Juice is not the element!

[OPC'n]

This point has been made in the past and it does not stand. Leavened or unleavened bread is still bread. Fruit of the vine is wine, be it red or white, and grape juice simply is not wine. It is not a matter to "replicate them (elements) as closely as possible" but of a command to use specific elements.

I'm sure God didn't have in mind the same thing as you do when he said that they were to use unleavened bread.

 

[TrustGzus]

If you’re going to argue that only fermented wine is allowable because Christ instituted the Lord’s Supper therefore only fermented wine is acceptable, then you’d also have to logically conclude that only unleavened bread is acceptable for the same reasons. Or you could reason that the type of bread and juice is not the most important issue, especially since there are recovering alcoholics and prisoners who could not otherwise partake. Love, compassion and unity in Christ with these brothers and sisters would be more important than minutiae.

And not only unleavened but did it contain gluten? My wife has an extreme gluten allergy. If she gets a couple crumbs she gets a migraine that takes her out of commission for a couple days and leaves her in bread. Every time she celebrates communion if she was required to take that we’d all lose her in our lives for a couple days.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

Is the juice from grapes not fruit of the vine? I am confused. Is the fermentation what makes it the fruit of the vine? Is the only possible translation with alcohol content?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Sprague who defended use of wine against temperance zealots just prior to the Welch's era (they advocated for use of water), when this objection was raised that advocates for wine were being strict about the one element, but not about using unleavened bread, replies,

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?”​

http://www.naphtali.com/articles/william-sprague/danger-of-being-overwise/

 

[Andrew P.C.]

The contents of the elements of worship are apart of the element. We aren’t allowed to read Shakespeare instead of scripture.

 

[CatRandy]

It really boils down to one simple question: “Which is more important, every member of Christ’s body being able to partake of the Lord’s Supper, or what percentage of alcohol is in the juice.” I would argue that how someone answers that question speaks about far more then wine or juice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TylerRay]

It's a shame to me that the sacrament that symbolizes (among other things) our unity in the body of Christ has become a point of division. This can only be attributed to those who go beyond the Scriptural prescription for the sacrament.

Is it not clear that, 1, the fermented use of the grape was commonly used among the Jews in the first century, 2, that this drink was called wine by the writers of the New Testament, 3, that we have no clear evidence that anything else was called wine by the writers of the New Testament.

Is the juice from grapes not fruit of the vine? I am confused. Is the fermentation what makes it the fruit of the vine? Is the only possible translation with alcohol content?

Actually, neither wine nor juice is the fruit of the vine. Grapes are the fruit of the vine. In the Scriptures, wine (and only wine) is referred to as the fruit of the vine by way of metonymy. If what was meant was just anything made from grapes, brandy or jam would be perfectly fine for use in the sacrament.

Several responses here seem to be making an assumption that whatever elements Jesus used at the institution of the Supper, the church today ought to try to replicate them as closely as possible. I'd like to challenge that assumption.

"This do" was the command of Christ. "As I have received" was the orientation of the Apostle. The observance of a sacrament consists in the right use of prescribed elements. Should we not seek to be as close to Christ's institution as possible?

I frankly don't understand the attitude of those who want to stretch Scriptural commands as far as they can--"we know it was done in this way in the Scriptures, but why not do it some other way?"--why not just do what the Scriptures hold forth, simpliciter, unless prohibited in some way.

It really boils down to one simple question: “Which is more important, every member of Christ’s body being able to partake of the Lord’s Supper, or what percentage of alcohol is in the juice.” I would argue that how someone answers that question speaks about far more then wine or juice.

That's a good thought, though I can't agree with it wholeheartedly. It's a good secondary argument for the use of wine, though, as many of us have a scruple of conscience against using juice in the Supper.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

We need to be scrupulous regarding the elements of worship. As Gillespie argues, "we hold, that not only we ought to obey the particular precepts of the Word of God, but that also we are bound to imitate Christ, and the commendable example of His apostles, in all things wherein it is not evident they had special reasons moving them thereto, which do not concern us." He applies this specifically to aspects of the Lord's Supper and I've cited G before on this same topic. https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...wine-in-the-culture.80022/page-2#post-1010674

"This do" was the command of Christ. "As I have received" was the orientation of the Apostle. The observance of a sacrament consists in the right use of prescribed elements. Should we not seek to be as close to Christ's institution as possible?

