Wine during Passover/Lord's Supper (RPW)

[WrittenFromUtopia]

I've been discussing this with an acquaintance.

In an effort to dis-prove the RPW (I wouldn't be surprised if this came from Schlissel), some are arguing that Christ violated any RPW that would be in place by having wine at the Passover meal with His disciples. They claim that wine was a violation of any RPW binding on the celebration of Passover, and that this shows there is no RPW, since Christ participated.

I have argued my position already, but I'm curious to see how you react to this.

Some thoughts ...

- If Christ broke the Law by having wine at Passover, would He not be an imperfect Sacrifice (God forbid the thought)?
- The wine was not for the sake of worship, so it is not regulated by the RPW.
- Wine had been present in Passover celebrations (the four cups remembrance ceremony) since the days of Ezra, according to Jewish teaching.

Anyone care to jump in on this?

 

[BlackCalvinist]

I didn't know that wine was forbidden in the RPW. Can you enlighten me ?

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

You might mis-understand.

To clarify, this person was arguing that wine was not a part of the Passover celebration, so the fact that Jesus and His disciples had wine at Passover shows that there is no RPW, since they would be breaking the RPW by having wine with Passover.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I think I saw this first in Schlissel's pieces against the Regulative Principle of Worship. Is any drink specified in Scripture for the observance of Passover? Schwertley has this reply:

First, Schlissel argues that Jesus partook of the Jewish Seder. What is the evidence for this assertion? There is no evidence! It is simply assumed that since Christ and the apostles had wine with their meal, they also participated in a Seder with its additional rituals. Note: Not one of the Jewish additions"”the ritual of the Seder"”is mentioned in the various accounts of the Last Supper. What about the use of wine? Is the use of wine a violation of the regulative principle, as Schlissel asserts? No, for the passover was a meal, and the drinking of a beverage is an ordinary, necessary circumstance of eating. During the feast of unleavened bread, the Israelites were commanded to eat unleavened bread for seven days (Ex. 12:15ff.). Yet, nothing is mentioned whatsoever of any beverages to be drunk. According to Schlissel´s caricature of the regulative principle, this would be a week when most Israelites would die of thirst. The fact that Christ and the disciples drank wine with their meal was not significant at all until Jesus made it a gospel ordinance in the Lord´s supper. An argument from an historical account must be based on the written account itself, not on assumptions about what happened.

 

[satz]

ok...i am not at all knowledgeable on the RPW, but could that instance have been a 'transition' of sorts of Jesus Christ instituting the Lord's Supper we have today over the passover the jews practiced?

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
You might mis-understand.

To clarify, this person was arguing that wine was not a part of the Passover celebration, so the fact that Jesus and His disciples had wine at Passover shows that there is no RPW, since they would be breaking the RPW by having wine with Passover.

This is a very peculiar argument. As has already been noted, there is no particular beverage commanded to be a part of the Passover, yet wine in the Old Testament is clearly considered a blessing and would have been a natural part of such a meal. The beverage of the Passover meal then was not regulated but the food was. Regardless of whether wine was or was not included in the Passover, and I believe it was the norm (see below), the Lord Jesus Christ most certainly had the authority to institute a sacrament and make any changes that he wished to make (WLC #162). The institution of the Lord's Supper alone -- given that wine is clearly commanded to be an element (WLC #168-169) -- ought to settle the question of the lawfulness of wine in the Lord's Supper. Jesus was without sin. Jesus never broke the RPW (nor did he repeal the RPW, a necessary inference of the Second Commandment). It's a funny argument to make since the usual argument that I hear from today's Christian is that wine is not commanded to be part of the Lord's Supper and the inclusion of wine is not a matter regulated by the RPW.

For further study on the question of wine in the Lord's Supper, I recommend reading the following:

Brian Schwertley's Critque of Steve Schlissel on the Regulative Principle of Worship

William Sprague on the Danger of Being Over-Wise

God Gave Wine by Ken Gentry

Drinking With Calvin and Luther by Jim West

In addition, there is an unpublished paper by a cousin of mine called On the Question of the Necessity of Using Wine in the Lord's Supper and a similar paper called Sacramental Wine by a friend of mine, who is a member of this Board, both well-researched. For access to those, please u2u me for further information.

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 1) 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).

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 'the fruit of the vine'..., a periphrasis doubtless already current in Jewish speech, since it is found in the time-honoured benediction over the wine-cup in Berakh 6.1..." (p. 5309).

