Should you partake?

[Parakaleo]

Just thinking out loud here. What if everyone who prefers wine (because it is Christ's choice) did not partake unless wine was served? Instead of thinking, "This deviation is minor," what if people said, "I'm not going to personally join in with deviations in the worship of God, no matter how small,"?

 

[Andres]

I personally prefer wine, but I could also see it as a stumbling block to children and congregants who don't drink alcohol at all for various reasons.

Define "children". Those coming to the table would be communicants of reasonable age. Secondly, partaking of the sacraments isn't about our preferences. I know many people who prefer to abstain from alcohol but partake of wine in the LS.

 

[Jake]

Excuse my ignorance here.. in the same manner, why do churches use grape juice instead of wine today, and is it a widespread thing?

Here is an interesting account that tells some of the history of the RPCNA in particular: https://gentlereformation.com/2015/04/03/j-g-voss-temperate-views-on-temperance/

I'll note that the mentioned vow for officers against drinking alcohol was only removed in 1998, and the RPCNA testimony (essentially her confessional documents) still reads "To prevent damage to our neighbor, to provide mutual help in godly living, and to strengthen each other in living a disciplined life it is altogether wise and proper that Christians refrain from the use, sale and manufacture of alcoholic beverages."

Many Presbyterian denominations took strong stances against alcohol (my own included), but as far as I know, the RPCNA was the strongest because of its history of political action and activity. Prohibition was one of the main political movements in the denomination. These calls against alcohol led many churches not wanting to serve an alcoholic drink, wine, in communion.

Today most American Protestants use grape juice in communion, or if they do have wine, have both wine and grape juice available.

 

[Andres]

Here is an interesting account that tells some of the history of the RPCNA in particular: https://gentlereformation.com/2015/04/03/j-g-voss-temperate-views-on-temperance/

I'll note that the mentioned vow for officers against drinking alcohol was only removed in 1998, and the RPCNA testimony (essentially her confessional documents) still reads "To prevent damage to our neighbor, to provide mutual help in godly living, and to strengthen each other in living a disciplined life it is altogether wise and proper that Christians refrain from the use, sale and manufacture of alcoholic beverages."

Many Presbyterian denominations took strong stances against alcohol (my own included), but as far as I know, the RPCNA was the strongest because of its history of political action and activity. Prohibition was one of the main political movements in the denomination. These calls against alcohol led many churches not wanting to serve an alcoholic drink, wine, in communion.

Today most American Protestants use grape juice in communion, or if they do have wine, have both wine and grape juice available.

Will just add that the vows to abstain from alcohol always allowed for the exception of communion.

 

[Jake]

Just thinking out loud here. What if everyone who prefers wine (because it is Christ's choice) did not partake unless wine was served? Instead of thinking, "This deviation is minor," what if people said, "I'm not going to personally join in with deviations in the worship of God, no matter how small,"?

Did Christ prefer unleavened bread because it was used at the last supper, or did he use the bread available and the purpose was not primarily what type of bread was used? I think any kind of bread is fine for communion, and ordinary bread for the culture is best, which is generally leavened in our culture.

 

[Logan]

Just thinking out loud here. What if everyone who prefers wine (because it is Christ's choice) did not partake unless wine was served? Instead of thinking, "This deviation is minor," what if people said, "I'm not going to personally join in with deviations in the worship of God, no matter how small,"?

To consider it a deviation, it seems to me that you would first need to establish that alcoholic or fermented fruit of the vine (and not just "fruit of the vine") is specifically what was instituted. You would also need to establish that it was not just a circumstance of the time period or the setting in which it was celebrated.

We can deduce just from the time of the year that what was in the cup was probably fermented. That is different from saying that it must be fermented---and it's still a probability, not a certainty because the texts don't mention that specific.

On the other hand, we can deduce from the circumstance (Passover) that there was no leaven in the house and thus the bread would have been strictly unleavened bread. That's practically a certainty. Yet the Reformed have historically and consistently argued that it doesn't matter what kind of bread.

Is it consistent to argue that what was used in the one case (unleavened bread) was merely circumstantial and can be "deviated" from, and the other (probably fermented wine) is not? Are you also prepared to take a stand on unleavened bread and argue that you will not join in with "deviations in the worship of God, no matter how small" over that as well?

I would also note that we are already "deviating" from the drink by not using the same type of drink that was used. In my view it's not a deviation because the specific type of fruit of the vine and the specific presence or ratio of alcohol, was not important. What was important was what it symbolized: the blood of the New Testament, shed for the remission of sins, and that symbolism is present whether alcohol is or not.

I wouldn't advocate for "deviation" for the sake of deviation or from some prohibitionist principle though.

 

[alexanderjames]

What's the difference?

The difference is that grape juice is not fermented, non-alcoholic wine is but just has the alcohol removed afterwards. I do not consider grape juice as "unfermented wine" because again, fermentation is the key process in winemaking.

Thanks for your reply to my other question.

