Alright, let's watch as we read
the account which is in all three of the synoptic Gospels of our
Lord and His disciples in the upper room. Verse 17, Now the
first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the disciples came to
Jesus, saying unto Him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for
thee to eat the Passover? And He said, go into the city
to such a man and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is
at hand, I will keep the Passover at thy house with my disciple. And the disciples did as Jesus
had appointed them, and they made ready the Passover. Now
when the evening was come, he sat down with the twelve, and
as they did eat, he said, Verily, I say unto you, that one of you
shall betray Me." And they were exceedingly sorrowful, and began
every one of them to say unto Him, Lord, is it I? And He answered and said, He
that dippeth his hand with Me in the dish, the same shall betray
Me. The Son of Man goeth as it is
written of Him, but woe unto that man by whom the Son of Man
is betrayed, It had been good for him had he never been born. Then Judas, which betrayed him,
answered and said, Master, is it I? And he said unto him, Thou
hast said. Now watch. And as they were eating,
Jesus took bread and blessed it and broke it and gave it to
his disciples and said, Take, eat, this is my body. And he
took the cup and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying,
Drink ye all of it, for this is my blood of the New Testament,
which is shed for many for the remission of sin. 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. And when they had sung an hymn,
they went out into the Mount of Olives." Now, as we begin
our study today, please let us strike the very same bargain
that we made in beginning our last study. That is, that Scripture
will be our sole guide and will be our sole rule in this study. And our main appeal will be to
the Scripture and whatsoever they teach us and whatsoever
they say. And if the Scripture give us
light upon the matter, We will bind ourselves to walk in that
light. We will not be afraid to follow
after the instruction of the Scripture, not even if it leads
us to the conclusion that wine is the proper element in the
Lord's supper cup. We are always upon solid ground
when we are following after the Scripture and being obedient
to the Word of the Lord. Let me do a second thing. Let
me repeat the example that we used in our last study, and that
is the widespread incident and belief in infant sprinkling for
baptism that we find throughout Christendom in our day, even
though there is not a single example or command anywhere in
the Scripture that infants are to be baptized or that sprinkling
is the mode of baptism. Now, I've read numerous quotes
from those who believe in sprinkling infants for baptism, who admit
at the same time that the word baptizo actually means to immerse
or to dip or to submerge in water. They do not contest the meaning
of the word baptizo in many instances. They honestly and freely admit
that it means to submerge or to immerse or to put down under
the water. And yet, in the light of that,
they sprinkle a few drops of water upon the brow, they call
that baptism, and it is very widespread in our time. Even while admitting that they
have understood the scriptural word in another way altogether. It's less embarrassing, more
convenient, traditional, whatever it might be. Now that leads me
to make the same point and the same analogy and the application
about the wine in the Lord's Supper issue. There are many
who have long, long ago admitted that the Lord made real wine
in the second chapter of the Gospel of John. They have admitted
to themselves that it was real wine that the early churches
used in the supper of the Lord to commemorate His death. They
have long ago admitted that the Bible does not enforce total
abstainence, and yet still use grape juice in the Lord's supper,
using such justification as Our wine is much more potent than
the wine that they used in their day. Water was contaminated and
scarce, and so they were therefore drinkers of wine. It was much
weaker in that day than in ours. They mixed it with water. There
are two kinds of wine. Or even, they say, fruit of the
vine, which I read about this morning, means nothing more than
grape juice and not fermented wine, when the expression is
found in the Scripture. Long ago some of us admitted
these things, and yet we still held, as it were, to the use
of grape juice in the supper of the Lord. Now I want to ask
a question. Having said all of that, the
question being, what is the difference In those that admit that baptizo
means to submerge or to bury in water, and yet who sprinkle,
and what is the difference in those who admit that the Lord
made wine, the early churches used it in the supper, and then
used grape juice in the supper, and oppose the use of wine after
the example of the Scripture. Now, before we get too deep into
our study today, let me make a couple of points that I think
are worthy of our note. Number one, we agree now that
there is great disagreement between churches and between Christians
over the issue, and that there are good and devoted people on
both sides of the issue. who do what they do under the
Lord. Secondly, there are those who
consider any and every drop of wine a sin. whose consciences
are so trained in the matter that they could not dare, as
it were, raise the cup under their lip. And then let me say
this before we go any further. Personally, I would not recommend
that you raise a great controversy or stir up a great squabble,
as it were, over it. Otherwise, in a particularly
gospel church, I would not recommend that you make a great to-do about
it. But I would say when the issue
is raised, when the issue is brought up, when the issue must
be faced, We should stand upon the side of the Holy Scripture. We should take our stand upon
the side of the Scripture. If the Scripture gives us light,
then we must walk according to that light in the Scripture.
