The following is a monthly article written by Rev Kenneth Stewart to the Stornoway RPCS congregation…
Wine in the Lord’s Supper (Part Four)
Dear congregation,
I’m conscious that this particular theme (why we use wine in the Lord’s Supper) has taken up quite a bit of space over the last few months but, at last, we can bring it to a close!
The Lord’s Supper is precious to us and precious to the Lord – it is the ‘Lord’s’ Supper after all – and whenever we hold it, as we did in our own congregation recently, we need to be sure that we are observing what Paul ‘received’ from the Lord and ‘delivered’ to us (1 Corinthians 11:23).
As previously stated, our reason for examining this issue is the (relatively) recent trend of avoiding the use of wine at the Lords’ Table in favour of grape juice, or some other juice.
Although the use of wine in the Lord’s Supper is both the historic practice of the church and the biblical practice, its use has become problematic for many who refuse to take it on principle.
And while this may seem a small matter to some, we need to emphasise again that those who believe that wine should be used and those who believe that it should not be used cannot partake of the same elements. And, since the Lord’s Table is intended both to demonstrate and deepen the unity of the Lord’s people, a profound disagreement regarding the nature of the elements is bound to disrupt that unity in a tragic and unacceptable manner.
Over the last three months, we’ve seen that the Bible teaches us to view wine as a gift from God. Although, sadly, open to abuse – as are all God’s gifts – we are to consider wine as a blessing and to be enjoyed, in moderation, as such.
Also, we noted that wine, and other fermented drinks, were used in both social and religious contexts: In social contexts, they were to be used with moderation and, in religious contexts, they were to be used as God commanded.
Last month, we emphasised that a person previously enslaved to alcohol might choose to abstain from it altogether as a safe course of action for himself. However, we noted that making such a choice does not absolve that person from the duty of taking wine at the Lord’s Table – as commanded by a holy and wise God.
There is one area, however, which I have left unexplored and that is our duty towards a weaker brother or sister who may be under the impression that it is wrong, or at least unwise, for anyone to take fermented drinks.
On the basis of Paul’s appeal to the ‘stronger’ brethren to consider the situation of their ‘weaker’ brethren – as outlined in see Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians chapters 8-10) – some argue that love requires abstinence from fermented drinks in the presence of a weaker brother, even if there is no law against the use of alcohol as such.
And, since there is always the likelihood, or at least the possibility, of there being weaker brethren at the Lord’s Table, it is held to be unloving to use wine. So, unless every congregation is surveyed beforehand to see whether such a weaker brother is present, this argument becomes a de facto argument for abstinence on all social and religious occasions.
Now, this argument – persuasive on first hearing – needs to be examined more closely to discover its flaws.
First, it is difficult to see the point of constantly emphasising the goodness of God’s gifts, as the Bible does, if no-one is allowed to partake of them socially or religiously in case someone is offended.
Second, it is vital to note that Paul, in dealing with these matters, is referring just as much to eating meat as drinking wine (a fact all too often overlooked). And, if the argument presented above is correct as is stands, then eating meat (which seemed to be as much of a problem in Rome and Corinth as drinking wine) would, effectively, be outlawed for all time too in case offence might be given to those who were offended by the eating of meat.
Such a position, however, would be in clear conflict with Paul’s teaching to Timothy to the effect that forbidding the use of meat is not only unwise but is a ‘doctrine of demons’ (1 Timothy 4:1-5).
This should alert us to the likelihood that there is something wrong with the way the relevant passages are understood. It might help us to look again at Paul’s teaching in these passages.
Weak and Strong
First, we need to be clear as to what is meant by ‘weak’ and ‘strong’ brothers and sisters (Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8).
A close reading of both passages reveals us that the ‘weak’ brother is weak in his conscience. His conscience (a part of the faculty of reason) is weak because it wrongly condemns him for doing what Christ approves of (Romans 14:4).
In other words, his conscience is being controlled, on that particular issue, by a standard other than the Word of God – either by the standard of the prevailing culture, the standard of his own judgement or the commandments of others.
The strong brother, on the other hand, is strong in his conscience. That is, he is able to eat and drink what God has provided simply because he has been enlightened regarding the truth regarding eating and drinking. On this issue, his conscience is being governed by the word of God and not by the standard of the prevailing culture, the standard of his own judgement or the commandments of others (Romans 14:2a and 1 Corinthians 10:31).
Now, as a result of his weakness, the ‘weak’ brother condemns the ‘strong’ brother and, of course, by doing so he is not only imposing his own weakness on his stronger brother but, effectively, on the church as a whole (Rom. 14:3b-4).
The duty of the strong
Now, in resolving this issue, the Apostle clearly teaches that the strong brother was not to deliberately tempt his weak brother. He would be guilty of this if he encouraged him to violate his conscience by urging him to partake of certain foods and drinks, something which he still (wrongly) believes to be sinful.
To consciously flaunt one’s liberty in this way before a ‘weak’ brother is to set a stumbling-block before him and to actively encourage him to do that which he still considers to be sinful (Romans 14:13,20) – a behaviour which Paul forbids in the strongest terms: ‘…if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died’ (Romans 14: 15)
In fact, the strong brother must be willing to sacrifice the lawful use of his Christian liberty temporarily in the presence of the weak brother, so as to keep him from stumbling (Rom. 14:21).
