RPW violations - No sin as long as not participating?

[Ryan&Amber2013]

What was the "fruit of the vine" that was in the common cup? Wine.

Why would we assume/conclude that only the cup, and not what was in it, was instituted?

If only the cup itself, and not what was in it, was instituted...then are any/all liquids valid for use in the Lord's Supper? If not, then once you've conceded that "what was in it" was not specifically prescribed, by what criteria do you limit which beverages can be used?

Not to sound trivial, but do you think God is concerned over whether or not there is alcohol present in communion? It might just be me, but that sounds silly. I tend to think that the Kingdom of God is not a matter of what one eats or drinks, but of righteousness. I'm not saying we can just kick down the door and do whatever we want, but I wonder if we are being a bit too nitpicky over whether or not the grapes should be fermented, or if the bread should be leavened or not.

 

[Northern Crofter]

What was the "fruit of the vine" that was in the common cup?

The fruit of the vine.

Why would we assume/conclude that only the cup, and not what was in it, was instituted?

Because that is what Scripture states: "This cup is the New Testament in my blood: this do as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me." (I Cor.11.25). Consider how frequently the New Testament employs the symbol of the singular "cup" (over 30 times).

...by what criteria do you limit which beverages can be used?

The fruit of the vine is what is put forth in Scripture. The age, vintage, ABV of it is not so I have no criteria for that. I prefer a strong wine because it seems wiser than little or no alcohol when sharing the cup.

 

[CGS]

Not to sound trivial, but do you think God is concerned over whether or not there is alcohol present in communion? It might just be me, but that sounds silly. I tend to think that the Kingdom of God is not a matter of what one eats or drinks, but of righteousness. I'm not saying we can just kick down the door and do whatever we want, but I wonder if we are being a bit too nitpicky over whether or not the grapes should be fermented, or if the bread should be leavened or not.

I do think that God is very concerned - even as it pertains to the most minor/silly details (minor or silly to us that is) - about how we worship Him. Consider the detailed instructions in regard to the construction of the tabernacle in the time of Moses. Every minute aspect (even things that might seem silly to us) of the construction of the tabernacle was prescribed by God, nothing was left to man’s imagination. So, if God prescribed that fermented wine be used to symbolically represent His Son's blood, then, yes, I do think He is very concerned that we do as He commanded. We may arrive at different conclusions about whether or not God has actually prescribed wine, but I do think he is concerned about the details in worship.

We may think it's silly that the table in the tabernacle had to be made of acacia wood and not cedar, or some other wood. And does it really matter if it's 2.5 cubits long instead of 2 cubits? It matters to God. (Exodus 25:23)

I do agree with some of the previous comments about grape juice not being a significant enough corruption to invalidate it being the Lord's Supper, but it is a corruption nevertheless.

 

[Northern Crofter]

It's worth pointing out that "wine" basically meant "fruit of the vine" in those days. The level of fermentation didn't affect whether it was called "wine" or not. Basically anything squeezed from a grape was called "wine" and there was a gradient in the level of fermentation, not a clear distinction like we treat it today.

The Latin "vinum" is where we in English get our "vine", "wine" and "vinegar".

Point being, even though what they had was for practical purposes almost always fermented, what they thought of when they wrote "wine" isn't exactly what we think of when we read "wine".

And before the 19th century and the advent of pasteurizing grape juice, all stored grape juice naturally turned to either wine or vinegar. As has been noted before, the pasteurizing of grape juice was a purposeful act by teetoalling American Wesleyans. See this earlier thread: 'Should you partake?' https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/should-you-partake.113339/post-1359165

if God prescribed that fermented wine be used to symbolically represent His Son's blood,

Where is this prescribed? Must it be red? White? Vinegar? Mixed? (Consider John 19.34) Must it be a vintage from Palestine? Must it be from a grape vine? Did not Calvin and others allow water to be used if necessary? What would best symbolically represent Christ's blood is subjective. This why I believe the focus should be on the sharing of the cup. Again, consider the focus Scripture places on the cup.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

I do think that God is very concerned - even as it pertains to the most minor/silly details (minor or silly to us that is) - about how we worship Him. Consider the detailed instructions in regard to the construction of the tabernacle in the time of Moses. Every minute aspect (even things that might seem silly to us) of the construction of the tabernacle was prescribed by God, nothing was left to man’s imagination. So, if God prescribed that fermented wine be used to symbolically represent His Son's blood, then, yes, I do think He is very concerned that we do as He commanded. We may arrive at different conclusions about whether or not God has actually prescribed wine, but I do think he is concerned about the details in worship.

