Ken Martin’s Blog

After The Lord’s Supper - Part 1, I spent some time wandering the internet in search of how folks have come to their opinions on whether wine should be used in the Lord’s Supper. I found a number of things which I’d like to follow up on and add to what I’ve started here.

“It really wasn’t wine.”

One resource I found was the web site of a Baptist church. I have chosen not to link to their web site because I do not wish to single out any one fellowship. They are not unique in their view, and I intend to address what they argue in a very generic sense.

The foundation for their stance was that “To [assert Jesus turned water into wine] makes the Lord Jesus to put an intoxicating drink to the lips of his neighbors in clear violation of scripture,” and so it must have been juice used at the Lord’s Supper, too. They even go so far as to have a header called “The Absolute Prohibition of Proverbs 23:29-31″ which reads:

Who hath woe? who hath sorrow? who hath contentions? Who hath complaining? who hath wounds without cause? Who hath redness of eyes? They that tarry long at the wine; They that go to seek out mixed wine. Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, When it sparkleth in the cup, When it goeth down smoothly

Ugh, it just seems so wrong to take one passage like that and call it a Biblical absolute. I could certainly agree that it is an absolute prohibition of drunkenness, but one needs only move a few chapters ahead in Proverbs to read:

Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, And wine unto the bitter in soul: Let him drink, and forget his poverty, And remember his misery no more.

Might I call this “The Absolute Endorsement of Proverbs 31:6-7?” This is undoubtedly wine; can juice cause one to forget? And, as it seems to always be, the verses prior to this discuss how a king should not impair his judgement with alcohol; “Lest they drink, and forget the law, And pervert the justice due to any that is afflicted.” Again, the danger of excess.

That web site spends a good amount of time defending the sometimes correct assertion that the word for wine can sometimes mean juice. As I noted in Part One, that view doesn’t seem to fit various passages. Some time is spent on the passage I previously mentioned in 1 Corinthians. They posit two arguments:

(1) “The word μεθυω means filled or satiated.” However, it is never translated so in the New Testament (in my searches, anyway; I don’t have access to NIV or NASB Greek searches).

If it should be rendered filled or satiated (and if οινος is really juice - the other common assertion), then why is Ephesians 5:18 not rendered “be not filled with juice, but be filled with the Holy Spirit”?

A textual note, in that verse, the latter “filled” is not from μεθυω, but rather is πληροω. That would have been a very significant place to use μεθυω to make the point, since the usual translation’s “drunk” is from μεθυω.

(2) “Even if it was alcohol-induced drunkenness, it does not mean there was alcohol in the Cup of the Lord’s Supper, but rather that they just were drinking wine there as part of normal supper.” This seems just plain silly to me. It can’t be suggested that Paul identifies a problem concerning drunkenness or gluttony, but then fails to address it and simply makes a few unrelated comments about the Lord’s Supper. That would be a stunningly poor thought process by Paul. Or anyone.

A Different Website

One other site I found posted transcripts or outlines of their sermons concerning their congregation’s move from juice to wine for Communion (another term used for the Lord’s Supper).

What was really interesting to me was in reading through them: the preacher noted a series of sermons concerning alcohol by John MacArthur, whom I normally consider a quite solid, excellent teacher. What struck me is that he found MacArthur’s series unusually poor, and I did, too, when I heard them a few years ago. I was driving to work and getting frustrated at how poor I thought the presented arguments were. I was so disappointed!

I’ve not much more to say about that site other than it is well worth a look for those interested. It is generally well done, though I would suggest the preacher went a little far in at least one place. He noted that in Matthew 11:17 Jesus says “For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard…’” and then he comments:

Jesus drank wine obviously and openly enough and in quantities sufficient so as to allow his enemies to accuse him of being a drunk, which, of course, he never was.

I actually tend to agree with that, but I wouldn’t say that authoritatively from the pulpit because it is not perfectly clear. The Pharisees could have been making stuff up, too. (Theoretically.)

Correction: (Thanks to my lovely bride.) I was wrong, and I think what that preacher said is fine. I had it in my head that this was merely the Pharisees’ accusation, but this is the Son of Man saying “The Son of Man came eating and drinking”. Which means the only possibilities are that He did drink wine, or He merely drank juice. (Complete fabrication is not a possibility.)

