Real WIne for the Lord's Supper

Welcome to The Wrap Report. This is where we give you biblical interpretation for things that we see in culture or on social media.

This is a ministry of striving for eternity. You can find out more about us at strivingforeternity .org.

I'd like to take issue with something I heard on a podcast called Conversations from the

Porch. Now, mind you, I'm going to put the link in the description, but mind you, I want to be aware that these are friends of mine.

This is not something where I'm taking them to task. We are people who disagree on things, but we love one another, so please don't take this as attack for any of you who are watching who may be fans of Conversations from the

Porch. Just a different view, and so now I'm going to see what some of the application of interpretation.

So as we look to the Scriptures, we see that they were addressing the issues on the latest podcast dealing with the

Lord's Supper, both with the elements and the frequency. Not going to deal with the frequency as much, but to deal with the elements of it, and they were making a case for the use of real wine during the

Lord's Supper. I would like to take issue with that, with the interpretation that they used. Now, the argument that they used is that real wine was used in the first century.

Correct. It was. But also used in the first century, in that very first Lord's Supper, was unleavened bread.

Remember that the Passover was what turned into the Lord's Supper, so we cannot take that apart from saying, well, let's go back to the original elements without looking at what the

Passover Seder would have been. The very first Lord's Supper, and maybe even several after that, would have included unleavened bread, matzah.

And so you have the issue that if you're going to say we have to use real wine because that was how it was first instituted, then you also must use unleavened bread.

Now, they were making a case for a loaf of bread that everyone pulls off. Love the picture that that has of the unity of the body of Christ all partaking of the same bread.

Love that. You lose, though, the argument when you say we have to use real wine, but you're going to use a loaf of bread.

Now, did in the first century they change from unleavened bread to leavened bread?

Yeah, they probably did. And the idea of breaking bread, which some will say always means partaking of the

Lord's Supper, well, not really. Because breaking bread is a way of saying let's have a meal together.

My wife is from Hong Kong, and there they would say when having breakfast or brunch really is to say let's sip tea.

That would be the literal translation. Well, they're going to have more than tea. They're going to have brunch. Well, breaking of bread in Judaism would be a way of saying let's have a meal together.

Let's share in a meal. So sometimes it's going to be sharing of a meal. Sometimes it is going to be the

Lord's Supper when we see it in the New Testament. We have to let the context decide which one that may be.

Maybe because we're not always sure. However, when it comes to the issue of real wine, why did they have wine and not say water or soda?

Yeah, I understand. Some of you in the Midwest and South, you call it pop. We'll give some, you know, we'll give grace there.

I understand you don't speak English. No, we'll call it soda pop. So those of us who are in the

Northeast, we call it soda. So the idea that why don't they have soda? Why don't they have water? Well, because of dysentery.

They wouldn't have drank that. And there's places in the world today where they still would drink a watered down or basically alcohol in their wine because of the fact that they can't drink straight water.

In places where they don't have some of the filtration that we have in other places or other things to drink.

So, they would drink real wine. But that was for a cultural reason.

And so to make an argument that we must use real wine in the Lord's Supper today, but not use the same type of bread that they used,

I think you lose the argument. You either have to have both the same elements, unleavened bread and real wine, which

I'm not going to recommend, but either do both or you have to say that if the bread is cultural, so is the wine and we would see that the wine was drank in that time for a different reason than we would drink it today.

We have a different culture and wine has a different aspect, a different context today than it did back then.

So the question that churches need to ask and the challenge to those who want to use real wine in their

Lord's Supper is could you be putting a stumbling block before your church?

The body of Christ is joining together to unify around the Lord's Supper. Could you be putting a stumbling block before some people?

That's the thing you have to wrestle with. But once you say that you want to be to the original elements and you've already given up the bread,

I think you've given up the wine as well. Those are my thoughts. That's what we have to say here on The Wrap Report.

Let us know your thoughts and comments. You can always go to strivingforeternity .org to find out more about the ministry and what we have to say.