his prescription. There is nothing symbolic about reclining; it's just how people sat at table.

 

[Ploutos]

Ultimately, Christ does. We are to receive the intentional, symbolic, sacramental actions of Christ in the institution as his prescription. There is nothing symbolic about reclining; it's just how people sat at table.

"Christ does" is not a satisfactory answer, because I'm not aware of anybody on any of the sides of this discussion who is intentionally saying that Christ did one thing but we don't care and are going to do something else.

By what interpretive grid is the table deemed significant and the reclining not? And by what interpretive grid are some aspects of the drink deemed significant (such as whether it's red or white, alcoholic or non-alcoholic, common cup or not) and others not (such as the list of details presented by Sean above in his attempted reductio)?

 

[TylerRay]

"Christ does" is not a satisfactory answer, because I'm not aware of anybody on any of the sides of this discussion who is intentionally saying that Christ did one thing but we don't care and are going to do something else.

By what interpretive grid is the table deemed significant and the reclining not? And by what interpretive grid are some aspects of the drink deemed significant (such as whether it's red or white, alcoholic or non-alcoholic, common cup or not) and others not (such as the list of details presented by Sean above in his attempted reductio)?

While it would be wonderful to take the time to meditate on all the rich symbolism in the sacrament, I frankly don't have time to do it. I think it's plain enough to any unpartial Christian that the wine, its alcoholic properties, its red color (white wine didn't exist back then, by the way), the common cup, the common loaf, and the common table are all full of symbolism; whether we recline, sit in chairs, or sit on the floor indian-style is plainly indifferent.

I hope you'll pardon me for not going deepr into these things. I just don't have the time to do it, and I think they're quite evident in themselves.

 

[Ploutos]

While it would be wonderful to take the time to meditate on all the rich symbolism in the sacrament, I frankly don't have time to do it. I think it's plain enough to any unpartial Christian that the wine, its alcoholic properties, its red color (white wine didn't exist back then, by the way), the common cup, the common loaf, and the common table are all full of symbolism; whether we recline, sit in chairs, or sit on the floor indian-style is plainly indifferent.

I hope you'll pardon me for not going deepr into these things. I just don't have the time to do it, and I think they're quite evident in themselves.

It should be plain to you that these things are not equally evident to all. I'm not saying I disagree with you, but you do in fact have a rather elaborate and specific interpretive grid by which you decide which elements are significant and which aren't. This thread alone should be sufficient proof that it's not "plain enough to any unpartial Christian", and that "what is included is prescribed" is not in and of itself a decisive end-all answer to the topic at hand.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Who determines what is incidental and what isn't?

We let Scripture interpret Scripture - when Paul was inspired to reassert how the Lord's Supper should be observed in I Cor. he refers to:

• sitting at a table (cf. 10.21 with 8.10)
• giving thanks and breaking bread (unleavened and sharing from the same loaf it would appear from 11.23 with 5.8, 10.16-17)
• giving thanks and drinking from a shared cup ("After the same manner" as the bread, 11.25, cf. 10.16-21)

Posture, vintage, ABV, cup material, gluten content, room location, day of the week, and the washing of feet are either not recorded in the original institution or are not repeated in Paul's didactic reinstatement.

But, if you do not sit at a table, give thanks, break the bread, and share a cup, you need to have a Biblical reason for not doing so - for replacing what Paul clearly and simply states he received from the Lord and delivered to the Church (11.23).

Everything else would seem to be "incidental" and fall under the "circumstances concerning the worship of God" which are "common to human actions and societies" while also always being "ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word." (WCF 1.6)