IN THE LORD'S SUPPER?
 

By: T.P. Simmons
 

We have three reason for holding that wine instead of grape juice would be used in the Lord's Supper. They are as follows:
 

1. CHRIST USED WINE IN THE INSTITUTION OF THE SUPPER. In order to ascertain this point we talked with one well-informed converted Jew and with one Jewish Rabbi. The former is Elder Henry Singer, erstwhile Superintendent of the Hebrew Christian Mission of Detroit, Michigan. When asked on this point, Mr. Singer replied that the Jews of Christ's day used fermented wine in the Passover.
 

Mr. Singer has a tract on "The Jewish Passover and the Lord's Supper," and in this tract he says: "EVERY JEW IN THE NIGHT OF THE PASSOVER MUST HAVE FOUR CUPS OF RED WINE."
 

Reference to Proverbs 23:31 will show what kind of wine "red" wine is. The other one consulted is "Rabbi" Abraham Feinstein of Huntington, W. Va. Mr. Feinstein, without hesitancy, said that the Jews of Jesus' day used fermented wine in the Passover. And when asked if there could be any doubt of this, he replied in the negative. We also wrote the American Board of Missions to the Jews of Brooklyn, N.Y. about his matter. Our letter was answered by J. Hoffman Cohn , General Secretary. He said:
 

"EVERY JEW KNOWS THAT THE PASSOVER SUPPER MUST BE CELEBRATED BY THE DRINKING OF REAL WINE, AND NOT UNFERMENTED GRAPE JUICE ... YOU WILL FIND ALL THIS FULLY CORROBORATED IF YOU WILL CONSULT THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA, WHICH IS THE MOST DEPENDABLE AND AUTHORITATIVE ON ALL MATTERS JEWISH."
 

Now there is absolutely no satisfactory reason for assuming that Christ broke with Jewish usage on this point and used grape juice in the farewell Passover. Some arrive at this conclusion by reasoning in a circle. This deprives the conclusion of any force. Also the conclusion is false because the premise that all drinking of wine is essentially wrong is false. This is assumed in the face of the fact that Christ turned the water into wine at the wedding in Cana. The remark of the ruler of the feast proves that this was real wine and not just grape juice. This is assumed also in the face of the fact that just before His death Christ drank "vinegar" (Mark 15:36; Matthew 27:48; John 19:28-30), which, according to Thayer, Broadus, Hovey and W.N. Clarke (the latter three being writers in "an American Commentary on the New Testament)" was the sour wine that the soldiers drank. Also, we find Paul exhorting Timothy to take wine as a medicine (1 Timothy 5:23). And it was only the excessive use of wine that was forbidden to bishops and deacons (1 Timothy 3:3,8; Titus 1:7).
 

Professor A.T. Robertson of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, of world wide reputation as a scholar, said in a letter under the date of September 17, 1927:
 

"I KNOW NO REASON IN THE WORLD WHY THE WINE MENTIONED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT WAS NOT REAL WINE. THE JEWS USED IT DILUTED WITH WATER (ONE-THIRD WINE, TWO-THIRDS WATER)."
 

J.W. Porter, editor of the American Baptist and also of quite a reputation as a scholar, being mentioned in "Who"s Who" of America, takes the position that the wine at the marriage in Cana was fermented wine. He said, in a letter under the date of September 17, 1927: "IN JOHN 2:9-10, THE GOVERNOR OF THE FEAST SAID: 'EVERY MAN AT THE BEGINNING DOTH SET FOURTH GOOD WINE, AND WHEN MEN HAVE WELL DRUNK, THEN THAT WHICH IS WORSE; BUT THOU HAST KEPT THE GOOD WINE UNTIL NOW.' HERE THE REFERENCE IS CLEARLY TO THE FACT THAT AFTER MEN HAD DRUNK FREELY OF THE GOOD WINE, THEY WOULD NOT SO EASILY DETECT THE DIFFERENCE OWING TO THE EFFECT OF THE WINE. GRAPE JUICE DOES NOT STIMULATE AND WOULD MAKE NO SENSE USED IN THIS CONNECTION."
 

Editor Porter said further: "DR. JOHN a. BROADUS, WHO IS GENERALLY REGARDED AS ONE OF THE WORLD'S GREATEST GREEK SCHOLARS, TAKES THE POSITION THT IT WAS WINE AND NOT GRAPE JUICE. IN FACT, NO ONE, SO FAR AS MY INFORMATION EXTENDS, EVER QUESTIONED THE FACT THAT IS WINE UNTIL IN RECENT YEARS.
 

Peloubet's Bible Dictionary says: "IT HAS BEEN DISPUTED WHETHER HEBREW WINE WAS FERMENTED; BUT THE IMPRESSION PRODUCED ON THE MIND BY A GENERAL REVIEW OF THE ABOBVE NOTICES IS THAT HEBREW WORDS INDICATING WINE REFER TO FERMENTED, INTOXICATING WINE." Again - 

"A GREAT ATTEMPT HAS BEEN MADE TO PROVE THE WINE DRUNK AT THE LORD'S SUPPER UNFERMENTED, BY AND FOR THE SAKE OF TEMPERANCE WORKERS OF OUR DAY AND NATION. SUCH ATTEMPTS ARE APT TO DO MORE HARM THAN GOOD, AMONG THOSE FAMILIAR WITH EASTERN CUSTOMS TODAY, OR THE HISTORY OF THOSE NATIONS. BUT THE APOSTLE PAUL HAS STATED THE CASE FOR TOTAL ABSTINENCE IN ROMANS 14 IN SUCH A WAY THAT DOES NOT NEED THE TREACHEROUS AID OF DOUBTFUL EXEGESIS FOR ITS SUPPORT."
 