Joachim Jeremias. The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, 1966:

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

William Lane. The Gospel According to Mark, (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 1974:

"By his prophetic action in interpreting these familiar parts of the ancient paschal liturgy Jesus instituted something new in which the bread and wine of table-fellowship become the pledge of his saving presence throughout the period of time prior to the parousia and the establishment of the Kingdom of God in its fulness" (pp. 507-508).
"The cup from which Jesus abstained was the fourth, which ordinarily concluded the Passover fellowship. The significance of this can be appreciated from the fact that the four cups of wine were interpreted in terms of the four-fold promise of redemption set forth in Exod. 6:6-7: "I will bring you out ... I will rid you of their bondage ... I will redeem you ... I will take you for my people and I will be your God" (TJ Pesachim X. 37b). Jesus had used the third cup, associated with the promise of redemption, to refer to his atoning death on behalf of the elect community. The cup which he refused was the cup of consummation, associated with the promise that God will take his people to be with him. This is the cup which Jesus will drink with his own in the messianic banquet which inaugurates the saving age to come. The cup of redemption (verse 24), strengthened by the vow of abstinence (verse 25), constitutes the solemn pledge that the fourth cup will be extended and the unfinished meal completed in the consummation, when Messiah eats with redeemed sinners in the Kingdom of God (cf. Lk. 14:15; Rev. 3:20f.; 19:6-9)" (pp508-509).

Norval Geldenhuys. Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 1951:

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

R. C. H. Lenski. The Interpretation of St. Luke's Gospel, 1946:

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

[Edited on 7-22-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Thanks for the replies, brothers. I'm happy to say that I ended up using a similar argument as Schwertley. I too found the "argument" to be laughable at best, and without warrant, misunderstanding the RPW entirely.

 

[Arch2k]

I agree with Andrew. It is important to remember WHAT a sacrament IS.

I. Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ and His benefits; and to confirm our interest in Him: as also, to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church and the rest of the world; and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to His Word.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

 

[S-Seidler]

I am beginning to see cracks in the RPW as we have confessionally understood it. First, of all the excuses made for the wine in this forum and elsewhere at the Last Supper sounds like special pleading to me. We know that cups of wine are not part of the prescribed worship of Passover in Ex. 12, Lev. 23, Deut 16 or anywhere else in Scripture. Before you react please know that I am about to enjoy a nice glass of chardonnay so please do not for a moment think I am advancing the legalism of abstinence. I believe the Lord's Supper ought to be served with fermented wine and unleavened bread but for the most part this is adiaphorus. Now back on point. Let me say I believe Schlissel to be a heretic as he has fallen into the error of Auburn Theology and I do not support his abrogation of the regulative principle. However, I'm not sure we have understood it correctly either and I'm not quite ready to capitulate to Luther and his version of it. First let me clarify what I believe the Puritan and Presbyterian regulative principle is vis a vis Luther's version of RPW. Stated in a pithy way the contrast is evident.

Reformed RPW : In worship one may only implement what God has commanded (prescribed) particularly in relationship to the elements of worship.

Luther's RPW: In worship all things not forbidden are permissible for implementation in worship.

I'm sure there are more complex well crafted statements of the RPW but with respect to being pithy this will do.

Now back to the Passover or the Last Supper. First, of all Jesus never sinned. Second there is a RPW but perhaps we have not properly and critically understood it correctly.

As I stated earlier what all are probably familiar with is the OT nowhere "prescribes" wine to be used during the Passover meal. What many are probably not as familiar with is this:

The basic source for the ancient Passover ceremony is the tract ate Pesachim (from which the Greek word pascha is derived and which is translated as "˜paschal´ in the RSV of 1 Cor 5:7, "˜passover´ in most other modern translations) in the Mishnah, a document that was written down in c. A. D. 200 by Rabbi Judah ha-Nassi. Judah had received it via oral tradition dating back to the great Rabbi Hillel, who lived in the century before Christ. Four ritual cups of wine are used for the Passover. The Mishnah says that even the poorest man in Israel must drink the four ritual cups, even if it means selling all his possessions! The wine used was red and warm/. A prayer is uttered over each cup, and the four verbs of Exodus 6:6-7 are recited, one over each cup. Christ instructed the apostles to "œprepare the Passover" (Mt. 26:17-19; Mk.14:12-15;Lk.22:7-12). The way a first century Jew would have prepared the Passover is the same way he would have always prepared the Passover unless specifically instructed otherwise (argument form silence).

This is clearly the etiology of the cups of wine present at the Passover or Last Supper. Some will say your assuming this there are no other elements of Jewish Seder present (in fact someone on this message board did say this). This is factually false and shows a weak knowledge's of the Jewish Passover as it developed in second temple Judaism.