 

[itsreed]

In what manner is wine symbolic of blood? That is, what is symbolic import of wine in the Lord’s Supper? Simple answer: It sacramentally pictures Jesus’ giving of his (life) blood for the life (blood) owed by his guilty people.

The taste of blood surely is not a part of this symbolic import. In a context where even the blood with the meat was forbidden, how would the non-experienced taste of (man’s) blood even be connected to the (purportedly) similar taste of the juice of the vine?

Is it not merely the connection b/w the color of the two items that makes their symbolic connection?

 

[Northern Crofter]

The difference is that grape juice is not fermented, non-alcoholic wine is but just has the alcohol removed afterwards. I do not consider grape juice as "unfermented wine" because again, fermentation is the key process in winemaking.

This just seems odd because I thought you were arguing for wine being "natural":

it seems more natural to think the important process of wine is the fermentation, and the alcohol as a byproduct is relatively unimportant.

Making wine (or allowing grape juice to naturally ferment which it will normally do if not pasteurized) and then removing the alcohol seems unnatural.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Did Christ prefer unleavened bread because it was used at the last supper, or did he use the bread available and the purpose was not primarily what type of bread was used? I think any kind of bread is fine for communion, and ordinary bread for the culture is best, which is generally leavened in our culture.

...we can deduce from the circumstance (Passover) that there was no leaven in the house and thus the bread would have been strictly unleavened bread. That's practically a certainty. Yet the Reformed have historically and consistently argued that it doesn't matter what kind of bread.

I've never been able to definitively answer that for my own conscience sake. On one hand, leaven in Scripture is predominately a symbol of sin (I can only think of one example where it is not), even in the New Testament, so it would make a better symbol (in the Old Testament, leaven could not be present in any sacrifice). On the other hand, we are not completely sure Christ was using unleavened bread in the upper room - there is debate as to what would have been eaten that night and whether or not the Feast of Unleavened Bread had yet begun (John is clear in 13.1 that "Now before the feast of the Passover...").

So I prefer to only hold to what I know from Scripture - the cup was shared and bread was broken. I believe going beyond that (extra-Biblical and subjective symbolism included) can enter into the dangerous territory of binding the conscience of self or others.

 

[LittleFaith]

God hasn't set me up as an authority in my church or any other. The bride of Christ is imperfect and it is to the bride of Christ that I am to attach myself, even in imperfectly administered sacraments and imperfectly proclaimed teaching.

That's a roundabout way of saying that I would partake if grape juice was the only option, and I would strongly caution anyone who asked me (so far, no one ever has!) to not separate themselves from the body of Christ or his table over such a minor matter.

 

[Sam Jer]

I've never been able to definitively answer that for my own conscience sake. On one hand, leaven in Scripture is predominately a symbol of sin (I can only think of one example where it is not), even in the New Testament, so it would make a better symbol (in the Old Testament, leaven could not be present in any sacrifice). On the other hand, we are not completely sure Christ was using unleavened bread in the upper room - there is debate as to what would have been eaten that night and whether or not the Feast of Unleavened Bread had yet begun (John is clear in 13.1 that "Now before the feast of the Passover...").

So I prefer to only hold to what I know from Scripture - the cup was shared and bread was broken. I believe going beyond that (extra-Biblical and subjective symbolism included) can enter into the dangerous territory of binding the conscience of self or others.

I ‭‭came across this passage the other day —

Leviticus 7:11-18:
¹¹ And this is the law of the sacrifice of peace offerings, which he shall offer unto the LORD. ¹² If he offer it for a thanksgiving, then he shall offer with the sacrifice of thanksgiving unleavened cakes mingled with oil, and unleavened wafers anointed with oil, and cakes mingled with oil, of fine flour, fried. ¹³ Besides the cakes, he shall offer for his offering leavened bread with the sacrifice of thanksgiving of his peace offerings. ¹⁴ And of it he shall offer one out of the whole oblation for an heave offering unto the LORD, and it shall be the priest's that sprinkleth the blood of the peace offerings. ¹⁵ And the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgiving shall be eaten the same day that it is offered; he shall not leave any of it until the morning. ¹⁶ But if the sacrifice of his offering be a vow, or a voluntary offering, it shall be eaten the same day that he offereth his sacrifice: and on the morrow also the remainder of it shall be eaten: ¹⁷ but the remainder of the flesh of the sacrifice on the third day shall be burnt with fire. ¹⁸ And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings be eaten at all on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed unto him that offereth it: it shall be an abomination, and the soul that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity.

So I am not sure the Levitical Law can be invoked for unleavened bread. Besides, all sacrifices were salted with salt and I know of no command to add salt on the elements of communion.

 

[alexanderjames]

This just seems odd because I thought you were arguing for wine being "natural":

Making wine (or allowing grape juice to naturally ferment which it will normally do if not pasteurized) and then removing the alcohol seems unnatural.