And the Scripture is clear that wine was made by the Lord at
the wedding in John chapter 2. It was not great juice that our
Lord supplied them to drink. And that our Lord Himself said
that He drank wine occasionally, moderately. We see that in the
Scripture. And we see for centuries that
wine was the element of the Lord's Supper cup. in churches of all
kinds, and we see in the Scripture that wine was the element used
by the Corinthian church. We know that far of fact. So
we cleared this hurdle in the last portion of our study, when
in that study we proved that Scripture does not bind the child
of God to absolute and total abstinence as far as the question
of wine is concerned. That there are many recommendations
of wine in the Scripture for its use, and that a merry gladdening
of the heart by wine is not forbidden, but is recommended by the Scripture. Now, I believe that there will
be a lot of objections that we might raise or that some of you
might raise. And so that I might have your
attention later and all during the study, I will now meet and
disarm most of the leading objections that are raised against the use
of wine in the Lord's Supper, lest you sit there ready to say,
but what about, but what about, but what about? So we'll take
some of the objections now that they might be cast aside and
that we might give our attention under the study that is at hand
today. I've listed about nine or ten
of the leading objections that you might hear when the question
is raised. And one of the leading ones is
one that I used to make myself. I can just hear me saying this,
number one, I can't believe that my Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior
of my soul, the very Son of God, made, drank, or approved of the
drinking of wine. can't believe that my Lord would
make wine and furnish wine that would be intoxicating if used
to excess to any man. What's the answer to that? The
answer is very clear in John chapter 2. He made wine, John
2, 1 through 11. He drank of it moderately, Luke
7.34, Matthew 11 and verse 19. and was called a wine-bibber
for it in the Scripture. So, I believe that answers that
objection. Objection number two. Someone
says, but me, I am a total abstainer. I don't drink any intoxicating
liquor of any kind. And I answer, that certainly
is your right, if that is your conviction based upon the dictate
of your conscience. But I will remind you at the
same time that the Scriptures are not they that are binding
you to this vow. And number three, somebody said,
I vowed in my life never to drink intoxicating liquor. Let me ask
you if your vow supersedes the teaching of the Scripture. And
what would you do with the Lord's Supper? Would you forego the
Lord's Supper on the strength of that vow? Now, the Scriptures
certainly come before any vow that you and I might make. And
then fourthly, somebody says, well, I don't like the taste
of it. I just don't like the way it tastes. Neither do I. But we do not take it in the
Lord's Supper to tease our taste buds or for the pleasure of its
taste. We take it to remember the bitterness
of the death of our Lord who died for us upon the cross of
Calvary. And besides, if you say, well,
I don't like the taste of it, let me ask you, what if someone
there is that be among us that does not like the flat, tasteless
taste of unleavened bread or of flat bread. They say, I just
don't like unleavened bread. Could we use toast or doughnuts
or Twinkies to appease those in a case like that? Number five,
I heard a man say, the man was a preacher, and he said, wine
in communion has made thousands and thousands of drunkards out
a preacher. Now, I want to say to that, come
now, really, really, is that a reasonable statement? A thimble
full of wine three or four times a year, making thousands and
thousands of drunkards out of ministers of the gospel? Is this
really a real approach under the question or under the matter? And besides, let me ask you,
what is it that makes adulterers? out of so many preachers in our
generation? Is it women in the church? What
is it that makes thieves out of so many preachers in our time
and generation? Is it because we take up an offering
and have money in the church? Did church dinners make gluttons
out of these 300-pound preachers that you see waddling around
in our midst in this day and generation? So I think we need
to be realistic about the matter and say, really, three or four
thimbles full of year will not likely make drunkards out of
thousands and thousands. Objection number six. Someone