 

[Jack K]

"This do" was the command of Christ. "As I have received" was the orientation of the Apostle. The observance of a sacrament consists in the right use of prescribed elements. Should we not seek to be as close to Christ's institution as possible?

If it means trying to replicate what happened the night of the Last Supper... no, we should not seek to be as close to Christ's institution as possible. If we did, we would recline at the meal and partake in an upstairs room. But we recognize that these things are incidental, not central to the meaning of the Supper.

The right question to ask is not, "How close can we get to doing the Supper exactly as Christ did it?" Rather, we must ask, "Which aspects of that first Supper are central to the meaning of the Supper, and which are not?"

For an answer, we look to the symbolism found in all of Scripture and particularly to those passages that directly address the institution of the Supper and instructions for observing it. Based on this, I find a pretty good case for fermented wine due to symbolism in passages such as Jeremiah 25. But I find it not necessarily required due to the breadth of possible meaning of the words used to describe the elements in passages that address the Supper more directly. It seems to me that Christ and the Bible authors could easily have provided more detail about the exact elements if such detail was required, and the fact they didn't suggests that whatever bread people commonly eat in a culture and whatever way they commonly drink their grapes will do.

Of course, some may argue that "fruit of the vine" is more specific and can only mean fermented wine, and that this means Christ was instructing us that fermentation is central to the meaning of the Supper. This is a proper argument, and perhaps it is correct and I am wrong. But it is an entirely different thing to assert that we must copy Christ's institution as closely as possible.

 

[Jack K]

If what was meant was just anything made from grapes, brandy or jam would be perfectly fine for use in the sacrament.

Clearly, jam would not be acceptable because Christ said to drink. We must pay close attention to what he said. The matters on which he chose to give direct instruction are likely those that matter most.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

If it means trying to replicate what happened the night of the Last Supper... no, we should not seek to be as close to Christ's institution as possible. If we did, we would recline at the meal and partake in an upstairs room.

The location and way we sit are not aspects of the element. I’m not sure why you even brought this up when Tyler was referring specifically to the sacrament.

 

[Jack K]

The location and way we sit are not aspects of the element. I’m not sure why you even brought this up when Tyler was referring specifically to the sacrament.

I brought it up to make the point that not everything present at the Last Supper must be replicated when we observe the Supper. Rather, we must determine which of them matter and which are incidental. As you suggest, not everything happening is part of the nature of the sacrament.

 

[TylerRay]

Clearly, jam would not be acceptable because Christ said to drink. We must pay close attention to what he said. The matters on which he chose to give direct instruction are likely those that matter most.

You can drink jam. You might need a straw, depending on how firm it is, but you can drink it.

I don't press this point to make fun; I know that no one would use jam. My point, however, is to show that, in principle, the sacrament could be made that ridiculous if one simply maintains that all that is required is a drink made from grapes.

 

[TylerRay]

If it means trying to replicate what happened the night of the Last Supper... no, we should not seek to be as close to Christ's institution as possible. If we did, we would recline at the meal and partake in an upstairs room. But we recognize that these things are incidental, not central to the meaning of the Supper.

The right question to ask is not, "How close can we get to doing the Supper exactly as Christ did it?" Rather, we must ask, "Which aspects of that first Supper are central to the meaning of the Supper, and which are not?"

But what did Christ do when he said "This do in remembrance of me"? He passed broken bread and a cup of wine around a table for everyone to partake of. What good reason do we have for not doing that, when he commanded that we do that. Both the substances used and the actions performed are elemental to a sacrament. Should we not be scrupulous to observe it just as it is recorded, all the while discerning that there are indifferent circumstances (location, etc.)?

 

[Jack K]

You can drink jam. You might need a straw, depending on how firm it is, but you can drink it.

I don't press this point to make fun; I know that no one would use jam. My point, however, is to show that, in principle, the sacrament could be made that ridiculous if one simply maintains that all that is required is a drink made from grapes.

And if I were a missionary in a remote place that had no access to many goods, but I had some grape jelly, I might think about watering it down and being thankful for the Lord's provision.