The Duty of the Weak
However, crucially, although Paul commanded both the strong and the weak brothers not to act contrary to what they believed they were required to do at the time (Romans 14:5b,22-23), it is vital to note that the weak brother was not to judge the stronger brother (Romans 14:3)
Indeed, by referring to him as ‘weak’ Paul is telling him, quite forcibly, that there is a defect in his reasoning and in his behaviour – a defect which needs to be put right so that he can cease to be weak and become strong.
By implication, the weak brother is obligated to diligently study the matter, presumably with pastoral assistance, from the vantage point of God’s Word. And then, being enlightened as to the proper teaching of God’s word in connection with that matter, he is to submit his conscience to the teaching of God’s Word.
In other words, Paul – although strong himself – was prepared to accommodate the weak in order to bring them to a position of strength. In other words, accommodating to the scruples of the weak in this area is a temporary requirement until effective teaching takes place – at which point the situation alters.
Now, the following three considerations prove that this is how Paul’s teaching is to be interpreted.
First, if the duty of submission to weaker brethren – who refused to be enlightened on these matters – was to be a permanent submission, Paul would, in effect, be endorsing the position of the weaker brother as being the de facto position of the church: In other words, if one person in every congregation was averse to eating meat or drinking wine, due to their unwillingness to accept biblical teaching on the matter, it would follow that every congregation in Christendom would be prohibited from eating meat or drinking wine.
Note, again, that focusing on the meat as well as the wine helps to clarify the issue: if the position of the weaker brother is to determine conduct, then the presence of one brother who abstains from meat or alcohol, on the ground of perceived biblical teaching, would impose vegetarianism as well as abstinence upon all congregations.
Second, the effect of such an interpretation – again, at least on a de facto level – would be to legitimise false doctrine in the church. Eating meat, ‘created to be received with thanksgiving’ (1 Timothy 4:3) would, practically, be prohibited throughout Christendom in case it would offend someone who will not accept that teaching.
Third, such a policy (one which binds the whole church always to conform to the doctrinal understanding of the ‘weak’) is a policy which leads to the possibility, even the likelihood, of countless legalistic standards being imposed upon all Christians in case someone would be offended – which could range from the use of coffee or refined sugar to the necessity of dressing in black – in effect, anything concerning which a weaker brother might have a scruple.
These considerations should make plain that, whatever Paul is teaching, it was not that. But what, then, is he teaching?
The key to proper interpretation is, surely, as follows:
While the passage is of universal application, it is worth noting that the issues involved – in Corinth certainly and, probably, in Rome – concern the eating of food and wine previously offered to idols. In such cases, the question at issue would not be the lawfulness of eating them, as items of food and drink, but the lawfulness of eating what has been offered to idols in worship – in other words, the question involves the effect of dedication to an idol upon the wine or upon the person drinking it.
Now, we should note that it is much easier to see why doctrinal instruction should be lacking in Corinth, and in Rome, on this particular matter rather than the lawfulness of drinking wine or eating meat as such. After all, it is difficult to understand why any Jew, converted or otherwise, should have developed a religious scruple regarding the legitimacy of drinking wine in the first place. But it is much easier to understand why a Jewish or Gentile convert should hesitate to consume either meat or wine which had previously been offered to an idol.
Note, further, that, on this understanding, it also becomes much easier to understand why Paul should expect persuading the weaker brethren to be a relatively easy matter: once the relationship between the idol and the meat was clarified, the objection should immediately vanish.
And that being the case, we should be even more wary of giving in to the desire to ban universally what God has given for our well-being.
In application, then, as far as the weaker brother is concerned, if he is sensitive in coming to the Lord’s Table because of the use of wine, he should be patiently taught out of his weakness until he understands that God appointed wine for his use and for his edification, in obedience to Christ and in memory of his precious blood.
He is further to be taught that, even if he chooses total abstinence for himself, as a rule of life – which he is at perfect liberty to do – and even if he vows accordingly – which, again, he is at perfect liberty to do – neither his decision nor his vow cannot override or dispense with the duty of obedience to God’s express will. He must, therefore, make an exception of the Lord’s Supper.
And, just as the duty of the weaker brother is to subject himself to the clear biblical teaching of the church in this matter, so it is the duty of the church to teach it, as part of the training in discipleship which will make such a person ready to come to the Lord’s Table. Dispensing wine, and not dispensing with wine, is God’s will and patient instruction is the remedy – and on no account should the church try to solve the difficulty by replacing wine, or adding an alternative to it, in the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper.
Conclusion
Our study has demonstrated that fermented drinks are a gift from God and that sin does not lie in their use but in their abuse (drunkenness).
This means that a godly Christian example to the world and to covenant children is fully consistent with a moderate use of wine.
It has also demonstrated that, just as fermented drinks were used in the worship of the Old Covenant, so wine is to be used in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper as the fitting symbol of the power of Christ’s life as well as of his death.
It has further demonstrated that a person previously enslaved to alcohol, but now gloriously set free by the power of Christ, need have no fear in coming to the Lord’s Table in faith and obedience, believing that Christ will not only keep him in that act but make it a blessing to him.
Furthermore, our study has shown that while care must be taken not to tempt someone to do what they believe (mistakenly) to be unlawful to do, careful and patient instruction of the weak on the point at issue obligates the weaker brother to recognise the freedom of the stronger brother, and to come to share in it, with respect to what God has permitted – and, in the case of the Lord’s Supper – commanded.
On no account should the ordinance of the Lord regarding the sacrament be altered due to a misinterpretation, or misapplication, of Romans 14 or 1 Corinthians 8-10.
‘Do this (and not something different) in remembrance of me’.
Your minister
