Wine? or Grape Juice?

[CalvinandHodges]

Hay:

Faith seeing the risen Christ is the essence of the Sacrament. So, I don't think there is a real problem using Wine or Grape Juice in the Lord's Supper. However, I think that Wine is the right element in the Sacrament.

The only argument that I have heard for Grape Juice is that using Wine may trip up some members in a congregation who are prone to drunkeness. However, when Jesus made 80 gallons of Wine He did not seem concerned about it. Is this Grape Juice argument being a bit over pious?

I polled the majority of the elders in my church, and they seem to think that Wine is correct. But we use Grape Juice? This is rather perplexing to me??

What do you think?

-CH

 

[Davidius]

Hay:

Faith seeing the risen Christ is the essence of the Sacrament. So, I don't think there is a real problem using Wine or Grape Juice in the Lord's Supper. However, I think that Wine is the right element in the Sacrament.

I agree that wine is the proper element.

The only argument that I have heard for Grape Juice is that using Wine may trip up some members in a congregation who are prone to drunkeness. However, when Jesus made 80 gallons of Wine He did not seem concerned about it. Is this Grape Juice argument being a bit over pious?

Should we stop serving bread to those who are prone to over-eating? What about those who are on the Atkins diet?

I polled the majority of the elders in my church, and they seem to think that Wine is correct. But we use Grape Juice? This is rather perplexing to me??

Did you ask them why they use grape juice if they think that wine would be correct? Is it because of the "stumbling" issue you mentioned? At my church we have a split-tray but some of us have been inquiring with the elders about having that changed to just wine.

Does anyone know when the use of grape juice instead of wine became widespread?

 

[Davidius]

Just a question (..oh, but its NEVER "just" a question, is it......?)....


Is it inconsistent for a Presbyterian to say that it does not matter what mode baptism is, but that it MUST be wine for the Lord's Supper?

Likewise, is it inconsistent for a baptist to say, "It must be immersion because this seems to be the best evidenced NT norm, but then say, it doesn't matter if you drink wine or grape juice - it is still the Lord's Supper."



It seems like a strictness of mode or material in one ordanance would lead to a strictness in the other...but I rarely see this in practice. Why?

Presbyterians will still consider baptisms done by immersion valid baptisms but if a person comes to be baptized in a (conservative) Presbyterian church they don't just get their choice. It should be done by sprinkling/pouring but we're not going to call your baptism false and make you get re-baptized if you were immersed (which many Baptists would do to Presbyterians, correct me if I'm wrong). In the same way, Robert noted that it would be better for wine to be used but that the efficacy of the sacrament doesn't depend on that. If I were on a trip and visited a church where I had to receive communion with grape juice I wouldn't freak out about it, but I would be glad to get home and have the wine.

 

[JOwen]

It is interesting to see this come up on PB at this time. Recently our own congregation faced this particular issue when a new family requested grape juice. I was torn myself.
I have never used anything but wine in the 3 congregations I have served. I still think wine is the norm. However, for the sake of the weaker brother, I did investigate the subject and presented a short paper to our Consistory. We decided to allow the innermost ring (5 cups) to contain GJ. Since this paper was given, a new member has informed us that she too would like grape juice for medical reasons (she can't drink alcohol or cough medicine for medical reasons). If you'd like the paper in .pdf format, email me at [email protected].

Blessings,
JL

 

[PresReformed]

The Bible speaks only of wine being used in the Lord's Supper, and for those denominations that claim to adhere to the Westminster Standards....only wine is mentioned for use in the sacrament.

 

[Archlute]

I am inclined to think that the higher principle of love in the church applies in this matter. This can be one of the great weaknesses of focusing upon the confessional standards, they emphasize the cognitive/doctrinal and are not as strong at getting people to the experiential and the practical. Notice I did not say that they do not include the experiential and the practical themselves. I have seen a session write a 40pp paper on why they were not going to bend on the issue, and I thought that it was an ugly shame that it was found among the body of Christ; mere strong arming. There was absolutely no concern for the people under them who had issues of conscience.

