The following is a monthly article written by Rev Kenneth Stewart to the Stornoway RPCS congregation…

Wine in the Lord’s Supper (Part Two)

Dear congregation,

This month, we’re continuing to examine the reasons why we use wine in the Lord’s Supper – in the face of the recent trend to avoid the use of wine in favour of grape juice, or some other juice, at the Lord’s Table.

Contrary to that trend, we believe that using wine in communion is not only in line with the historic practice of the church right across Christendom but that is also the biblical practice.

As we saw last month, it is quite plain that the ‘wine’ and the ‘strong drink’ referred to in the Old Testament were alcoholic drinks.

It is equally evident that, in the Old Testament, these drinks were received as gifts from God. Although, sadly, open to abuse – as are all God’s gifts – their provision is presented as a blessing, and they were to be enjoyed as such.

Again, we noted that these drinks were used in both social and religious contexts in Old Testament times. In social contexts, their use was to be characterised by moderation while in religious (worship) contexts, their use was precisely regulated by God.

While it is unclear whether the drink offerings were entirely offered to God or whether partly consumed by the one making the offering, it is nonetheless the case that wine and strong drink were used in worship and were also drunk ‘before the Lord’ (Deuteronomy 14:26)

This lawful and commanded use of alcohol in worship settings as well as in social settings should prepare us for a similar lawful and commanded use of fermented drink under the new covenant as well. And this is precisely what we find when we turn to the evidence from the New Testament.

Evidence from the New Testament

As is the case with the Old Testament, the New Testament also contains several words, or descriptive terms, for various kinds of fermented drinks.

First, the term translated ‘strong drink’ describes a strong alcoholic drink which John the Baptist (a life-long Nazarite) was not allowed to consume (Luke 1:15)

Second, the drink translated ‘new wine’ was certainly capable of producing drunkenness. On the day of Pentecost, when the disciples were accused of being filled with this new wine (Acts 2:13), Peter says that they were not drunk, but rather under the power of the Spirit of God (Acts 2:15). Clearly, the implication is that new wine could produce drunkenness.

Third, the ordinary term for wine, used over thirty times in the Bible, was clearly fermented. Since this word is most often used, we need to consider it in greater depth.

However, before we do so, it is worth noting that when the Jews translated the Old Testament into Greek many years before the birth of Christ (a translation known as the Septuagint) they used this word for all of the Hebrew words which we saw above – all of which referred to fermented drinks.

Paul and the use of Wine

In turning to the New Testament itself, then, Paul warns against being drunk with this wine (Ephesians 5:18). Clearly, then, this wine possessed the power of intoxication.

Also, in 1 Timothy 3:2, Paul warns elders against lingering a long time beside their wine while, in 1 Timothy 3:8, he warns deacons against drinking ‘much’ wine. In both cases, the implication is that the wine was alcoholic in content and that it was permissible to drink it in moderation.

Crucially, and of most immediate reference for us, it is plain that fermented wine was being used at the Lord’s Supper in Corinth. The fact that the Corinthians were combining their ordinary communal meal too closely with the observance of the Lord’s Supper, and that they were feasting in factions and in spiritual carelessness, meant that some were coming to the Lord’s Supper in a drunken state (1 Cor. 11:21). The word used for ‘drunk’ here is ‘metheuo’ (from which we get ‘meths’) which always means intoxicated.

Note that Paul nowhere condemns their use of fermented wine – which he surely ought to have done if it was against God’s law and against his express regulations for the proper observance of the Supper. In fact, on the supposition that the wine was fermented, his failure to rebuke its use is simply inexplicable – particularly when it was such a major contributory factor to the disorder at the Supper.

Christ and the use of Wine

Surprisingly, perhaps, most of the references to wine in the New Testament have a connection with Christ and, again, it is worth drawing special attention to these.

First, it is well known that Christ was (falsely) accused of being a ‘glutton’ and a ‘winebibber’ – that is, one who drinks wine to excess (Matthew 11:18, 19). The charge was not that he drank wine but that he drank it to excess. Of course, the charge was blasphemous, but it is difficult under the circumstances, in which Christ was eating and drinking with sinners, to see how this charge could make any sense at all if Christ was only drinking grape juice.

Second, it is also well known that Christ created wine to be served at a wedding feast in Galilee. After tasting the wine which the Lord had created, the master of the feast told the bridegroom that it was the custom to give the guests ‘the good wine first’ and to give the inferior wine when the guests have ‘well drunk’ – literally, ‘when they become drunk’. It is important to note that the Greek word for ‘drunk’ (again, methuo) is used without exception in the New Testament to refer to someone under the power of alcohol (Matthew 24:49; Acts 2:15; 1 Corinthians 11:21; 1 Thessalonians 5:7; Revelation 17:2, 6).

It is obvious that the Master of the feast is referring to the fact that when people have drunk to excess, they are unable to distinguish clearly between good wine and poor wine. Although such drinking to excess is sinful, the point being made is that Christ had served up a quality of wine which would normally be served first – that is, good quality fermented wine.

It is clear, then, that ‘the good wine’ which Christ created had the capacity to intoxicate. Of course, this does not mean that Christ approves of drunkenness, but it does mean that he is giving His approval to the lawful use of fermented drinks in social contexts.

The third incident from the life of Christ has special connection with the Lord’s Supper (Mt 26:29; Mk 14:25; Lk 22:18) and introduces another expression for wine – the ‘fruit of the vine’. This merits more extended discussion.