The writer is a prohibitionist; always has been and always will be. But he will not let the fact so prejudice him as to blind him to Scriptural facts and cause him to evade those facts. Prohibition does not need this in its defense. It is today a social necessity because of the abuse that has been made of alcoholic drinks. And had alcoholic drinks always been confined to wine, prohibition would probably never have been necessary. However, the writer is a total abstainer from all alcoholic drinks except for sacred or medical purposes.
 

2. THE CHURCH AT CORINTH USED WINE AND RECEIVED NO CORRECTION FROM THE APOSTLE PAUL IN THIS MATTER. We know that the church at Corinth used wine because through abuse of the supper some became drunk (1 Cor. 11:21);. A Greek lexicon will show that the Greek word here means exactly what we commonly understand from the English term "drunken." Other cases of the use of the same Greek word (methuo) will be found in Matthew 24:49;; Acts 2:15; 1 Thess. 5:7. Concerning the word in 1 Corinthians 11:21 we read from "An American (Baptist) Commentary on the New Testament": "THE WORD ITSELF MEANS DRUNK AND NOTHING SOFTER. THE PASSAGE IS CONCLUSIVE AS TO THE WINE USED BY THEM AT THE LORD'S SUPPER." Now the fact that under such circumstances the Apostle Paul did not prohibit the use of wine is a very strong argument indeed for the use of wine. Argument from silence is not always strong or even valid; but in this case it is strikingly both. Surely, if it had been improper to use wine in the Lord's Supper, the apostle would have said so, since some had done such an unseemly and vicious thing as to get drunk on the wine.
 

It is said today that it ought not to be used because it puts temptation before the weak. Was not Paul as much concerned for the weak as these are? We know from his writing that he was supremely concerned for the weak. Then he must have had some conscientious scruple that prevented his forbidding the use of wine! Marcus Dods says: "ALTHOUGH THE WINE OF HOLY COMMUNION HAD BEEN SO BADLY ABUSED, PAUL DOES NOT PROHIBIT ITS USE IN THE ORDINANCE. HIS MODERATION AND WISDOM HAVE NOT IN THIS RESPECT BEEN UNIVERSALLY FOLLOWED. ON INFINITELY LESS OCCASIONS ALTERATIONS HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED INTO THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ORDINANCE WITH A VIEW TO PREVENTING ITS ABUSE BY RECLAIMED DRUNKARDS AND ON STILL A SLIGHTER PRETEXT A MORE SWEEPING ALTERATION WAS INTRODUCED MANY CENTURIES AGO BY THE CHURCH OF ROME."
 

Now, in the face of Paul's failure to forbid the use of wine in the Lord's Supper in the light of the fact that some of the members of the church at the time when the supper was supposed to be celebrated, what shall we say of those today who opposed the use of wine in the Lord's Supper through fear of injuring the weak? Their arguments sounds very much like the argument against immersion for baptism on the ground that it is indecent.
 

3. THE SYMBOLISM OF THE SUPPER DEMANDS WINE. On this point we find some very curious reasoning on the part of some in insisting on grape juice for this same reason. We find a Seventh Day Adventist paper thus contending. Also a Sunday school paper for young people publisher somewhere in the north. And this is the contention of one converted Jewish rabbi to whom we wrote. But that this contention is false and that grape juice does naturally contain leaven (a type of sin and evil) ought to be apparent to any one upon a moment's reflection. If grape juice did not contain leaven, it would not ferment. In answer to our query concerning this matter, Frederic J. Haskin, Director of information Bureau at Washington, D. C., gave the following significant reply:
 

"THE BUREAU OF PLANT INDUSTRY OF THE U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE SAYS THAT GRAPES NATURALLY CONTAIN A LEAVENING AGENT AND THAT THIS IS PRESENT IN THE JUICE." Does the Bureau of Plant Industry know what it is talking about? We invite proof to the contrary. Then comes the question as to what becomes of the leaven in the process of fermentation. In answer to this, Mr. Haskin continues: "THE LEAVEN IS USED UP IN THE PROCESS OF FERMENTATION SO THAT THE FINISHED PRODUCT OR WINE DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY."
 

Therefore, we may contend that it takes fermented wine to match unleavened bread, and that the former is as essential as the latter. The fruit of the vine that properly represents the sinless blood of Christ must not have any leaven in it. Therefore, wine should be used.
 

But someone asks what to do about the vows that many have made when young never to touch any intoxicants. We reply that Scriptural consistency and the proper commemoration of the Lord's death should come before a pledge or anything else. It is better to break a pledge than to fail to properly keep this memorial. God does not hold any one responsible for the keeping of a pledge that hinders him in properly honoring Christ. Stick to your pledge in general, for it is a good one; but do not let it come between you and the Bible's teaching regarding observance of the Lord's Supper.