I believe that there is a real danger of the Pharisaic trap of seeking to honor the Lord in the externals of worship (and to show off the prowess of our exegetical/theological/historical skills at the same time), while yet displeasing Him in the treatment of His people, of whose care we must give account on the last day. Is it an important issue to think through? Sure. Do I think that wine should be used if at all possible? Absolutely. Is it important enough an issue over which to wound the faith and consciences of weaker brethren? Never.

Applications of biblical and theological truth always call for pastoral wisdom, and this issue is a prime example of a time when that wisdom, and the gentleness of Christ towards His people, is called for.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Interesting. We have gone completely to something other than wine (for a similar situation; recovering alcoholics); I think denatured wine, at least I was told that the after I first remarked, mmh, the wine certainly has been tasting pretttty bad lately. But someone is experimenting as it seems to taste different every week. Some of it tasted pretty sweet. So we may be having juice sometimes (strictly speaking the Westminster Standards say wine, not fruit of the vine). I know what welches tastes like and we haven't had that at least. Logistically perhaps trying a split tray is too difficult the way we do things; or perhaps the unity in one type of drink is the question. We don't have both wine and the other. Dunno.
Is someone who is allergic to wine, also allergic to denatured wine?

It is interesting to see this come up on PB at this time. Recently our own congregation faced this particular issue when a new family requested grape juice. I was torn myself.
I have never used anything but wine in the 3 congregations I have served. I still think wine is the norm. However, for the sake of the weaker brother, I did investigate the subject and presented a short paper to our Consistory. We decided to allow the innermost ring (5 cups) to contain GJ. Since this paper was given, a new member has informed us that she too would like grape juice for medical reasons (she can't drink alcohol or cough medicine for medical reasons). If you'd like the paper in .pdf format, email me at [email protected].

Blessings,
JL

 

[Theoretical]

My question is whether the alcoholic nature of the wine was an inherent must-have trait of the wine used in Communion, or whether it just incidentally happened rapidly with any grape beverage in the times before pasteurization.

Case in point, did it have to explictly be wine or was it just that all grape juice would almost immediately become wine in those times? Would communion with grape juice that was literally fresh pressed that morning and thus barely fermented at all have not been legitimate?

 

[gwine]

Interesting. We have gone completely to something other than wine (for a similar situation; recovering alcoholics); I think denatured wine, at least I was told that the after I first remarked, mmh, the wine certainly has been tasting pretttty bad lately. But someone is experimenting as it seems to taste different every week. Some of it tasted pretty sweet. So we may be having juice sometimes (strictly speaking the Westminster Standards say wine, not fruit of the vine). I know what welches tastes like and we haven't had that at least. Logistically perhaps trying a split tray is too difficult the way we do things; or perhaps the unity in one type of drink is the question. We don't have both wine and the other. Dunno.
Is someone who is allergic to wine, also allergic to denatured wine?

Maybe it was a mixture of Welches grape juice and 7-Up (both registered trademarks.)

Am I to assume that when we say wine we are always referring to grape wine and not dandelion wine (or cherry or any other variety?) This is a serious question.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Maybe it was a mixture of Welches grape juice and 7-Up (both registered trademarks.)

Am I to assume that when we say wine we are always referring to grape wine and not dandelion wine (or cherry or any other variety?) This is a serious question.

I surely hope so! That was a serious answer!

 

[ChristopherPaul]

My question is whether the alcoholic nature of the wine was an inherent must-have trait of the wine used in Communion, or whether it just incidentally happened rapidly with any grape beverage in the times before pasteurization.

Case in point, did it have to explictly be wine or was it just that all grape juice would almost immediately become wine in those times? Would communion with grape juice that was literally fresh pressed that morning and thus barely fermented at all have not been legitimate?

