CHAPTER 7

COMMUNION  WINE 

One of the key issues with respect to the question of temperance is the issue of communion wine. All acknowledge that wine was used at the Last Supper.  The question that is in dispute is, “What kind of wine was it?”.  Was it new wine or was it fermented wine?  The text does not explicitly tell us.  As we have noted the word “oinos” can mean either kind of wine, but the word “wine” (oinos) does not even appear in any of the accounts of the Last Supper.  For these reasons, we need all the more to carefully study the context to determine what kind of wine was used.  First of all, we need to note that the Lord’s Supper was instituted at a time when Christ and his disciples were observing the Passover.  This will provide us with valuable information as to the nature of the wine that was used.  What they were actually observing was the Feast of the Passover, which lasted for seven days.  The basic law of this feast, also called in Scripture the Feast of Unleavened Bread*, is found in Exodus 12.  The relevant portion for our purposes is quoted below.

Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel…Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses: for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, even that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a stranger, or born in the land. Ye shall eat nothing leavened; in all your habitations shall ye eat unleavened bread.  Exodus 12:15,19-20 

A fundamental requirement of this feast was that there should be no leaven in the home at all.  The emphasis was on the absence of leavened bread.  This is undoubtedly because leavened bread was the chief, and perhaps the only, source of leaven in a typical Israelite’s home.  If so, this becomes an additional argument that alcoholic wine was not in normal use among godly Israelites.  It could also be that, as slaves in Egypt, they were fed a diet that did not include any wine.  Leavened bread would then have been the only source of leaven that they had to concern themselves with.  At any rate the faithful observance of the festival requires the removal of all leaven or yeast from the home.  And the two chief sources of leaven, in fact the only sources of leaven that I can think of, are the leaven in leavened bread and in fermented wine.  This should be obvious to all, but inexplicably, that has not been the case. 

It is agreed to, almost universally, that unleavened bread was used at the Passover.  Therefore it is agreed to by all that unleavened bread was used by Christ and his disciples at the Last Supper.  Yet strangely enough the same argument has not been applied to the wine.  If no yeast was allowed to even be in the house, how could fermented beverages be allowed?  It is yeast that causes new wine to ferment into alcoholic wine.  But yeast was forbidden to even be in the house!  One could argue that the yeast was dead and therefore, in a sense, no yeast was in the wine.  However, this is untrue and does not meet the clear scriptural requirements.  There was yeast in leavened bread and so it is forbidden.  The yeast is put into the dough and causes it to rise.  When it is risen sufficiently, it is baked.  The baking process kills the yeast.  But the dead yeast remains in the bread and therefore the bread is forbidden, not only to be eaten, but its very presence in the house is unlawful during the entire feast of the Passover.  Now when the process of fermentation is complete, there is yeast in the wine.  If the wine has reached the maximum concentration of alcohol and the  resulting toxicity has killed the yeast, then the dead yeast remains in the wine. Then, like the leavened bread, it is excluded by the law of the Passover.  If the process of fermentation has gone to completion another way, that is, the sugar has been depleted before a lethal concentration of alcohol has killed the yeast, then the wine continues to contain living yeast.  Either way, the wine is excluded from use during the Passover and its presence in the house is illegal!  Are we to believe that Christ and his disciples, preparing to observe the Passover, broke the most fundamental law of this feast?  Are we to believe that on the eve of the atonement they sinned and violated the requirements of this festival?  We can come to no other conclusion than that, by the fundamental law of the Passover, the wine used at the Last Supper was new wine, was non-fermented, and therefore contained no yeast.

We could rest our case right here and be confident of our position, but there is much more that can be said to clearly, convincingly, and in our opinion overwhelmingly prove that new wine was what Christ used at the Last Supper.  Next we read that Christ took the cup and blessed it.  Did Christ bless that which he was forbidden to even look at with desire?  Solomon instructs us…

Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright.**  At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder.  Proverbs 23:31-32

How could something that we are forbidden to even observe with desire become a necessary ingredient in one of the church’s sacraments, a sacrament that we are commanded to perform?  We are to look forward to the observance of the Lord’s Supper. We are to desire the spiritual blessings that accompany the worthy partaking of the bread and the wine.  How can we do that if we are simultaneously forbidden to desire the very elements of the sacrament?  This is a contradiction that the proponents of alcoholic communion wine will have to resolve.