said, oh, now wait a minute, this real wine in the Lord's
Supper will be a great temptation to a converted alcoholic or a
converted drunk. One may get a taste of that wine
in the Lord's Supper and lose absolute control of himself and
fall off of the wagon and go back to his old way of life. Now, I would ask you, where is
the grace of God in these matters? But besides, let me apply this
logic to those that are converted from other sins to Christianity
and are members of the church. What if a former robber sits
in the congregation and you pass the offering plate right under
his nose. Will he be tempted to go out
and rob a few banks because he saw money in the offering plate? What if a former adulterer sits
in the church and beholds a beautiful woman, or God forbid, one dressed
immodestly? Will it set him off on another
bench of sin and adultery? What if a converted child molester
takes his place on the pew beside a beautiful child. Will it send
him again upon a spree? What if a converted honky-tonker
comes and hears Kevin play the fiddle, will it rush him out
again into the honky-tonk so that he will return to that former
way of life? Shall we ban all these things
so that they will not be a temptation to the person who used them in
sin before they were converted to the Lord Jesus Christ? Objection
number seven. Somebody said, well, I think
that this will be a very poor and bad example unto the children. to see us sitting in church partaking
of wine. And let me answer that by saying,
to uproot them over a thimble full of wine will do them greater
harm than to explain to them that the Bible is upon our side. Besides, did not Christ turn
water into wine? Did not Paul recommend to Timothy
that he take a little bit for the stomach's sake? 1 Timothy
5 and verse 23. Didn't the Jews use it in their
wine offerings to the Lord in the Old Testament? Did not the
churches use it in the Lord's Supper for century after century
after century? And do you suppose that no child
ever saw that or beheld that and saw the use of wine in that
way. And besides, so many who oppose
the use of wine in the supper of the Lord that their children
might see it, We'll drop them off at an R-rated movie, or allow
them to play vulgar rock and roll right in the very house.
I think that we need to quit swallowing a net, straining at
a net, and swallowing a camel. As for the children, Why not
tell them the truth and read the Scripture unto them and stand
upon the ground of the Scripture exactly as the Jews did centuries
ago? And then somebody is very sharp
and they said, objection number eight, but our Baptist church
covenant said that we will abstain from the sale and use of intoxicating
drinks as a beverage, and it's right there in our church covenant. Well, let me answer that by saying
that the man who wrote that church covenant, Brother John Newton
Brown, in 1835, according to a book that I have by Brother
Milburn Cockrell, said that the same man that wrote that covenant
wrote the New Hampshire Confession of Faith, which agrees with wine
as the proper element in the supper of the Lord. and that
Brother Brown himself used real wine in the supper of the Lord
in his own particular church and believed in it. And besides,
if anybody hits me with this argument, I reserve the right
to recall this objection if anybody says, well, you're appealing
to human authority for proof in this case. Because there are
those that do that, you know. They appeal to history. Brother
so-and-so believed it. And so they accuse us I'm saying,
well, you're proving it by human authority. And so, if any say
that, then I will tell you that you have done the same thing
according to that objection. Objection number nine. Somebody
says, and I've heard this one all my life, the best way in
the world never to become a drunkard is to never take the first drop
of wine or of liquor or of any kind. Now, is this true? And
is it a legitimate argument? There are some people that are
drunks without the aid of commercial liquor, you know. I was thinking
this week about my little hometown. When I was a kid there, the town
drunk in our little hometown, our little town was so small
we had to share a town drunk with a town down the road, but
we had a town drunk and his name was Hootie Hall. Now Hootie Hall
would go to town, we'd see him make his way to town, and in
a little while he'd come staggering back down the street. Now, our
little town was dry. Our precinct was dry. People
had to go down to the county line to get to the beer joints.