In this example I would think the fresh pressed batch would not yet be "wine" because it was not allowed to ferment; i.e. it was not done yet. The whole intent of putting the pressed grapes in wine skins is to in fact allow it to ferment and thus become wine. To avoid the skins and/or the required time would be to avoid making wine.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

The Bible speaks only of wine being used in the Lord's Supper, and for those denominations that claim to adhere to the Westminster Standards....only wine is mentioned for use in the sacrament.

Amen. But let's revise.

The Bible speaks only of wine being used in the Lord's Supper, and for those denominations that claim to adhere to the Bible and the Regulative Principle....only wine is mentioned for use in the sacrament.

 

[gwine]

HOw about the bread... will a saltine do? If it has yeats, must it be rejected? It seems that unleavened bread must also be served...maybe from one loaf?

A DRINKING SONG

Wine comes in at the mouth
And love comes in at the eye;
That's all we shall know for truth
Before we grow old and die.
I lift the glass to my mouth,
I look at you, and I sigh.

W.B. Yeats

I know you meant yeast, my brother, but I couldn't resist.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I suspect William B. Sprague is representative in his reaction to the teetotaler movement of his day in saying the type of bread is not of concern, whereas the drink should be the juice of the grape, which in his day was wine (he writing prior to the invention of pasteurization so he does not really address the propriety or impropriety of grape juice per se).
http://www.naphtali.com/overwise.htm
Search for "How do you justify the use of leavened bread at our sacramental table?"

HOw about the bread... will a saltine do? If it has yeats, must it be rejected? It seems that unleavened bread must also be served...maybe from one loaf?

 

[PresReformed]

I believe since unleavened bread was used in the Last Supper and we have no examples of leavened bread being used, that only unleavened bread should be used just like wine. The leaven in the bread was also symbolic of sin. That was why it was necessary for the Jews to cleanse their homes of leaven. Our Saviour was sinless (unleavened), so I can think of no more fitting bread to be used as symbolic of His body than unleavened bread.

 

[Herald]

We use grape juice but I am personally in favor of wine. I suppose it is a Baptist thing. Doug, if you read this all I can say is, "one battle at a time."

 

[beej6]

I've been meaning to put together some kind of paper about the use of grape juice at the Lord's Supper. The only (less answered) arguments I've seen for its use are either medical or anti-alcoholic. I'm going to try to get a hold of one of my hepatologist (=medical, study of the liver) friends to get their medical opinion re: the stage of liver failure and possible reactions with medications. I think I can answer the anti-alcoholic argument - it's not the thing that's the sin, the "set" of taking a thimbleful of wine at church is completely different than throwing back a six-pack at the local tavern, etc.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Interestingly, the practice of the Scottish church seems to have been to use leavened bread, at least up to the time of Walter Steuart (circa 1709) who writes:
[FONT=&quot]"Ordinary bread is to be used; and it is most decent it be leavened wheat bread. Any kind of wine may be used in the Lord’s Supper, yet wine of a red colour seemeth most suitable.[/FONT]" Collections and Observations Concerning the Worship, Discipline, and Government of the Church of Scotland. In Four Books. By Walter Steuart of Pardovan. [FONT=&quot]Book II, Title 4. Of the Lord’s Supper. §3. [/FONT]

 

[fredtgreco]

Interestingly, the practice of the Scottish church seems to have been to use leavened bread, at least up to the time of Walter Steuart (circa 1709) who writes:
[FONT=&quot]"Ordinary bread is to be used; and it is most decent it be leavened wheat bread. Any kind of wine may be used in the Lord’s Supper, yet wine of a red colour seemeth most suitable.[/FONT]" Collections and Observations Concerning the Worship, Discipline, and Government of the Church of Scotland. In Four Books. By Walter Steuart of Pardovan. [FONT=&quot]Book II, Title 4. Of the Lord’s Supper. §3. [/FONT]

Yes. There is also the matter that Paul does not once use the word for unleavened bread ( ἀζυμος ) when describing the Supper; it is always the Greek word used for ordinary leavened bread ( ἄ́ρτος ). So one could argue (if one desired to) that the RPW prohibits the use of unleavened bread and requires leavened bread.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Yes. There is also the matter that Paul does not once use the word for unleavened bread ( ἀζυμος ) when describing the Supper; it is always the Greek word used for ordinary leavened bread ( ἄ́ρτος ). So one could argue (if one desired to) that the RPW prohibits the use of unleavened bread and requires leavened bread.