Then we come to the actual consumption of this communion wine by Christ and the disciples.  Could Christ actually have consumed alcoholic wine?  The clear and compelling scriptural testimony is no.  For again we have to consider the words of Solomon telling us…

It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes strong drink: Lest they drink, and forget the law, and pervert the judgment of any of the afflicted.  Proverbs 31:4-5

Now Christ was a king.  Can any Christian dispute this?  He is not just any king but he is King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, and Prince of the Kings of the earth.  And as a king he was forbidden to partake of alcoholic wine.  Are we to believe that Christ sinned as he was preparing to go to the cross?  Are we to believe, that as he was observing the Passover, which, typified him as the sinless, spotless, Lamb of God, he was actually transgressing the commandments with respect to alcoholic wine?  In a few hours Christ would be interrogated at his trials before the Sanhedrin, Herod, and Pilate.  There he confessed that he was a king. 

And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus said unto him, Thou sayest.  Matthew 27:11

The implication of Christ’s response is clearer in more modern translations.

Now Jesus stood before the governor. And the governor asked Him, saying, “Are You the King of the Jews?”  Jesus said to him, “It is as you say.”  Matthew 27:11 (NKJV) 

Christ affirms here that he was a king.  Accordingly Pilate had a superscription placed on the cross identifying him as the King of Israel.  The Pharisees sought to change this, but Pilate refused.

And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS. This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin. Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews. Pilate answered, What I have written I have written.  John 19:19-22

Pilate’s legal testimony to the truth was always providentially preserved as part of the historic record.  His frequent testimonies to Christ’s innocence, as well as his testimony that Jesus of Nazareth was the King of the Jews, is faithfully recorded in the Scriptures.  As Nathaniel confessed when he first met the omniscient Christ…

Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.  John 1:49

But the passage in Proverbs clearly states that Christ, as a king, was forbidden to partake of alcoholic wine!

It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine; nor for princes strong drink: Lest they drink, and forget the law, and pervert the judgment of any of the afflicted.  Proverbs 31:4-5

And if Christ did not violate this commandment, then we know that the wine used at the Last Supper was not alcoholic wine.  Now, some may say that Christ himself did not partake of the Lord’s Supper.  The accounts do suggest that Christ blessed the elements and then gave them to his disciples to eat and to drink.  In fact, Christ specifically stated of the wine as he distributed the cup, that they were to drink all of it, and that he would not drink of it until the kingdom of God should come.  However this does not weaken our argument at all.  First of all, Christ instituted the Lord’s Supper at the end of their meal.  All agree that he used the common elements of their meal to institute this sacrament of the New Covenant.  Now Christ had partaken of the this meal with his disciples.  He himself testifies to this saying…

With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.  Luke 22:15-16

This is a very explicit statement.  Jesus strongly emphasized his purpose to partake of this meal, as the Greek literally says “with desire I have desired to eat this Passover.”  And when is this to take place?  It is before he suffers.  Christ then adds that this will be his last Passover with his disciples and that he will not partake of it again until it is all fulfilled in the Kingdom of God.  Similarly Paul says…

After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 1 Corinthians 11:25

Paul is saying that when Christ had personally partaken of the Passover meal, then he took the cup and instituted the sacrament.  Therefore, whatever elements were used in the Lord’s Supper, they were the same as were consumed by Christ and his disciples in the Last Supper, their last Passover meal in this world.  And we know that Christ, as the true King of Israel, did not drink any alcoholic wine.  Therefore we are certain that the wine used at the Last Supper was new wine, the fresh blood of the grape, representing his blood, about to be shed as an atonement for sin. 

This interpretation is confirmed by three facts.  First Christ refers to the communion wine as the fruit of the wine.