The "reclining" the "dipping of the sop" stem from tradition as well not proscription in any of the relevant texts Ex.12; Deut 16; Lev 23 et al. To generalize from other OT texts about wine being a blessing therefore being permissible at the Last Supper -because it is a blessing -is special pleading. No one who says that anout the Last Supper will equally say the same for David or Mariam's dancing- being a blessing - thus permissible during the Lord's Supper. The point of the RPW is that if it is not prescribed then it is forbidden. We are rigid with this in all other instances but on this one in order to explain away this difficulty we generalize and import a permissiveness that in all other cases we would reject. Be honest with yourself here. It Ok to continually reform according to Scripture in fact its to be sought after.

Second, Luke mentions two cups (Lk. 22:17; Lk22:20 perhaps a third Lk.22: 42 "may be metaphorical-maybe not") and the first cup is accompanied with a "blessing" or "giving of thanks". Note this first cup is not the one separated apart as the cup to be perpetually used in the LS (see Lk. 22:20 and especially 1 Co 11:25). The cup set apart for the LS is the after dinner cup of the Last Supper/Passover. The first cup Luke mentions is blessed thus it is part of the worship, part of the remembrance. Thus one can not cavalierly dismiss this as simply a beverage to get the old meal down. Thats sloppy exegesis looking for loopholes. Lets be honest. My chardonnay is pretty good about now.
Third, I do not believe Jesus sinned I believe we have erred in our rigid application of RPW and I think the Last Supper exposes this.

There are other "cracks" in the RPW. Purim. I know some will say it was a secular holiday. Hogwash! Israel was a theocracy and what she did she did under God. The edict (Esther's) bound the nation to its practice perpetually. This is never rebuked but presented in a very postive light. The polemic of the Puritans against these two issue are not satisfactory. To compartmentalize Israel's secular life from their religious life is a false dualism. Where is that ever "prescribed" according to RPW? There is no "secular" life of Israel - God's theocracy.

Another crack is the assumption that NT worship and NT churches are patterned after the synagogue and not a blend of the temple with the word based synagogue. Where is this "proscription" set forth in Scripture to pattern the church after the synagogue? Thus the conclusions of the exclusive psalmists who also are contra instrumental accompaniment allegedly being founded on RPW is actually founded on a quasi dispositional view. NT worship spiritual; OT worship physical. NT worship synagogue; OT worship temple. Folks this also is hogwash. The OT worship was spiritual and the NT worship is also physical. Dualism and dispensationalism creeps in. Be on guard.

I've likely ruffled a few feathers but this rigidity is beginning to get under my feathers. Thus I better go and finish up. I'm grateful to see the earnestness and studiousness of you folks who love the Lord not only with your emotions but also your minds. I am looking forward to your feedback.

 

[AdamM]

Thank you Scott. Welcome.


Friends, have you considered that Jesus' use of the cup in inaugurating the Lord's Supper has reference back to Exodus 24, not specifically the Passover? It seems to me that it is helpful to remember that Lord's Supper first is a new sacrament, of course not without reference to what has come before, but the Supper cannot be looked at *just* as a one to one New Covenant Passover, but rather as that to which every OC rite, ceremony and feast pointed toward.

Exodus 24

1 Then he said to Moses, "Come up to the LORD, you and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel. You are to worship at a distance, 2 but Moses alone is to approach the LORD; the others must not come near. And the people may not come up with him."
3 When Moses went and told the people all the LORD's words and laws, they responded with one voice, "Everything the LORD has said we will do." 4 Moses then wrote down everything the LORD had said.
He got up early the next morning and built an altar at the foot of the mountain and set up twelve stone pillars representing the twelve tribes of Israel. 5 Then he sent young Israelite men, and they offered burnt offerings and sacrificed young bulls as fellowship offerings [a] to the LORD. 6 Moses took half of the blood and put it in bowls, and the other half he sprinkled on the altar. 7 Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it to the people. They responded, "We will do everything the LORD has said; we will obey."

8 Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, "This is the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words."

9 Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up 10 and saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was something like a pavement made of sapphire, clear as the sky itself. 11 But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the Israelites; they saw God, and they ate and drank.

[Edited on 9-21-2005 by AdamM]

 

[Texas Aggie]

Christ was the Passover (the meat/sacrifice). He died on Passover (at even) according to the scriptures. The rest of Israel should have been eating their Passover meal about the same time Christ was taken down from the cross and placed in the grave. The last supper was not the Passover meal in accordance with the law. Therefore, the last supper was the initiation of the New Covenant.

The bread and the wine at the last supper signify the New Covenant.... not Passover. The Passover meal was observed the evening prior to the Feast of Unleavened Bread. Passover was the day of preparation.... death "œpassed-over" and God´s people were prepared to leave Egypt the very next morning.