The proper question to consider in that situation would not be, "Is this the way Jesus did it?" but rather, "Does this fit the nature of the sacrament as it is explained to us in Scripture?"

 

[Jack K]

But what did Christ do when he said "This do in remembrance of me"? He passed broken bread and a cup of wine around a table for everyone to partake of. What good reason do we have for not doing that, when he commanded that we do that. Both the substances used and the actions performed are elemental to a sacrament. Should we not be scrupulous to observe it just as it is recorded, all the while discerning that there are indifferent circumstances (location, etc.)?

Yes, I understand that some believers are quite insistent on replicating the actions of the Last Supper as closely as possible: Bread must be passed around, not just available up front. The words Christ spoke must be repeated verbatim. A common cup must be used. A table must be present. The bread and cup must be of a type matching a First Century Passover meal. And so on.

And that's my point, actually. My point is that the heart of the question is which parts of this replication are central (or "elemental," if you prefer) to the sacrament. I think we can take demands for replication too far, beyond what Scripture emphasizes when it explains the meaning of the Supper. So it is not enough to ask how things happened that first night; we must chiefly ask what parts of it belong to the nature of the sacrament.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Of course you would want to make sure it is not simply artificial grape flavored jelly (or maybe not; the same argument of remoteness is used for things lacking even an artificial claim to grapeness).

And if I were a missionary in a remote place that had no access to many goods, but I had some grape jelly, I might think about watering it down and being thankful for the Lord's provision.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Thread re-opened.

 

[JimmyH]

Looking at the poll I'm frankly surprised at how many congregations use fermented wine exclusively, or offer the choice of wine or grape juice. In the Assemblies of God I began with, the SBC I shortly thereafter went to, and the OPC congregation I'm with now it has always been grape juice.
This is important to me personally, because I am one of those unfortunate souls for whom 'one is too many, and a thousand isn't enough', so I have to abstain from alcoholic beverages no matter the rational, or the amount.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I guess I was surprised to see so many exclusively juice. But I shouldn't be, as that reflects the practice of mid last century in traditional Presbyterianism. The growing numbers doing wine or split has been a movement for several decades in conservative Presbyterianism coming alongside the interest in the regulative principle of worship. My church only went to split tray a few years ago before I joined. My previous church went to wine also circa 1984/5.
Poll referenced is here:

Looking at the poll I'm frankly surprised at how many congregations use fermented wine exclusively, or offer the choice of wine or grape juice. In the Assemblies of God I began with, the SBC I shortly thereafter went to, and the OPC congregation I'm with now it has always been grape juice.
This is important to me personally, because I am one of those unfortunate souls for whom 'one is too many, and a thousand isn't enough', so I have to abstain from alcoholic beverages no matter the rational, or the amount.

 

[TylerRay]

And that's my point, actually. My point is that the heart of the question is which parts of this replication are central (or "elemental," if you prefer) to the sacrament. I think we can take demands for replication too far, beyond what Scripture emphasizes when it explains the meaning of the Supper. So it is not enough to ask how things happened that first night; we must chiefly ask what parts of it belong to the nature of the sacrament.

We risk getting off the subject of the OP here, but the question we've arrived at is, "What is essential to the right observance of the Lord's Supper." If I may, I'll try to lay out a few principles. If the moderators want to move my post to a new thread, that's okay, too.

1.The Lord's Supper is a communal meal.

• So, we eat it like a communal meal--we face one another (rather than having our backs to one another in pews).

2. The items to be taken in this meal are bread and wine.

• Bread (artos) is commanded. It is to be "one lump," a loaf of bread symbolizing the unity of the body of Christ. There is nothing in the institution of the supper that indicates that anything but common bread is to be taken.
• Wine is commanded. I really don't get why there's a controversy about that. It's pretty simple, really.

3. What we do with the bread and wine:

• The bread is to be broken, symbolizing the broken body of Christ, and then distributed to the communicants.
• The bread is to be eaten.
• The wine is to be passed around in a cup for everyone to drink (eating bread-soaked wine is not the same thing as eating bread and drinking wine).

All of these actions get at the meaning of the supper: The death of Christ and the union of the body of Christ are symbolized in all of these elements and actions.