Well, what in the world had Hootie done? Well, he'd gone into the
store and bought him the biggest bottle of vanilla extract that
he could find, and he gulped it down, and Hootie stayed drunk
on vanilla extract. And the stores in town could
hardly keep a supply of vanilla extract for our town drunk Hootie. So, you see, there are people
that drink... I understand Kitty Dukakis drank
some rubbing alcohol. She got so hard up for a good
drink, she just downed the rubbing alcohol and had to rush her to
the hospital. So you see, the sin is in the
natures of the people rather than in the element itself as
we saw in our last study. And do any apply the same logic
to other sins? You say, well, the best way never
to become a drunkard is to never take the first drop of liquor. I'm going to ask you, A. Do you
say that the best way never to become a glutton, never to become
bulimic or anorexic, is to never take the first mouthful of food? Would you argue from that sin,
from that same standpoint? B. The best way never to become
greedy and a covetous person and a thief is never to touch
that first dollar. Would you argue with it in that
way? C. Would you argue the best way
never to become an adulterer or fall into that sin is never
to be intimate the very first time? We all agree, and the Scripture
supports it, that lawful moderation is the answer in every one of
these areas. We do not contend that sin dwells
in food or that it dwells in money. Do we? Certainly there
are none of us that do that. The words of our Lord Jesus Christ
in Luke chapter 7, verse 18 through 23 are these. Not that which goeth in defileth
a man, but that which cometh out, out of the heart, proceed
evils, blasphemy, murder, and all sorts of things as that.
So our Lord says that what goes in, that is, in the form of drink
and of food, is not that that defiles because it is sent out
in the system of waste. Not that that you put in defiles,
but that that comes out of the heart of an individual, that
is what defiles. Now, having answered these few
objections, let us now turn our attention to the Lord's Supper
and the question biblically wine or grape juice in the supper
of the Lord. Now, there is no question from
the historical writings, the confession, the creeds and the
commentary, and the Scripture, there is no doubt that wine was
used in the Lord's supper for centuries. And that, I said,
by all churches, including all kinds of Baptists in centuries
gone by. Now, the question is, what cost
so many? especially the evangelicals such
as Baptists and Methodists and so forth, to change to great
Jews. What caused or brought about
the change? Since for centuries they have
taken wine as the proper element of the supper of the Lord. Well,
I answer, I believe it was a combination of two factors that I would now
mention. Number one, free will Arminianism. There was never any controversy
about it until Arminianism prospered, until free will was set as the
belief of the church is, and sound doctrine was left for human
opinions. And with that, there rose a pseudo-sanctification
among so many in that movement. Now secondly, the temperance
movement had the tremendous effect upon the change of the element
in the supper of the Lord. You've heard of the WCTU, the
Women's Christian Temperance Union, and then the Anti-Saloon
League that was formed, which led in this country to prohibition
in about 1919 or 1920. Now, this was not altogether
a Christian movement, and you need to realize that. This was
not an out and out Christian movement moving in the name of
righteousness. There was a mingling and a mixture
of humanism. Humanists lent their support
to this movement that led, as it were, to prohibition. And
then there was much preaching, temperance preaching, by Methodists
and by Baptists. And during that time, many of
the churches switched from wine unto grape juice and continued
it. even until this present day,
acting as if it were that used by the Lord in His time. Now, ever since that day, they
have contended one of two things. There are two kinds of wine,
they say in the Bible, or secondly, they contend fruit of the vine
means grape juice. and not wine as used by our Lord. So we dealt with the question
last week, are there two kinds of wine in the Scripture? And we saw that it was not so. And we saw that the Bible does
not bind total abstinence upon all of them. And so these are
errors that we have held to in our Christian life. Now be that
as it may, let us come at the question we are discussing from
this angle. There are many who say, well,
it doesn't really matter whatever the element is in the cup. The main thing is that we remember
the Lord. Now, there are many who oppose
the use of wine in the Lord's Supper. It will be heard to say,
it doesn't matter whether it's wine, it doesn't matter whether
it's grape juice, it doesn't matter at all. They say the element
is not the important thing either. or either one would be okay,
the wine or the grape juice. Now, let me ask a question. If this be true with the use
of wine, since Christ did and the early church used it and
did for centuries, will you therefore weigh the other element against
that of the cup? That is, let's go to the bread
for a minute. Let's weigh the one element against
the other. We are very meticulous about
the one. and very unconcerned about the other. Now, is there
any significance in the fact that the bread is to be unleavened
in the supper of the Lord? Is there any significance in
that fact? And could we use the same argument
that some people apply to the wine? Could we use that same
argument and apply it to the bread? For example, could someone
say, I don't eat bread, I don't like it. What if someone's on
a diet and a piece of bread sends them off on an eating binge and
they go off of their diet? And if we can substitute grape
juice for wine, can we substitute doughnuts and toast for the broken
bread, the unleavened bread that represents our Lord? Now, why
make such a big deal out of unleavened bread and then use leavened grape
juice in the cup that we celebrate and remember our Lord's death. Now why do we take a stand on
such things as the unleavened bread? those who might participate