We may think it's silly that the table in the tabernacle had to be made of acacia wood and not cedar, or some other wood. And does it really matter if it's 2.5 cubits long instead of 2 cubits? It matters to God. (Exodus 25:23)

I do agree with some of the previous comments about grape juice not being a significant enough corruption to invalidate it being the Lord's Supper, but it is a corruption nevertheless.

I agree that where God gives a specific instruction, we need to be careful to obey. So for sure when giving instructions and laws in the Old Covenant, yes he wanted very specific obedience to those things. I don't see that same language when it comes to the Lord's table. I very well could be wrong, but under the New Covenant I see a major change in that God does not seem to regulate every detail about the Christian life. In fact I see quite the opposite. This covenant seems to have much more of a sense of freedom from rules and forms. And I say this as one who has a regulative principle mindset.

God gives us a few elements as Christians and that's it. We have His Word and the Spirit to guide and empower us, and much freedom from burdens of rules and regulations.

 

[CGS]

I agree that where God gives a specific instruction, we need to be careful to obey. So for sure when giving instructions and laws in the Old Covenant, yes he wanted very specific obedience to those things. I don't see that same language when it comes to the Lord's table. I very well could be wrong, but under the New Covenant I see a major change in that God does not seem to regulate every detail about the Christian life. In fact I see quite the opposite. And I say this is one who has a regulative principle mindset.

Note that I said "We may arrive at different conclusions about whether or not God has actually prescribed wine" in my post.

 

[CGS]

And before the 19th century and the advent of pasteurizing grape juice, all stored grape juice naturally turned to either wine or vinegar. As has been noted before, the pasteurizing of grape juice was a purposeful act by teetoalling American Wesleyans. See this earlier thread: 'Should you partake?' https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/should-you-partake.113339/post-1359165

Where is this prescribed? Must it be red? White? Vinegar? Mixed? (Consider John 19.34) Must it be a vintage from Palestine? Must it be from a grape vine? Did not Calvin and others allow water to be used if necessary? What would best symbolically represent Christ's blood is subjective. This why I believe the focus should be on the sharing of the cup. Again, consider the focus Scripture places on the cup.

My understanding is that "fruit of the vine" would have always meant fermented wine to the original audience. It is also my understanding that grape juice begins to ferment almost immediately, and therefore grape juice (as used in churches today) would not even have existed until 1869 when Mr. Welch figured out how to use pasteurization to prevent the fermentation. It seems to me that the argument that it could have been unfermented grape juice that Jesus used when He instituted the Lord's Supper is not worthy of serious consideration.

So we can easily conclude that Jesus undoubtedly used fermented wine when He instituted the Lord’s Supper. And it's reasonable to think that it would have been red if the intent was to symbolically represent His blood. After all, blood is red. But beyond this I will not speculate. We can at the very least have 100% confidence that it was fermented wine even if we don't know the specifics of the color, vintage, alcohol content, etc. And we know for sure it was not unfermented grape juice since that did not exist until 1869.

I don't see the same emphasis on the cup (as separated from what's in the cup) in the Scriptures or the Westminster Standards that you do. And I don't see the relevance of John 19:34. Isn't it what is in the cup - and not the cup itself - that symbolically represents the blood of the New Covenant?

 

[Northern Crofter]

And I don't see the relevance of John 19:34

The water separating from the red blood cells proves Christ died (as opposed to the various swoon theories). So water is just as symbolic of death as red wine. I John 5.8?

Isn't it what is in the cup - and not the cup itself - that symbolically represents the blood of the New Covenant?

What does I Cor.11 say? This cup is the New Testament in my blood: this do as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me." (emphasis added) Are we drinking the cup or the blood? As a non-transubstantionist, I focus on sharing the cup. See Matt. 20.22-23 and similar passages.

 

[CGS]

The water separating from the red blood cells proves Christ died (as opposed to the various swoon theories). So water is just as symbolic of death as red wine. I John 5.8?


What does I Cor.11 say? This cup is the New Testament in my blood: this do as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me." (emphasis added) Are we drinking the cup or the blood? As a non-transubstantionist, I focus on sharing the cup. See Matt. 20.22-23 and similar passages.

So, are you suggesting that John 19:34 and 1 John 5:8 authorize the use of water in the Lord's Supper?