I see your point, and agree it’s not natural in that sense. But that wasn’t actually my argument. I used the word “natural” with the meaning of making more sense to natural reason, when I said -

it would seem natural to insist that wine used in the Lord’s Supper, normatively speaking, should be red as the communication of the Lord’s blood.

 

[alexandermsmith]

God hasn't set me up as an authority in my church or any other. The bride of Christ is imperfect and it is to the bride of Christ that I am to attach myself, even in imperfectly administered sacraments and imperfectly proclaimed teaching.

That's a roundabout way of saying that I would partake if grape juice was the only option, and I would strongly caution anyone who asked me (so far, no one ever has!) to not separate themselves from the body of Christ or his table over such a minor matter.

The right administration of the sacraments is one of the three marks of a true church. This is not a question where we can delegate our conscience to another. There are areas of flexibility. For example, I would prefer communion administered with only one cup, but in our congregation we have always used a few cups (usually one per pew). There is still the essential element of sharing the cup. For each person to have his own cup, or "shot glass" as in many churches in Scotland, that would be contrary to the right administration of the sacrament. We are to assemble with the visible church, indeed, but that doesn't mean every assembly calling itself a church is a true church. There is no perfect church but there are times when a church becomes too imperfect.

 

[DanSSwing]

Define "children". Those coming to the table would be communicants of reasonable age. Secondly, partaking of the sacraments isn't about our preferences. I know many people who prefer to abstain from alcohol but partake of wine in the LS.

Those who are young but have made a credible profession of faith, have been baptized, and are able to "examine themselves."

 

[LittleFaith]

There is no perfect church but there are times when a church becomes too imperfect.

Agreed. I just don't think serving grape juice rises to that level.

 

[Andres]

Those who are young but have made a credible profession of faith, have been baptized, and are able to "examine themselves."

How old do you think that is? Probably for another thread but I found this profitable - Age of Admission to the Lord's Table.

 

[Northern Crofter]

I ‭‭came across this passage the other day —

Leviticus 7:11-18:
¹¹ And this is the law of the sacrifice of peace offerings, which he shall offer unto the LORD. ¹² If he offer it for a thanksgiving, then he shall offer with the sacrifice of thanksgiving unleavened cakes mingled with oil, and unleavened wafers anointed with oil, and cakes mingled with oil, of fine flour, fried. ¹³ Besides the cakes, he shall offer for his offering leavened bread with the sacrifice of thanksgiving of his peace offerings. ¹⁴ And of it he shall offer one out of the whole oblation for an heave offering unto the LORD, and it shall be the priest's that sprinkleth the blood of the peace offerings. ¹⁵ And the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgiving shall be eaten the same day that it is offered; he shall not leave any of it until the morning. ¹⁶ But if the sacrifice of his offering be a vow, or a voluntary offering, it shall be eaten the same day that he offereth his sacrifice: and on the morrow also the remainder of it shall be eaten: ¹⁷ but the remainder of the flesh of the sacrifice on the third day shall be burnt with fire. ¹⁸ And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings be eaten at all on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed unto him that offereth it: it shall be an abomination, and the soul that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity.

So I am not sure the Levitical Law can be invoked for unleavened bread. Besides, all sacrifices were salted with salt and I know of no command to add salt on the elements of communion.

I ‭‭came across this passage the other day —

Leviticus 7:11-18:
¹¹ And this is the law of the sacrifice of peace offerings, which he shall offer unto the LORD. ¹² If he offer it for a thanksgiving, then he shall offer with the sacrifice of thanksgiving unleavened cakes mingled with oil, and unleavened wafers anointed with oil, and cakes mingled with oil, of fine flour, fried. ¹³ Besides the cakes, he shall offer for his offering leavened bread with the sacrifice of thanksgiving of his peace offerings. ¹⁴ And of it he shall offer one out of the whole oblation for an heave offering unto the LORD, and it shall be the priest's that sprinkleth the blood of the peace offerings. ¹⁵ And the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgiving shall be eaten the same day that it is offered; he shall not leave any of it until the morning. ¹⁶ But if the sacrifice of his offering be a vow, or a voluntary offering, it shall be eaten the same day that he offereth his sacrifice: and on the morrow also the remainder of it shall be eaten: ¹⁷ but the remainder of the flesh of the sacrifice on the third day shall be burnt with fire. ¹⁸ And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings be eaten at all on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed unto him that offereth it: it shall be an abomination, and the soul that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity.

So I am not sure the Levitical Law can be invoked for unleavened bread. Besides, all sacrifices were salted with salt and I know of no command to add salt on the elements of communion.

Good point - I think I was only remembering no leaven being sacrificed on the alter - I forgot about heave/waive offerings. Regardless, I think it still points to the fact that either way can be used to justify either way today, all the more reason to not bind the conscience in the current dispensation.

 

[DanSSwing]

How old do you think that is? Probably for another thread but I found this profitable - Age of Admission to the Lord's Table.

I was ready at the age of 5.