in the supper of the Lord, and yet say of the cup, oh, it doesn't
really matter which element is put inside of the cup. Let me ask you a question. It
really doesn't matter, you say, what it is that's in the cup,
wine or grape juice. Either one is acceptable. Can
I ask you this? If the next time we have a candidate
for baptism here, that present themselves for baptism Can I
just bring me a little cup of water down here, sprinkle some
water on that brow and say, I baptize thee in the name of the Father
and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost? Does it really make any
difference which mode we use in administering one of the ordinances
of the Bible? And do you say to me, well, now
wait a minute, the word baptizo means to dip, it means to immerse. And I will say to you, oinos
means wine. And it means wine wherever it
appears in the Scripture. And the early church used that
wine in the celebration of the Supper of the Lord. Now, let's
dispel a myth that many have. Many suppose that of the two,
grape juice or wine, if compared together, that it is the wine
that is leavened and the grape juice that is unleavened. This
is the argument of a lot of people, and they argue, let me tell you,
in absolute ignorance. They say, the wine is poison
and the grape juice is that that is unleavened. Thus they say,
the grape juice is the better and the proper element to represent
the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, which thing the cup is certainly
designed to do. Now, we all know and admit that
the blood of Christ is certainly pure and undefiled. But here's the truth as I dispel
the myth. The truth is that it is the grape
juice, not the wine, that contains the leaven. The leaven or the
yeast is on the peel of the grape as it grows, and when they're
crushed to make juice, it spreads itself and leavens, as it were,
the grape juice. I saw a quote. from a Mr. Frederick
J. Haskin, Director of Information
Bureau in Washington, D.C., and this quote I jotted down. He
was asked about this question of leaven as to wine or grape
juice. He said, quote, The Bureau of
Plant Industry of the U.S. Department of Agriculture says
that grapes naturally contain a leavening agent and that it
is present in the juice, unquote. And then the man was asked, Well,
then what happens to the leaven during the process of fermentation? And he answered, and I quote,
the leaven is used up in the process of fermentation so that
the finished product, that is wine, does not contain any leaven. Unquote. Now I took that from
the book, A Systematic Study of Biblical Doctrine by T.P. Simmons, page 399. And Simmons
added this, fermented wine alone corresponds to the unleavened
bread and is required for the same reason that unleavened bread
is required." That is, it is the wine that is the unleavened
substance to represent the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus,
there is an inconsistency in demanding the use of unleavened
bread and at the same time, leavened grape juice for the supper of
the Lord. The wine being without leaven
better pictures the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, especially
since it is called, quote, the blood of the grapes, unquote.
Genesis 49 and verse 11, which verse equates wine and the blood
of the grapes as being one and the same thing. See also Deuteronomy
32 and verse 14. But now, in the matter of the
Lord's supper, And the element that is to be used, to me, one
of the strongest and often overlooked arguments in favor of wine is
right here in our text, and that's this, that our Lord Jesus Christ,
in instituting the supper of the Lord, took the elements that
were present and used in the Jewish Passover and used them to initiate the supper of the
Lord. Now, let that sink in. When our
Lord would initiate the supper of the Lord, what did He do?
He took the very elements off of the table that the Jews used
in the celebration of the Old Testament Passover. Now, to institute
the supper of the Lord, He took that bread, unleavened, we know
about unleavened, And he took that cup, which I'll prove in
a moment, was wine, unleavened wine, and he used them to institute
the supper, the Lord's Supper. Now, Mr. Spurgeon put it this
way, the Jewish Passover, which was a memorial of their deliverance
from Egypt, was made to mount in the Lord's Supper, which is
a memorial of our redemption from sin. So that supper, melted
into the supper of the Lord, and our Lord used the same elements
to institute one. David Brown put it like this,
it was the point of transition between the two divine economies
and their representative festivals, unquote. The festival of deliverance
from Egypt, when they drank wine the Passover night. The festival
of our deliverance from sin by the death of our Lord, that is
to be celebrated by the unleavened bread and the unleavened wine. One to close the door forever
on the Old Testament Jewish Passover, and the other an institution
that our Lord made that was to endure to the very end of the
world. Now let us agree, it was to be
the last Jewish Passover And it became the first Lord's Supper
as our Lord took His disciples into that upper room. Now, we
know that they used unleavened bread, but I'm going to dwell
on this question. What was in the cup for the Jewish
Passover Supper? Was it grape juice or was it
wine? Now, it is well documented that
in the Passover, the Jews drank several cups of wine during the
night of the celebration of the Passover. A lot say four. Four cups of wine were drunk
from by every Jew in celebration of the Passover. John Gill says
on Matthew 26 and 27, quote, they obliged all to drink four
cups of wine, men, women, and children, and even the poorest
in Israel who was maintained out of the alms, Even that person
who couldn't afford his own. J.B. Lightfoot, recognized by
nearly all as a great scholar of the Greek, said, the wine
of the Passover was so strong that it was often mixed and weakened
down with water. The Jewish encyclopedia says
under the heading Passover, quote, the rabbis related Israel's deliverance
from Egypt and each Israelite was obliged to drink four cups
of wine on the night." Now, by the way, we know that the Corinthian
church used wine in the Lord's Supper. How do we know that?