Fred,
Where is this example: ἀζυμος used? I couldn't find it anywhere.

 

[Scott Bushey]

I found it. Did the Jews ever use anything but unleavened bread? Thinking about it, I believe that may be missing the point if we were to believe that using anything other than unleavened bread would be sinful or a break in the RPW.

 

[PresReformed]

Yes. There is also the matter that Paul does not once use the word for unleavened bread ( ἀζυμος ) when describing the Supper; it is always the Greek word used for ordinary leavened bread ( ἄ́ρτος ). So one could argue (if one desired to) that the RPW prohibits the use of unleavened bread and requires leavened bread.

ἄρτος is used to describe the bread in the Last Supper. Christ used unleavened bread in the Last Supper (Passover), so the use of ἄρτος does not add any weight to the use of leavened bread in the Sacrament. If we are going to follow the example of our Lord, the elements would have to be unleavened bread and wine.

 

[Scott Bushey]

ἄρτος is used to describe the bread in the Last Supper. Christ used unleavened bread in the Last Supper (Passover), so the use of ἄρτος does not add any weight to the use of leavened bread in the Sacrament. If we are going to follow the example of our Lord, the elements would have to be unleavened bread and wine.

Greg,
I believe that is missing the point; I am not against using unleavened bread as we do use it in our church. But to say that it is a break in the RPW if someone uses regular bread, I believe is error. All of us use more than one cup and we know that the apostles and Christ shared a goblet. Christ did not use the plastic little cups we do. If we follow this line of thinking, we are all breaking the principle in that regard.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

This is what Sprague argues:

But I come back to your interrogatories. You say, “The bread which our Savior brake, was surely unleavened. No other was in existence among the Jews on the Passover day. How do you justify the use of leavened bread at our sacramental table?”


I justify it on the ground that the use of unleavened bread belonged peculiarly to the Jewish economy; and as that dispensation has passed away, this, among other of its peculiarities, has passed away with it. You remember that the question how far the Gentile converts were bound to Jewish observances, once actually came up, and was referred for decision to an apostolic council. And the decision was that they were bound to observe nothing, even then, except what was enjoined in the letter from Jerusalem, which contained no allusion to unleavened bread. It cannot reasonably be questioned that the Corinthian church, in celebrating the ordinance, used the bread which was in common use among them; and as Corinth was a Gentile city, it was of course leavened bread. Is there nothing to this to “justify the use of” the same “at our sacramental table?”


You go on to remark, “We do not know whether the bread employed by Christ and his disciples was wheat, or millet, or spelt. Yet the Savior says, `This do in remembrance of me.' Note the word THIS. Reasoning as you do, now, I am not able to see why the letter of this command is not to be taken; nor what authority you find for administering the Lord's supper anywhere but in an upper chamber at night, the guests lying down around a triclinium, the dress and wine and furniture and bread in all respects the same as originally; in a word, this is to be literally construed, and literally complied with. To depart from such an obedience in any one respect, is to give up the principle in question.”