 

[KMK]

My point is that the heart of the question is which parts of this replication are central (or "elemental," if you prefer) to the sacrament.

I don't think this is the heart of the question of the OP.

The OP asked...

"what justification does one have for substituting wine for grape juice, knowing that the Lord Himself instituted the Supper with wine?"

In other words, "What were the biblical grounds for going against 1800 years of church history in the substitution of Dr. Welch's pasteurized grape juice for the wine?"

Jack, your question seeks to answer a different question, "What are the biblical grounds for insisting that the American church return to wine now that we have pasteurized grape juice?"

The answer to the question in the OP is, "The American church had no biblical grounds for making the change."

Unfortunately, that does not answer Jack's (and others) question, "Now that we use grape juice, and we see the benefits of doing so, in regards to its availability, inoffensiveness, and tradition, what are the biblical reasons we should change back?"

It reminds me of the American illegal immigration issue. Saying "we should have never allowed them in," does not answer the question, "now that they are here, what do we do with them?"

 

[Jack K]

Jack, your question seeks to answer a different question, "What are the biblical grounds for insisting that the American church return to wine now that we have pasteurized grape juice?"

Nah, I like wine. My question is more like, "Why do we insist that only fermented juice may be used when Jesus used broader language that seems to include anything that fits the description of 'fruit of the vine?'" Why insist on something narrower than his actual words call for?

 

[KMK]

Nah, I like wine. My question is more like, "Why do we insist that only fermented juice may be used when Jesus used broader language that seems to include anything that fits the description of 'fruit of the vine?'" Why insist on something narrower than his actual words call for?

That's is exactly what I am saying. You are trying to answer the OP question with another unrelated question.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Two things:

“Fruit of the vine”

Pumpkin, melons, berries etc...

If the mentality behind grape juice is a person sinning and possibly falling away, we attach an illicit attitude to one of the elements of one of our most holy convocation Christ left the bride, that being one could apostatize because of it.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Nah, I like wine. My question is more like, "Why do we insist that only fermented juice may be used when Jesus used broader language that seems to include anything that fits the description of 'fruit of the vine?'" Why insist on something narrower than his actual words call for?

You’re presuming much. If the supper is part of our worship, would Christ intended for the prescription to be vague? Think strange fire.

 

[Afterthought]

Just pointing out: it seems to me that if the element really is wine, then partaking of something else is not partaking of the Lord's Supper at that point (I suppose partaking of the bread is still an option), due to the positive and specially revealed nature of the sacrament (although certainly, the Lord may choose to bless the ordinance despite its corruption; however, one cannot consciously and conscientiously seek such blessing if it is believed that the ordinance is one thing but another thing is used instead). So it seems to me that arguments about needing something besides wine or else one cannot partake of the Lord's supper presuppose that wine is not the element but rather that something else--that includes wine and grape juice--is the element.

 

[JimmyH]

Just pointing out: it seems to me that if the element really is wine, then partaking of something else is not partaking of the Lord's Supper at that point (I suppose partaking of the bread is still an option), due to the positive and specially revealed nature of the sacrament (although certainly, the Lord may choose to bless the ordinance despite its corruption; however, one cannot consciously and conscientiously seek such blessing if it is believed that the ordinance is one thing but another thing is used instead). So it seems to me that arguments about needing something besides wine or else one cannot partake of the Lord's supper presuppose that wine is not the element but rather that something else--that includes wine and grape juice--is the element.

In the OPC Book Of Church Order, in the chapter dealing with the Sacraments, there is no distinction made as to what substance the element consists of. "The cup" is the only reference to that element of the Sacrament. I think 'we', the congregation, have to rely on our Pastors and Elders to provide the correct elements and procedure for the Lord's Supper. Assuming that the OPC, and its officers allow one, the other, or both, I would think I can have confidence that I am indeed partaking of the Sacrament.

 

[Jack K]

You’re presuming much. If the supper is part of our worship, would Christ intended for the prescription to be vague? Think strange fire.

I figure he would make it exactly as broad or narrow as he wanted it to be.

 

[Scott Bushey]

I figure he would make it exactly as broad or narrow as he wanted it to be.

Is worship ever ‘broad’?