It is interesting to me that for those who would suggest He was only drinking juice, it apparently looked like He was drinking wine. Wouldn’t that mean our Lord allowed Himself to have the appearance of evil? μη γενοιτο! (May it never be!) I can hardly help but think that such a possibility is similarly distasteful to the same folks who would desire to explain the wine away.

A couple of other points which were kindly presented to me offline were noteworthy. The first is a parallel with baptism; the second concerns alcoholism.

Comparison with Baptism

It is suggested that the form of a sacrament isn’t absolutely necessary. That in the case of baptism, which is best done by immersion (in my opinion, and we can deal with that another day), it may be physically impossible due to location or physical condition to immerse someone, and some other form would serve perfectly well.

I agree, but please note that the whole sacrament is not altered for the whole congregation. The exceptions are dealt with exceptionally. This seems reasonable and legitimate to me.

Considering Alcoholism

This article was passed on to me and is a very good exposition from someone who, even though he thinks it was actually wine that Christ used at His Supper, thinks that wine should not now be used because it is too great a difficulty for alcoholics among us.

I disagree on the simple basis that I can’t find any place in Scripture where we are free to alter worship based on such criteria. But I wanted to note his imaginary conversation between a struggling alcoholic and Jesus:

Nonetheless, I have often wondered what our Lord would have done had one of his disciples been unable to partake. Suppose that man, on the night of the Last Supper, took Jesus aside and said, “Look, Master, I want very much to eat the feast with you, but — you know — every time I drink wine I end up getting drunk. So would you be offended if I sat this one out? And look, please don’t say anything to the others. I don’t want them to think badly of me.”

What would the response have been? Would our Lord and Savior have said, “Aw, come on, a little one won’t hurt you”? Some might picture him, as saying, “Fake it through, just pretend to drink” Could he have said, “No, this meal is important; you go ahead and drink, and my grace will be sufficient”? Or maybe he would have said, “OK, no problem; I’ll have them send in a goblet of grape juice from the kitchen.” Would he have asked the other disciples to be supportive and understanding? Would he have cast out the demon? Just what would he have done?

That may be an interesting flight of fancy, but the real question is what did He do? He told Peter to come out of the boat. He told Moses to lead. He told Joshua to walk around a city. He even allowed Judas to take care of the money!

But He is too weak or unwilling to help an alcoholic? That issue changes His direction or purpose?

He, knowing all and knowing each of us, chose to use wine, and instructed believers to use it in remembrance of Him.

There is a sad and pathetic (in the old fashioned, not negative, sense of “deserving or inciting pity”) story of a Presbyterian pastor who moved to a congregation which used wine. Within a year he “had returned to heavy drinking and was forced out of the ministry.” That’s dreadful. I wonder, though, what he did about it after that first sip? Who did he work with? Who worked with him? Did he move out of his home into the home of someone who was aware and would hold him accountable? Simply, was loving, consistent action taken to help him avoid the plain sin of drunkenness?

I can easily see the struggle. And I think it should be dealt with in a very purposeful, careful, and loving fashion. But think it’s a dreadful idea to tread too far into imaginary conversation with Christ. And I think it is a fearful thing to change His form of worship. I hold to the radical opinion that we do not now know more than He, nor do we face problems He did not foresee.

And, maybe I can deal with this another time, I think the “it’s a disease/genetic” tack of assessing worship or morality is a poor one - rife with seemingly unforeseen consequences.

I don’t think there’s much more to say on this aspect of the Lord’s Supper, so Part Three will move on into some other ideas. However, I appreciate comments for and against my position; use the link below. I will continue comments on this aspect there if it seems worthwhile.

One Last Thing

I do think wine is the thing best used in the Lord’s Supper. But, to the question of whether non-use of wine invalidates that worship expression, I think we need to be very careful. It seems to me very likely that we fall short on many accounts in our attempts to worship and obey God. I think the Lord is pleased even with weak attempts to follow Him, and at least in my case, weak is sometimes the best I have to offer.

But I do think as we grow and learn and consider, we become more and more responsible to understand why we do what we do, and to do our best to conform not only worship, but life, to His will. If we willfully turn from that which seems true, then yes, that may indicate trouble. But I do not think any blanket statement is easy to make concerning the position of those whose worship doesn’t seem to match Scripture. It could be ignorance. It could be willful disobedience. It could be something in between.

This entry was posted on Saturday, April 8th, 2006 at 7:34 pm and is filed under Faith.