I utterly deny that any position taken in my sermon even remotely implies an obligation on our part to a literal imitation of our Savior and his disciples, in respect to all the minute circumstances which attended the first celebration of the supper. For what is the great point which it is the design of the sermon to establish? Is it that Port wine, or Madeira wine, or some other particular kind of wine in distinction from all others, is essential to the validity of the ordinance? No such thing; if it had been, I might undoubtedly have been called upon, and with some reason, to show whether the bread which was employed was made of wheat, or barley, or millet, or spelt. But the position of the sermon is, that wine was originally used in the supper, and that it ought therefore to be used still; without attempting to decide anything in respect to the kind of wine, other than that it should be “the fruit of the vine.” Now all that this position requires me to prove in respect to the other element, is that it should be bread — the kind of bread, if you please, that happens to be in use in the country where the ordinance is celebrated. It seems to me, my dear sir, that your remarks go to annihilate the distinction between the essential and accidental properties of the institution. You call upon me especially to note the word THIS — “This do in remembrance of me” — as if the word this necessarily implied that, upon my principle, all the particular circumstances which you have enumerated as peculiar to the first celebration of the ordinance must be observed now. But read the next verse (1 Cor. 11:26) and you will there find that our Savior himself has settled the meaning of this, past all contradiction. Immediately after saying, “This do ye, as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me,” he adds, “For as oft as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come.” The design of the institution, as our Savior himself expresses it, is “to show the Lord's death till he come.” The essential things belonging to it, are indicated by the words, “eat this bread and drink this cup;” while not a word is here said of the “upper room,” or the “triclinium,” or any other of the unessential particulars which you enumerate. Drinking the cup, as every one knows, is a figurative expression for drinking what the cup contains; and that it contained wine in this case you admit; while the particular kind of wine which it contained, in distinction from all others, I have not been so “over-wise” as to attempt to designate. It seems to me then that Christ himself has distinguished as clearly as possible, between what belongs essentially, and what belongs accidentally to this service; and that he has made such a distinction as to justify to the letter the position I have taken in my sermon. ​

 

[Scott Bushey]

This is what Sprague argues:

But I come back to your interrogatories. You say, “The bread which our Savior brake, was surely unleavened. No other was in existence among the Jews on the Passover day. How do you justify the use of leavened bread at our sacramental table?”


I justify it on the ground that the use of unleavened bread belonged peculiarly to the Jewish economy; and as that dispensation has passed away, this, among other of its peculiarities, has passed away with it. You remember that the question how far the Gentile converts were bound to Jewish observances, once actually came up, and was referred for decision to an apostolic council. And the decision was that they were bound to observe nothing, even then, except what was enjoined in the letter from Jerusalem, which contained no allusion to unleavened bread. It cannot reasonably be questioned that the Corinthian church, in celebrating the ordinance, used the bread which was in common use among them; and as Corinth was a Gentile city, it was of course leavened bread. Is there nothing to this to “justify the use of” the same “at our sacramental table?”


You go on to remark, “We do not know whether the bread employed by Christ and his disciples was wheat, or millet, or spelt. Yet the Savior says, `This do in remembrance of me.' Note the word THIS. Reasoning as you do, now, I am not able to see why the letter of this command is not to be taken; nor what authority you find for administering the Lord's supper anywhere but in an upper chamber at night, the guests lying down around a triclinium, the dress and wine and furniture and bread in all respects the same as originally; in a word, this is to be literally construed, and literally complied with. To depart from such an obedience in any one respect, is to give up the principle in question.”


I utterly deny that any position taken in my sermon even remotely implies an obligation on our part to a literal imitation of our Savior and his disciples, in respect to all the minute circumstances which attended the first celebration of the supper. For what is the great point which it is the design of the sermon to establish? Is it that Port wine, or Madeira wine, or some other particular kind of wine in distinction from all others, is essential to the validity of the ordinance? No such thing; if it had been, I might undoubtedly have been called upon, and with some reason, to show whether the bread which was employed was made of wheat, or barley, or millet, or spelt. But the position of the sermon is, that wine was originally used in the supper, and that it ought therefore to be used still; without attempting to decide anything in respect to the kind of wine, other than that it should be “the fruit of the vine.” Now all that this position requires me to prove in respect to the other element, is that it should be bread — the kind of bread, if you please, that happens to be in use in the country where the ordinance is celebrated. It seems to me, my dear sir, that your remarks go to annihilate the distinction between the essential and accidental properties of the institution. You call upon me especially to note the word THIS — “This do in remembrance of me” — as if the word this necessarily implied that, upon my principle, all the particular circumstances which you have enumerated as peculiar to the first celebration of the ordinance must be observed now. But read the next verse (1 Cor. 11:26) and you will there find that our Savior himself has settled the meaning of this, past all contradiction. Immediately after saying, “This do ye, as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me,” he adds, “For as oft as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come.” The design of the institution, as our Savior himself expresses it, is “to show the Lord's death till he come.” The essential things belonging to it, are indicated by the words, “eat this bread and drink this cup;” while not a word is here said of the “upper room,” or the “triclinium,” or any other of the unessential particulars which you enumerate. Drinking the cup, as every one knows, is a figurative expression for drinking what the cup contains; and that it contained wine in this case you admit; while the particular kind of wine which it contained, in distinction from all others, I have not been so “over-wise” as to attempt to designate. It seems to me then that Christ himself has distinguished as clearly as possible, between what belongs essentially, and what belongs accidentally to this service; and that he has made such a distinction as to justify to the letter the position I have taken in my sermon. ​

