|
Vidalia Old Line Primitive Baptist Church |
|||
| Home |
Vidalia Georgia
Wine in Communion Service Elder Joe Nettles
Many times in conversation with others our practice as Primitive Baptists comes into question. “Why no musical instruments?”, “Why wash feet?”, “Why exercise exclusion?”, and various other queries are basically part of every day life for the intrepid disciples of the primitive church of Christ. However, one question that I get a lot tends to amaze me, “Why use real wine in your communion?” Some of the most livid discussions I’ve had with others outside our faith center on this point. My desire is to be ready to answer and to help others in the Primitive Baptist church do the same. The following are explanations that will help alleviate some of the anxieties of our people in defending this wonderful practice. It is right and scriptural, my friends!
1. Typical response - “Wine is devil’s drink!“ Reply -We realize that the scriptures manifest plainly the detrimental potential of wine (Proverbs 20:1; Proverbs 23:29-31; Leviticus 10:9; Ephesians 5:18). We also understand the scriptures’ teachings of the beneficial effects (Proverbs 31:6-7; I Timothy 5:23). We understand that God’s word connects wine with condemnable states (Ecclesiastes 2:3; Isaiah 56:12; I Corinthians 11: 21,22). Yet, our Lord is very careful (as in all his doings) in scripture to shine light on wine in the context of blessedness and grace (Psalm 4:7; Psalm 104;14,15; Song of Solomon 7:9,10; Joel 2:19,24). Can one teaching be more pure, just, and holy than the other? Could it be that the scriptures are self-contradictory or not plenary? God forbid. Primitives simply strive to rightly divide the word of truth while being careful to preserve the context. A text taken out of context is a pretext! I believe to the objective mind it can be seen that an overview of the scriptures related to wine and the consumption of it (of course, the above stated scriptures are by no means exhaustive) will lead us to see that wine is not inherently wicked, but the excessive usage of it is. “They that tarry long at the wine..”; “And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess..”; “Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.”; “Woe unto them that rise up early in the morning, that they may follow strong drink; that continue until night, till wine inflame them!”; “A bishop then must be…Not given to wine ..”; “Likewise, must the deacons be…not given to much wine..”. These few examples exhort against excess and being overcome. I believe therein is the focus. It would be very simple for me stand and lambaste all wine as devil’s drink. However, this would contradict multiple scriptures. I also don’t want to be found caught up in a form of asceticism warned against in Colossians 2:20-23. God forbid I should conveniently teach man’s commandments as the doctrines of Christ to the denying of God’s holy word. I realize that there are many teachings relative to consumption of wine such as drunkenness, example, proper and improper substances, proper establishments to patronize, etc. Another article, another time.
2. Typical response - “Jesus would never agree to drinking wine!” Reply - Jesus’ first performed miracle in his earthly advent was the changing of water to wine. It was good wine. History, as well as the governor’s statements in John ch. 2, make it abundantly clear that the beverage served at weddings in that day, especially at weddings with dignitaries present, was wine. They lacked it, Jesus created it, and then ordered it to be served. I would need special assistance to misunderstand that. I believe enough is said on that.
3. Typical response - “Jesus gave the disciples fruit of the vine. That’s juice, not wine!“ Reply - Much has been made of “fruit of the vine” (term used by Christ at the last supper) vs. “wine”. Many have attempted for one reason or another to try to convince disciples that the former is non-alcoholic while the latter is alcoholic. Neither the Bible nor the Jews’ writings have ever hinted at such a distinction. The two terms were synonymous to the Jews in Christ’s day. No serious credence was given to the supposed distinction that I can find prior to Dr. Tom Welch’s (founder of Welch’s Grape Juice and a tee-totaling Methodist) efforts and marketing in the 19th century. The term “non-alcoholic wine” is a misnomer. The 1828 Webster’s dictionary points to fermentation or intoxicating potential in its every definition of the term. It’s either wine or must (juice with the seeds, pulp, and skins). The twain are not the same.
4. Typical response - “The wine was never commanded in the instructions for Passover, so it’s not necessary!“ Reply - It is well-known historically that the Jews incorporated wine into the Passover feast in which setting the Lord gave instruction for the church’s communion. One historical reference to this can be found in Alfred Edersheim’s respected “The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah”, pg. 496. In expounding upon the probable words of thanksgiving used by the Savior at the Passover, Edersheim records, “We know, indeed, that they (the blessings) were in use before his time, since it was in dispute between the schools of Hillel and Shammai, whether that over the wine or that over the day should take precedence. That over the wine was quite simple: ‘Blessed art thou, Jehovah our God, Who hast created the fruit of the Vine!’” His statement teaches us that the Jews used wine at the Passover prior to and including the days of Christ. Edersheim also verifies for us in this quote that wine was known synonymously as fruit of the vine (see again point #3). True, two feasts took place that night, the Passover and the Lord’s Supper. However, I have no scriptural indication to believe that the elements of the former were not the same as the latter.