But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.  Matthew 26:29

Now, the clear connotation of this reference is that it is new wine, grape juice freshly expressed from the fruit of the vine.  It is somewhat of a stretch to interpret this as a manufactured product produced many months after the grapes have ceased to exist.  Secondly, this very communion wine, that he is offering to his disciples, is the very same wine that he will drink with them again in the Kingdom of God.  At that time he will have entered into his kingdom.  At that time he will be more a king then ever before.  Who will believe that he will then partake of a wine forbidden to kings?  And finally Christ confirms this interpretation by his actions on the cross.  On the cross he refused to accept any alcoholic wine. 

And they bring him unto the place Golgotha, which is, being interpreted, The place of a skull. And they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh: but he received it not.  Mark 15:22-23 

What Christ was refusing here was mixed wine. This consists of alcoholic wine with additional drugs and spices mixed in to enhance and compound its intoxicating effects.  This particular wine was mingled with myrrh. Mixed wine, as defined above, is always condemned in the Scriptures.  The intended use of this mixture was to act as a narcotic or an anesthetic.  As such, this was an act of mercy by the Roman soldiers, because they knew the terrible suffering that they were about to inflict on those to be crucified.  Christ however refused it.  Why did he do so?  There are two obvious reasons.  One of these has already been alluded to, that as a king such wine was specifically forbidden to him.  Secondly, he came to suffer and to pay the full penalty for all the sins of his people.  He would drink to the full, to the very dregs, the bitter cup of suffering that the Father was pouring out for him.  The use of this wine might possibly have been allowed under the medicinal use of wine as mentioned in the Proverbs.

Give strong drink (shekar) to him who is perishing, And wine (yayin) to those who are bitter of heart.  Proverbs 31:6

In spite of this, Christ was determined to make a full atonement of our sins and to pay the price for all of our transgressions.  Therefore he refused any mitigation of his suffering.  He refused the drugged alcoholic wine.  But he accepted wine vinegar, which is non-alcoholic.

After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst  Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a sponge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth. When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.  John 19:28-30

Christ was a king.  He never drank any alcoholic wine.  He could not have taken any alcoholic wine at the Last Supper.  There could not even have been any alcoholic wine in the house during the feast of the Passover.  Therefore Christ and his disciples used non-alcoholic wine at the institution of the Lord’s Supper.  Therefore communion wine by precedent and by the example of our Lord ought to be non-alcoholic wine. 

At the Last Supper Christ taught, “I am the true vine” (John 15:1).  This completes the imagery of the Lord’s Supper.  We drink of the fruit of the vine, the blood of the grape, representing the blood of Jesus Christ shed for a complete remission of all our sins.  The drinking of new wine, of fresh grape juice, perfectly fits these analogies.  As soon as we begin to speak of fermented wine, the perfect parallels disappear and the imagery becomes corrupted.  Logically and typically, we ought to use new wine as a symbol of the atoning blood of our Lord. And furthermore, we might ask, how can something that has become corrupted with a toxic chemical be the symbol for a life-giving nourishing drink representing the atoning blood of Jesus Christ?  How can something that the Apostle Paul under inspiration states contains the principle of debauchery be used to represent the blood of our sinless Lord, the blood of the spotless Lamb of God?  Again, these are questions that demand answers, answers that the proponents of alcoholic communion wine are obliged to give us, if they can. 

It is interesting that the New Testament accounts of the Last Supper nowhere use the word “oinos.”  The authors deliberately avoided the use of the only word in the New Testament that can mean alcoholic wine.***  The wine is never directly mentioned and the only references made are to the cup. The only exception to this occurs when direct reference is made to the fruit of the vine.  This is significant.  It is therefore impossible to prove by direct testimony of the Scriptures that fermented wine was used at the Last Supper.  If, as many insist, that the Scriptures require the use of fermented wine for the observance of the Lord’s Supper, the use of the word “oinos” would have cleared the way for that view.  It would of course not have established that view, but it would at least have opened the door to that possibility.  The total silence of the Scriptures with respect to the use of the only word that can possibly mean alcoholic wine leaves its proponents with a heavy burden of proof.  It leaves them with only the possibility of a circumstantial case.  And, as we have seen, all the circumstances are actually against their view.  This leads us to the certain conclusion that the wine used at the Last Supper was unfermented wine.  And if that is the case, that is to be our example.  Let us go and do likewise.