Amen

 

[Robert Truelove]

We changed to wine a few years ago. We do not have liberty to change the biblical element with which Christ instituted the sacrament. Also, there is a Christology to wine in the Bible that is necessary to the proper administration of the sacrament.

The article the other elder on my session wrote at the time on this is available below. If you are studying this issue, I commend it to you.

http://www.hpcministry.org/article.php?ArticleID=34

 

[Contra_Mundum]

This is really far far FAR off topic, but it struck me as I read the Sprague excerpt, "Now there's a typical PB post! Note the use of the "quote" feature, and the deconstruction of arguments, and the appeals to Scripture references, and logic." ho ho ho.



sorry.



hee hee hee.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

There isn't room for liberty or freedom on a specific, ordained, Scriptural element of worship. If someone has a problem with using wine... too bad, in my opinion. If they never drink wine outside of Communion, that is fine and not a problem at all. But, we shouldn't be catering to an individual's "liberty" on an issue of Scriptural worship.

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Unleavened Bread

I posted this during the bread discussion which can be found here.

We tend to think that “unleavened bread” means bread that hasn’t risen, but that isn’t necessarily the case.

God did not prohibit Israel from using yeast. What was prohibited was leaven.

The leaven in question was a bit of dough from the previous batch. The dough would be allowed to ferment (thereby producing yeast) and the fermented dough (leaven) would be added to the new batch of dough to make the bread rise. This is still how you make sourdough bread.

But God wanted Israel to make a complete break from Egypt. Therefore, she wasn’t allowed to use any of the old leaven — the stuff from the previous lump — in the new bread. That’s also Paul’s point in 1 Cor. 5: you’re a new loaf, so get rid of the old leaven.

Unless you’re making sourdough bread, you don’t use leaven today. That is, you don’t use any of the previous dough. Instead, you start afresh (though you do use yeast to make it rise). Therefore, biblically speaking, all of our risen bread (with the exception of sourdough) is unleavened bread and is appropriate for both Passover and the Lord’s Supper.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I finally decided to check this thread out and I'm actually a bit surprised that nobody commented on the reason that I would find grape juice objectionable.

I really like the Sprague quote. I agree that the accidents of the Supper are indifferent. Most people aren't going to have a problem with the type of bread that you use but many will have a problem with whether the grape juice is fermented or not.

Honestly, my problem has to do with the difference between the Pharisee and the weaker brother. I'll quote an excerpt from Calvin on liberty below that I think is useful. The nature of the case is that most people that object to the practice of using fermented wine are doing so with the spirit of the Pharisee in my estimation. I frankly don't believe that the amount of fermentation is germane to the element otherwise you could be Pharisaical on the amount of alchohol content would actually be acceptable for the Supper.

My opinion is that if you're offering grape juice as an accident to accommodate those that are quietly in need of this accomodation then that is up to the Session to offer in their wisdom. If you're doing so out of a Pharasaical sense that "Christians don't drink alchohol" then this should be withstood to its face.