We know from 1 Corinthians 11 and verse 21 because some of
them got soused in the celebration of the Supper of the Lord. Some
of them got drunk because they used real wine. Now, Paul wrote
to them And He didn't say to them, now wait a minute, get
rid of this wine and get grape juice as the element in the supper
of the Lord. He rebuked them for the abuse
of it. He rebuked them for the neglect.
But He did not correct them about the element that was used in
the cup or the celebration of the Lord. So let's make this
conclusion. Christ took real wine. which
was in the Passover cup, gave it to his disciples, instituting
the supper of the Lord, and said unto them, Drink ye all of it,
and said, This is a memorial, this is my blood of the New Testament
which is shed for you." In fact, some say that it was the third
cup that Christ used for the institution of the supper of
the Lord, because the third one was called the cup of blessing,
which we bless. Now, in conjunction with this,
here we have to treat another objection, and that is those
who contend for grape juice contend that such is the meaning of the
expression, fruit of the vine, here in our text of the morning. Now, they must be openly dishonest
to deny the meaning of the word wine, which some of them are
in their contention about two wines. They are openly dishonest. Sometimes oinos is wine with
them, sometimes oinos is grape juice, and we have to call them
up to find out which is which. So they take refuge in this cavil
against it. Fruit of the vine means grape
juice. Fruit of the vine is nothing more than fresh, unfermented
grape juice. Now, I want to make a point.
It might not seem like a big point, but some have pointed
out this fact, and I think you ought to consider it, that at
the time our Lord celebrated the Passover and instituted the
supper of the Lord, it was the wrong time of year to have fresh
grape juice available. It had been months since the
harvest, and they had no way, no process to keep the grape
juice from fermenting. And it had been months since
the harvest would be months before another harvest, and so there
was no availability of fresh grape juice for that institution
of our Lord. Now, in addition to that, fruit
of the vine may connotate grape juice to you. It may connotate
great abuse to you, but when our Lord used that expression
in front of a bunch of Jews, they clearly understood that
He meant wine by it. It was an expression that Israel
understood. It was a term with which they're
familiar. It was just as clear to them
as if our Lord had said, this wine that I will drink new with
you in My Father's Kingdom. Now, when the Jews at the Passover
prayed over the cup, they would say something like this, Blessed
art thou, Jehovah our God, who has created the fruit of the
vine." Now I quoted that from the Life and Times of Alfred
Edersheim on the history of the Jews. John Gill also quotes the
prayer of the Jews, quote, Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, the
King of the world, who hath created the fruit of the vine, unquote,
and they understood by that to be wine. Dunlop Moore, Presbyterian,
recognized as an authority, made a study of such thing and said
the following, quote, the fruit of the vine is in fact a technical
term for wine in the ritual of the Jews and is always employed
in their liturgical services to denote wine in the proper
sense of the term, unquote. Now strictly speaking, Strictly
speaking, only the grape would be the fruit of the vine, would
it not? An apple is the fruit of an apple tree. And strictly
speaking, only the grape would be the fruit of the vine. Now,
as for Baptists, wine was the accepted element of the cup until
about the mid-1800s. No question about it. It was
used by Baptists of all kinds. No question until that time it
was used. John Gill, Charles Spurgeon,
Benjamin Keats, John Bunyan, just to name a few were some
of the Baptist forefathers of the past that believed in wine
in the supper of the Lord. Not only that, it was in the
creeds before that time. The English Baptist Creed of
1596. The London of 1677 and 1689. The New Hampshire of 1833. The Southern Baptist Convention
Creed of 19 and 25. And by the way, even the Methodists
used it in the Supper of the Lord and abandoned it officially
in about 1890. It also was the element that
they used in the Supper of the Lord. So let us conclude this
thing this morning. by saying grape juice is not
as ancient a thing as some might think for the supper of the Lord.