Do you think what is in the cup is a matter of indifference? Would it be OK to use tomato juice (which could be considered a fruit of the vine)?

The Westminster Standards clearly state that bread and wine, not bread and the cup, are the elements of the sacrament. They don't put the emphasis on the cup: "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, and thereby to set them apart from a common to a holy use; and to take and break the bread, to take the cup, and (they communicating also themselves) to give both to the communicants; but to none who are not then present in the congregation."
- WCF 29.3 using 1 Cor. 11 as one of the proof texts

And from Mark 14:
23 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank from it. 24 “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them. 25 “Truly I tell you, I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”

How does a cup (made of non-liquid materials: clay, glass, steel, plastic, etc.) symbolically represent "blood" and something that is "poured out"?

And...what does being a non-transubstantiationist have to do with it?

 

[Northern Crofter]

So, are you suggesting that John 19:34 and 1 John 5:8 authorize the use of water in the Lord's Supper?

I'm not sure what you mean by "authorize." I believe water is allowable as many (Calvin comes to mind) have noted in the past.

Do you think what is in the cup is a matter of indifference? Would it be OK to use tomato juice (which could be considered a fruit of the vine)?

No. Yes.

The Westminster Standards clearly state that bread and wine, not bread and the cup, are the elements of the sacrament. They don't put the emphasis on the cup: "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, and thereby to set them apart from a common to a holy use; and to take and break the bread, to take the cup, and (they communicating also themselves) to give both to the communicants; but to none who are not then present in the congregation."
- WCF 29.3 using 1 Cor. 11 as one of the proof texts

In quoting the WCF, I notice you neglected to bold this part: "take and break the bread, to take the cup..." To be clear, I do believe the elements when instituted were unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine. But the participation in such when instututed also required breaking and sharing bread, and taking and sharing a cup.

And from Mark 14:
23 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank from it. 24 “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them. 25 “Truly I tell you, I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”

How does a cup (made of non-liquid materials: clay, glass, steel, plastic, etc.) symbolically represent "blood" and something that is "poured out?"

What is the "it" and "this" in v.23 and 24 respectively referring to? Again, do a quick search and read through all the references of "the cup" in the New Testament (if you have time, study the many references in the Old that the New is drawing the symbolism from). You pour out of something, like a cup. Blood is what is poured out. So, yes, the pouring out - the emptying of the cup - is the symbol of Christ’s death, just as it is the breaking of the bread and not the bread itself that is the symbol. You cannot, of course, have one without the other, but I have observed over many years that all of focus on what is in the cup seems too often to overlook the meaning and symbolism of the cup itself.

And...what does being a non-transubstantiationist have to do with it?

Part of the transubstantiation argument is that the wine is in and of itself the blood of Christ. It neglects the symbolism of the cup which was for many centuries denied to the people. Restoring the cup to the people was a major tenet of reform. I would argue it should be once again.

 

[CGS]

I'm not sure what you mean by "authorize." I believe water is allowable as many (Calvin comes to mind) have noted in the past.


No. Yes.


In quoting the WCF, I notice you neglected to bold this part: "take and break the bread, to take the cup..." To be clear, I do believe the elements when instituted were unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine. But the participation in such when instututed also required breaking and sharing bread, and taking and sharing a cup.


What is the "it" and "this" in v.23 and 24 respectively referring to? Again, do a quick search and read through all the references of "the cup" in the New Testament (if you have time, study the many references in the Old that the New is drawing the symbolism from). You pour out of something, like a cup. Blood is what is poured out. So, yes, the pouring out - the emptying of the cup - is the symbol of Christ’s death, just as it is the breaking of the bread and not the bread itself that is the symbol. You cannot, of course, have one without the other, but I have observed over many years that all of focus on what is in the cup seems too often to overlook the meaning and symbolism of the cup itself.

Part of the transubstantiation argument is that the wine is in and of itself the blood of Christ. It neglects the symbolism of the cup which was for many centuries denied to the people. Restoring the cup to the people was a major tenet of reform. I would argue it should be once again.

I think we are at that point where we just have to agree to disagree on this one, but thank you for the discussion.

 

[Northern Crofter]

I think we are at that point where we just have to agree to disagree on this one, but thank you for the discussion.

Thank you, too, for the brotherly back-and-forth.

If you would indulge me one final query, just because I am curious (so no explanation needed and I will not respond), if you had to choose between 2 congregations that were in all points equal except one used fermented wine in individual shot glasses and the other used unfermented grape juice in a common cup, which would you choose?