The excerpt from Calvin on Christian Liberty:

11. I will here make some observations on offenses, what distinctions are to be made between them, what kind are to be avoided and what disregarded. This will afterwards enable us to determine what scope there is for our liberty among men. We are pleased with the common division into offense given and offense taken, since it has the plain sanction of Scripture, and not improperly expresses what is meant. If from unseasonable levity or wantonness, or rashness, you do any thing out of order or not in its own place, by which the weak or unskillful are offended, it may be said that offense has been given by you, since the ground of offense is owing to your fault. And in general, offense is said to be given in any matter where the person from whom it has proceeded is in fault. Offense is said to be taken when a thing otherwise done, not wickedly or unseasonably, is made an occasion of offense from malevolence or some sinister feeling. For here offense was not given, but sinister interpreters ceaselessly take offense. By the former kind, the weak only, by the latter, the ill-tempered and Pharisaical are offended. Wherefore, we shall call the one the offense of the weak, the other the offense of Pharisees, and we will so temper the use of our liberty as to make it yield to the ignorance of weak brethren, but not to the austerity of Pharisees. What is due to infirmity is fully shown by Paul in many passages. “Him that is weak in the faith receive ye.” Again, “Let us not judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling-block, or an occasion to fall, in his brother’s way;” and many others to the same effect in the same place, to which, instead of quoting them here, we refer the reader. The sum is, “We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let every one of us please his neighbor for his good to edification.” elsewhere he says, “Take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling-block to them that are weak.” Again “Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake.” “Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other.” Finally, “Give none offense, neither to the Jews nor to the Gentiles nor to the Church of God.” Also in another passage, “Brethren, ye have been called into liberty, only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.”46 455455 61 461 Rom. 14:1, 13; 16:1; 1 Cor. 8:9; 10:25, 29, 32; Gal. 5:13. Thus, indeed, it is: our liberty was not given us against our weak neighbors, whom charity enjoins us to serve in all things, but rather that, having peace with God in our minds, we should live peaceably among men. What value is to be set upon the offense of the Pharisees we learn from the words of our Lord, in which he says, “Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind,” (Mt. 15:14). The disciples had intimated that the Pharisees were offended at his words. He answers that they are to be let alone that their offense is not to be regarded.

12. The matter still remains uncertain, unless we understand who are the weak and who the Pharisees: for if this distinction is destroyed, I see not how, in regard to offenses, any liberty at all would remain without being constantly in the greatest danger. But Paul seems to me to have marked out most clearly, as well by example as by doctrine, how far our liberty, in the case of offense, is to be modified or maintained. When he adopts Timothy as his companion, he circumcises him: nothing can induce him to circumcise Titus (Acts 16:3; Gal. 2:3). The acts are different, but there is no difference in the purpose or intention; in circumcising Timothy, as he was free from all men, he made himself the servant of all: “Unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; to them that are without law, as without law (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ), that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some” (1 Cor. 9:20-22). We have here the proper modification of liberty, when in things indifferent it can be restrained with some advantage. What he had in view in firmly resisting the circumcision of Titus, he himself testifies when he thus writes: “But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: and that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: to whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you,” (Gal. 2:3-5). We here see the necessity of vindicating our liberty when, by the unjust exactions of false apostles, it is brought into danger with weak consciences. In all cases we must study charity, and look to the edification of our neighbor. “All things are lawful for me,” says he, “but all things are not expedient; all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not. Let no man seek his own, but every man another’s wealth,” (1 Cor. 10:23, 24). There is nothing plainer than this rule, that we are to use our liberty if it tends to the edification of our neighbor, but if inexpedient for our neighbor, we are to abstain from it. There are some who pretend to imitate this prudence of Paul by abstinence from liberty, while there is nothing for which they less employ it than for purposes of charity. Consulting their own ease, they would have all mention of liberty buried, though it is not less for the interest of our neighbor to use liberty for their good and edification, than to modify it occasionally for their advantage. It is the part of a pious man to think, that the free power conceded to him in external things is to make him the readier in all offices of charity.