You might think Paul used it and Jesus made grape juice for
the wedding, but it's not so. Grape juice in communion is of
a recent origin, the last hundred years or so, that such has come
to be popular and that people have fought over it. Now, let
me give you this caution. If you doubt what I have said,
the honest thing to do If you doubt what I said and you disagree
with the position that I'm taking this morning, the honest thing
to do is not jump up and grab your child by the hand and rush
out of here and say, I'll never come back. If you really believe
that, the honest thing for you to do is to sit down and study
this very, very diligently for a month or two before you say
another word about it. If you're really honest about
it, if you're really sincere that you be on scriptural ground,
this is the thing to do. Sit down and study it. Say, I'm
having a problem with this. But be honest enough to at least
sit down and study it to see whether or not you can come up
with viable support for the thing that you believe. Now, if your
conscience smarts at it, that is, if your conscience smarts
at the taking of wine in the Lord's Supper, the best tonic
for such a conscience is the truth of God. And the thing that
will set the conscience free to do what God's Word said is
absolute truth. And it'll set you free from false
convictions. It'll set you free from false
accusations of the conscience, which has been falsely taught
upon some matter or the other. Can you not follow the example
of Christ? Can you not follow the example
of the Apostle and of the early church and of our Baptist forefathers
in the matter of the supper of the Lord? Furthermore, let me
say as we close, You don't have to like it, or you don't have
to ever drink another drop apart from the communion supper of
the Lord. You don't have to like it. It's
not going to turn you into a drunk. You don't have to like it, and
you don't have to ever drink it apart from the supper of the
Lord. You can be what is known as an
abstentionist, and that is I drink it in the Lord's Supper. I believe
it's the proper element of the Lord's Supper, but I don't drink
it any other time. If that is your conviction, then
it's properly consistent with the Word of the Lord. Let me
give you this final consideration by asking the question, how can
wine better symbolize the Lord's blood than grape juice? How can
wine better symbolize the Lord's blood than grape juice? Well,
let me see if I can answer that. and give a good answer. First
of all, it better resembles it in the color, in that grape juice
is purple and the wine is red, lichen under the blood of our
Lord Jesus Christ. Secondly, it corresponds to the
unleavened bread. It is the unleavened cup and
it corresponds, therefore, to the unleavened bread. Third,
wine, and not grape juice, is a symbol of salvation in the
Scripture. Isaiah 55 and 1. Isaiah 25, verses
6 through 9. Wine, not grape juice, is a symbol
of the gladness of salvation. Wine is a symbol of gladness.
Ecclesiastes 10 and 19. It heals, Luke 10 and 34, and
cleanses. It symbolizes rejoicing, Zechariah
10 and verse 7. It symbolizes abundant blessings
of God and satisfaction, Genesis 27 and verse 28. Grape juice would symbolize Christ's
blood as tainted with leaven. Wine in proper amounts is pure
from rottenness, is a medicine, is a cleanser, a purifier, a
healer, even as it pictures Christ, who is all of this to our soul,
who heals us, who cleanses us, who puts away our iniquities,
and does it by His own precious blood. The blood of Jesus Christ
makes glad the heart of those that are saved, and wine, therefore,
is the symbol of these things that Christ is to us as the children
of God. So often in the Bible, God Himself
uses wine to symbolize the blessed and happy estate of His people,
and He promised to bless them with an abundance of wine and
corn in their fields. And so today, I present this
case to you for your consideration. I trust that you will be honest
if you have problems with it, if conscious smarts, if you're
used to something else, that you'll be honest enough to sit
down and make the most thorough, honest study that you have ever
made of the subject from the Scripture. I don't run to a friend,
run to the Scripture. First, run to the Scripture and
see what the Scriptures lead thee to do. and where the scriptures
will bring you upon this matter.