 

[CGS]

Thank you, too, for the brotherly back-and-forth.

If you would indulge me one final query, just because I am curious (so no explanation needed and I will not respond), if you had to choose between 2 congregations that were in all points equal except one used fermented wine in individual shot glasses and the other used unfermented grape juice in a common cup, which would you choose?

I'd choose the one that used fermented wine.

 

[thegoadfather]

Thank you, too, for the brotherly back-and-forth.

If you would indulge me one final query, just because I am curious (so no explanation needed and I will not respond), if you had to choose between 2 congregations that were in all points equal except one used fermented wine in individual shot glasses and the other used unfermented grape juice in a common cup, which would you choose?

I know this was not directed to me, but it is an interesting question. I agree with you that the one cup is very important, and where I am right now I wouldn’t partake in either but if I had to choose I’d choose one cup with unfermented grape juice over wine in individual cups.

 

[Phil D.]

I believe water is allowable as many (Calvin comes to mind) have noted in the past.

Can you point to where Calvin said that?

 

[C4MERON]

Howbeit, it is interesting that the Lord, when instituting the supper, mentions the taking of ‘bread’ and the taking of the ‘cup’. One is a reference to what is eaten, and the other could have been a clear reference to what is drank but instead is a reference to what contains the drink. The Lord could have made reference to what is drank but decided not to.

 

[CGS]

Howbeit, it is interesting that the Lord, when instituting the supper, mentions the taking of ‘bread’ and the taking of the ‘cup’. One is a reference to what is eaten, and the other could have been a clear reference to what is drank but instead is a reference to what contains the drink. The Lord could have made reference to what is drank but decided not to.

One can take hold of bread (a solid) directly with just one's hands. A container is not needed to hold bread or pass it around. But how would one take hold of wine (a liquid) unless it was in some type of vessel or container, i.e. a cup?

Vos says this in his Reformed Dogmatics: The wine in the cup is this blood of the new covenant. The "this" can again not refer to anything else but the wine. When Luke and Paul say "this cup," the content of the cup is meant, that which is to be drunk [bold emphasis added], as Scripture speaks elsewhere of the drinking of a cup.

It's a type of figure of speech where the container/vessel (the cup) is substituted for the contents of the vessel (the wine).

Vos says something similar about "the table of the Lord": This is to be understood as a metonym. The table stands for everything that belongs to it and is used from it.

Thomas Watson says in one of his sermons on the 10 commandments that when Christ took the cup, “The cup is put by a metonymy of the subject for the adjunct, for the wine in the cup. [bold emphasis added] It signifies the blood of Christ shed for our sins. The taking of the cup denotes the redundancy of merit in Christ, and the fulness of our redemption by him. He not only took the bread, but the cup."

None of this is necessarily to say that the cup has no significance whatsoever, but the emphasis should clearly be on what is in the container (the wine signifying the blood) and not on the container (the cup). The cup is a necessary circumstance - we can't take hold of the wine or drink it without a container to hold the liquid - but the wine is the element. Why would we emphasize the circumstance over the element?

 

[Solparvus]

Can you point to where Calvin said that?

See here.

"“In 1557, Jean de Lery, a missionary who had travelled with Gaspard de Coligny to Brazil (‘Francia antarctica’) for founding a Huguenot colony, had asked Calvin if he could use water and local food as wine and grain were not available in Brazil. Calvin granted the request, but his letter has not been preserved. Beza quotes from it.” – Synopsis of a Purer Theology 3.191-2, fn. 34"

However, addressing the matter generally, these are extraordinary circumstances, and not the norm. The former doesn't regulate the latter.

We need to keep a distinction between natural law and positive law. Natural law may never change, or God himself must change. ie. murder, blasphemy, etc. cannot be made lawful without making God a sinner. Positive laws--what animal is sacrificed, by whom, what food offerings are presented, where to worship--are not moral in themselves, and they may be changed without God undergoing a moral change, but we have moral obligation to do them as prescribed because God commanded them (Ex. 25:40, Heb. 8:5).

The drink of the Lord's Supper is positive and it makes no moral difference whether it's wine, grape juice, orange juice, or water, apart from the Lord's commanding it; nevertheless God commanded something other than water, and so if water is going to be used, there must be an argument that the positive law is just not workable. Israelites who could not keep Passover in the first month were allowed to do it in the second month, but again, that was for extraordinary reasons, and it was expected that some reasonable effort would be made to keep it in the original month.