Categories
Lord's Supper worship

Is It Scriptural To Use Alcoholic Wine In The Lord’s Supper?

Neal Pollard

This is a question that occasionally comes up and is an important matter to consider since for some this is a test of a teacher’s soundness and a matter of fellowship.  As the church is global in nature, it is a matter to consider beyond the borders of our nation.  Various biblical arguments are made to defend and condemn its usage.

No doubt, the practice of “social drinking”—which is a different discussion altogether—has created such sensitivity to this matter of what kind of fruit of the vine is permissible for communion.  Achieving a biblical answer is vital, though, especially if the matter is framed as something that might be “scriptural” or, by implication, “unscriptural.”  If Guy N. Woods is right on this very matter, “To urge the use of one, to the exclusion of the other, on alleged scriptural grounds, is to make a law where God made none. It is a grave sin so to do (1 Tim. 4:3)” (Questions And Answers: Open Forum, 1976, p. 361).  Were his statement to be found true, those who malign the character of those whose position differs from their own should refrain and retract.  This is not a matter of what is preferred or deemed most expedient, but is a matter of what Scripture permits.

Arguments Against Its Use:

  • The Passover Meal.  Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper during the Passover before His death (Mat. 26:26-29).  Drawing from the idea that during the Passover no leaven was to be in one’s house for seven days (Exo. 12:19), it is assumed that wine would be prohibited.  Even if such were to be proven true (and it cannot be), we should remember that what proves too much proves nothing at all.  During the Passover, they also ate roasted meat (Exo. 12:8) and bitter herbs (Exo. 12:9).  In addition, the “leaven” forbidden in the Passover was dough used in baking bread (Koehler, et al; The Hebrew and Aramaic lexicon of the Old Testament, 1999, n.pag.) and the prohibition is specifically “eating” that which contained leaven (cf. Exo. 12:15; Deu. 16:4). Wayne Jackson shows that “wine was ordinarily used at the Passover and is called ‘fruit of the vine’ in Berakoth 6:1” (https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/224-was-the-fruit-of-the-vine-fermented, citing Jack Lewis and John Lightfoot).  The Passover Meal cannot be used as grounds for prohibiting the use of wine in the Lord’s Supper.
  • 1 Timothy 5:23.  It is argued that since Paul had to tell Timothy to drink wine for  medicinal purposes, Timothy could not have, as a Christian who faithfully worshipped, consumed fermented fruit of the vine in partaking of the Lord’s Supper.  This assumes what the text of Scripture nowhere supports.  That Paul is condoning the medicinal use of alcohol, given the medical conditions of the day, is clear.  But, this text is neither in the context of the Lord’s Supper nor a judgment in any way on what should be used in it.  One flirts dangerously close to “twisting” the Scriptures who applies this passage to the communion (cf. 2 Pet. 3:16).
  • Causing A Brother To Stumble.  This is a legitimate concern and should factor into our judgment regarding the Lord’s Supper.  The church has recovering alcoholics and others who struggle with a sin problem regarding alcohol.  A newer convert or one whose conscience is sensitive in this matter should be respected.  Romans 14 is devoted to discussing such a matter as this. However, having scruples about a matter does not give one the authority to make his or her scruples law.  Choosing to impose fermented wine just because one can, ignoring the impact this has on a brother’s conscience, falls into the category of causing a brother’s stumbling.  However, difficulty in obtaining grape juice in many parts of the world at times makes necessary using alcoholic fruit of the vine.  In this case, the Lord’s command takes precedence over a brother’s conscience.  The church is commanded to observe the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:23-29), with the approved example of Acts 20:7 teaching us that such is to be done every first day of the week.

This article is not intended as advocacy to implement the use of alcoholic fruit of the vine in our communion services here in the states or developed nations where there is ready access to non-alcoholic fruit of the vine.  The bigger question is permissibility in situations where such is unavoidable or even where the autonomous judgment of the local church allows its usage. By extension, is it right to label a congregation liberal or sinful who chooses to use it in the Lord’s Supper?  At its heart, this is not a matter of what we might think is wiser, more expedient, or more comfortable.  The question is whether a congregation has the biblical right to do so.  In many of the world’s more remote and rural areas, the ability to get non-alcoholic fruit of the vine is a real problem.  For them, this is a real, practical concern.  Short of compelling information which I have, as yet, not seen, it seems clear that it is scriptural to use alcoholic wine in the Lord’s Supper.

Categories
Bear Valley church of Christ Daily Bread Neal Pollard Pollard blog

“How Does The Spirit Indwell The Christian?” (Or, Some Guys Just Love Trouble)

One of my favorite preachers (taken during his younger days) (CAN YOU GUESS WHO THIS IS?)

Neal Pollard

The controversy preceded my birth.  Wendell Winkler was the first man I remember talking about the Open Forum, spirited debate between Gus Nichols and Guy N. Woods over how the Holy Spirit indwells the Christian.  In those days, despite the vigor with which each man presented his view, the matter was not seen as divisive or worthy of a breach in fellowship. So long as the Spirit’s Deity was not denied or so long as one did not believe that the Spirit miraculously or directly operated upon the heart of an individual to convert or exert His will upon that one, the “how” was not seen as crucial.  I remember that many of my role models, Wendell Winkler, Hugo McCord, William Woodson and Roy H. Lanier, Jr., on one side and Franklin Camp, V.E. Howard, and Winfred Clark on the other, loved each other and worked together despite their divergent view on how the Spirit dwells in us.

 

Society as a whole has become more rancorous and divisive.  Turn on talk radio or cable news shows and you will see partisan bickering that approaches “media rage” levels.  At times, God’s people have adopted such tactics and attitudes.  While I was taught the representative view growing up, I have adopted the view that the Spirit non-miraculously, but personally, indwells God’s children.  Some of my dearest preaching friends maintain the representative view, but we love and work alongside each other.  Yet, there are some who seem to be utterly consumed with one extreme or another on this matter.  Right here, I am not referencing those who claim direct Spirit guidance apart from the Word, who seek the Spirit as proof or defense of their making decisions or moves that conflict with written revelation.  I mean those who are arguing for how the Spirit indwells.  These men have spent an inordinate amount of time, money, and energy and have troubled and even divided congregations of God’s people.

 

Every preacher’s personal life and work as a preacher will be audited by the perfect, Divine Auditor some day.  Will it be the case that some have been so issue-oriented that they left undone the weightier matters of the law–to include not just justice and mercy and faithfulness but also evangelism, edification, and enlistment?  That very thought should humble all of us to the core and give us pause as we reflect on what kind of stewards we are of our charge as gospel preachers.  The same principle applies to whatever hobby horses we chase and what kind of attitude we display while riding them.  We used to be warned in school that “you can be right and be wrong.” Let us be careful that, in trying to show the world or our brethren that our view is right, we do not find ourselves in the wrong!