The Fruit of the Vine

Those who oppose the use of alcohol generally, and especially at the Lord’s Table, assert that this phrase must refer to unfermented grape juice – because the fruit of the vine, in its natural state, is unfermented. However, ‘fruit of the vine’ is in fact a figurative expression for wine – as the following evidence shows.

Consider, first of all, the similar Old Testament expression ‘the blood of grapes’. If the same rule of interpretation referred to above were to be applied to this expression, it would also mean unfermented red grape juice. However, its use in the Old Testament makes plain that it is a figurative reference to fermented wine.

For example, in Genesis 49:11, the ‘blood of grapes’ is parallel to wine and, in Deuteronomy 32:14, ‘the blood of grapes’ is parallel to fermented wine. This tells us that the ‘blood of the grapes’ is fermented wine.

Second, there is the use of another similar Old Testament expression, a ‘vineyard of red wine’ (Isaiah 27:2). Isaiah uses the Hebrew word here which means fermented wine (see, again our preceding discussion on the Old Testament evidence). Note, however, that, strictly speaking, a vineyard only contains grape juice – not wine! However, because red wine is derived from a vineyard, the expression is legitimate enough. Why, then, should it be unreasonable for Jesus use the expression ‘fruit of the vine’ when referring to fermented wine?

Indeed, the biblical use of both these figurative expressions (‘blood of the grape’ and ‘vineyard of wine’) when referring to fermented wine, strongly predispose us to understand the New Testament expression ‘the fruit of the vine’ in the same way – unless we have good reason not to. To use the example of the butler pressing the grapes into Pharaoh’s cup – Genesis 40:9-13 – as an example of ‘the fruit of the vine’ is not to the point: in the dream, the whole process from gleaning to the presentation of wine in the cup is compressed – after all, does anyone really suppose either that Pharaoh only drank grape juice or, indeed, that the butler squeezed the grapes directly into his cup? The process of fermentation is understood and implied in the dream.

Third, it is significant that this phrase – the ‘fruit of the vine’ – is used by Christ to denote the element contained in the cup of the Lord’s Supper. When instituting the Supper, after the Passover, he used this common Jewish expression when speaking of the Passover wine. While there is no reference to a cup or its contents at the institution of the Passover, it is worth noting that the drink offering poured out before the Lord at the Passover was wine – not grape juice but fermented wine (Numbers 28:24 and Numbers 28:14). There is no reason to think that the Lord used anything other than ordinary fermented wine at the Passover.

Fourth, Christ teaches that the ‘fruit of the vine’ signifies the ‘blood of the new covenant’ (Mt. 26:28). There seems to be an implicit connection being made here between the ‘blood of the new covenant’ and the ‘blood of grapes’ – which clearly refers to wine in Genesis 49:11 and in Deuteronomy 32:14.

Fifth, it is also often overlooked, but well worth noting nonetheless, that the blessings of the gospel under the new covenant are compared, in the Old Testament, with ‘a feast of fat things and of wines on the lees…wines on the lees well refined’ (Isaiah 25:6). Here, then, the life that Christ brings is compared with meat and with fermented wine. How fitting, then, that Christ’s first miracle should involve the production of the fermented wine and that the covenant memorial meal should involve the same? The image is entirely destroyed by the use of grape juice. The symbol has to do with life, power and invigoration and, while these things are demonstrably present in fermented wine, they are not so in grape juice.

Sixth, for specific reference to the Lord’s Supper, note again the point made above in connection with Paul’s instructions to the Christians in Corinth regarding the proper observance of the Lord’s Supper.

Finally, just as was the case with the Hebrew language in the Old Testament, the Greek of the New Testament also had a word for pure grape juice – the word ‘trux’. However, significantly, this word does not even appear once in the New Testament. There is therefore no reference in the New Testament to unfermented grape juice.

Conclusion from the New Testament Evidence

It is plain from the preceding evidence that the scriptures of the New Testament do not prohibit the use of fermented wine. We would expect that to be the case as it is considered a blessing from God in the Old Testament. It is also plain that God commands its use in both social and worship contexts – always with the understanding that its lawful use is to be regulated by God alone.

For this reason, it is unlawful for a Christian to prohibit anyone from its proper use.

For example, in Colossians 2:20-23, Paul tells us not to subject ourselves to (merely human) regulations – such as ‘do not touch, do not taste, do not handle’ – in order to prevent the indulgence of the flesh. In the spiritual conflict, in which all Christians are engaged, such regulations Paul describes as being ‘of no value’.

Again, Paul tells Timothy not to give attention to ‘doctrines of demons’ – which teach that it is unlawful to marry or to eat certain foods. Rather, he is to teach that everything God has created is good and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer (1 Tim. 4:1-5).

We should note here that it is not lawful to argue that wine is ‘man-made’ rather than ‘God-made’ since the Bible states that wine ‘which makes the heart of man glad’ has been given to man by God (Ps. 104:14-15).

Therefore, to teach a Christian that it is unlawful to drink in moderation is a false teaching.

Unfermented grape juice simply cannot be equated with the wine ‘which makes the heart of man glad’ any more than any other juice can. It is the lively and invigorating power of the wine which symbolises the life that is in the blood of Christ – shed for our sins.

Clearly, then, the Bible does not endorse the prohibitionist. But what does the Bible have to say about abstaining – especially for the sake of someone else. And what implications might that have for the Lord’s Supper? That’s for next month…

Your minister