5. Typical response - “Paul’s instructions to the Corinthians do not imply that wine should be used in communion!“ Reply - In I Corinthians ch. 11, Paul condemned the church at Corinth for their riotous and inconsiderate behavior in regards to the Lord’s Supper. They had come under judgment for their “drunken” state. You cannot become intoxicated from consuming grape juice. They were partaking of wine. In an effort to prove that there was not wine present for the communion, some have claimed that the drunkards came to the meeting place drunk. But notice the wording in vv. 21-22, “For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not?“. The very wording indicates plainly that this gluttony and reckless imbibing was not taking place at home or another locale, but despicably in “the church of God”. Otherwise, the question, “Have ye not houses to eat and to drink in?” makes no sense. Paul never condemned the use of wine in this context. Did he neglect the church in this instance by not excoriating them for using wine? Not at all. Using wine was proper, but their activities in regards to the wine was abominable. To focus indignation on the wine may serve to mitigate condemnation of the excess and lack of introspection. This would be grievous indeed!
6. Typical response - “Jesus spoke of new wine. That’s unfermented, non-alcoholic wine. That’s what he used at the last supper!” Reply - New wine may not be at an advanced stage of fermentation, but it is fermenting all the same. Christ taught this in Matthew 9:17, Mark 2:22, and Luke 5:37-38 when he pointed to the New Testament worship being not conducive with Old Testament Law service. “Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.” Old Testament Law service can’t contain the glorious New Testament revelations, truths, and Spirit. One is a shadow, the other is the object. One is a type, the other the antitype. Christ uses the example of the wine bottle to represent this truth. Old bottles got dry and rigid over time as they were made out of animal skins in that day. They could accommodate old wine well because it was not fermenting and giving off carbon dioxide gas as it once did. If you did put the new wine into the old wineskin, the continuing fermentation would emit carbon dioxide gas causing the bottle to burst. Alas, new wine had to be placed into new, pliant wineskins. Some also equate the fermented as being contrary to the instructions for the Lord’s Supper. Leaven and fermentation are not the same. The former is a substance while the latter is a process. Leaven is yeast, fermentation is what yeast helps actuate. That which is fermented was not excluded, only the leavening itself. Did you know that freshly crushed or squeezed grape juice contains more leavening than does a typical bottle of fermented wine? This is so because the grapes themselves contain all elements necessary for fermentation into wine. They are the only fruit known with a sufficient enough sugar content to maintain fermentation. In addition, there is natural yeast contained in the skin of every grape! At the moment grapes are squeezed to render juice, the fermentation begins due to the mixing of the internal sugars and water with the external yeasts. Let grape juice alone a few days and see what you get - either spoiled juice or wine! The wine you buy at the store has been purified and preserved by the fermentation process, not soiled by it! Typically, a bottle of wine has been “racked”, or resettled, at least twice before you get to it. During this “racking” process, the impurities are drained away from the wine. What is the main constituent of this impurity? Dead yeast. By the end of the process there is no discernable yeast left to the contents. It may be fermented, but it is pure. There is no leavening in wine. It is verily “the pure blood of the grape” that is referred to from Deuteronomy 32:14 and is a fit type of the precious blood of the Lamb! Why not use leavened bread then if the leavening has been killed off? Because the Jews were commanded of God explicitly not to. That is reason enough! Also consider, the leavening is still in great quantity in the bread while in wine it has been purged. Also it is a simple thing to leave out the leavening in bread as the ingredients themselves have not the leavening. It would be an impossibility to leave leaven out of grape juice as the grapes themselves contain it. Therefore, the scriptures give us the command to use wine as representative of that precious blood so readily shed for unworthy wretches as ourselves! Therefore, I have every reason scripturally, historically, and chemically to partake of wine in the communion observance. Not only that, I firmly believe that Jesus Christ did the same and was not a transgressor in it! If Christ never let wine cross his precious lips, then how can Matthew 11:18-19 be true? What were the accusations of the wicked in this text? “For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil. The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber…” What, pray tell, was John not drinking? Should we believe that he never drank water or juice? Certainly not. He never could have survived. The understood and intended meaning is that John came eating locusts and honey and drinking no wine, activities so odd that the Jews accused him of being possessed. In contradistinction, Jesus states himself that he came drinking. Certainly, in contrasting his activities with John’s we can see that the intended meaning is that Christ drank wine. As a result, the detractors accused him of being a winebibber. They didn’t use the same slander against John because he was never seen taking wine. But, since Christ was seen dining with publicans and sinners and drinking wine, it made a convenient accusation.
7. Typical response - “There is no reason that Jesus couldn’t have used grape juice instead of wine!“ Reply - One of the foremost reasons that we do not stumble at the usage of wine in our communion is the knowledge that we have concerning when the grape harvest took place in the days of Christ. It’s imperative that we are familiar with this because some advocate that Christ grabbed a bunch of grapes and squeezed them into the communion cup. If Christ had squeezed grapes into the cup, it would have been a miracle. Why? Because the Passover was commanded to be observed in the Hebrew month Nisan which correlates with our calendar months of March-April. The grape harvest was in July in that region which would have necessitated the preservation of fresh grapes some eight months till that Passover. They had no means of refrigeration to accomplish such, but they did have the ability to preserve the juice as wine! Truly if Jesus had produced grapes at this time, it would have been a miracle. I believe that with the number of reliable witnesses present, it would have been recorded as scripture in even one of the gospels. I have no doubt that Christ could have done it, but I have no scriptural reason to believe that he did.
In conclusion, regarding wine in the communion, we as Primitive Baptists simply strive to follow the admonition of Mary at the wedding feast in Cana of Galilee when she rightly proclaimed, “Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it” It would be straining for us to try to defend grape juice. We hold the scriptures as sufficiently clear on this point. Let us defend them!
|
||
|
Web design provided by www.MarchToZion.com |