340 – The Elements of the Lord’s Table

SEMESTER 3

340 – The Elements of the Lord’s Table

BIBLE INSTITUTE OF CORRESPONDENCE

COURSE: ECCLESIOLOGY III LESSON # 40
THE ELEMENTS OF THE LORD’S TABLE

Read Mat. 26:26-30, Mk. 14:22-26, Lk. 22:19-20, I Cor. 11:17-34.
Read, in connection with this study, the enclosed tract, “Wine or Grape Juice.”

INTRODUCTION:

1. For the last couple of generations there has been some controversy over the proper elements of the Lord’s Table.
2. The purpose of this lesson is to deal with this controversy.

I. IDENTIFYING THE CONTROVERSY

1. Almost no argument exists as to the symbol of Christ’s body, essentially all agree it is unleavened bread.
2. So then, the question is, what is the “cup?”
3. Again, the term “fruit of the vine” leaves us with little argument as to the source of this element, most immediately agree it is some form of juice from the grapevine.
4. The question then is this: Is it plain grape juice, or is it fer­mented wine?

II. THE NEW TESTAMENT DOES NOT SAY WHICH

1. The word wine never appears in connection with the Lord’s Table.
2. The Greek word (oinos) translated wine 32 times, and winepress 1 time in the New Testament is never associated with the Lord’s Table.

i. No other Greek word including the word wine in its translation such as:
i. Oniophlugia – (1. excess of wine),
ii. Paroinos – (2. given wine),
iii. Gleukos – (1. new wine),
iv. Palaios – (1. old wine), is ever associated with the Lord’s Table.
ii. Neither the word translated the cup or fruit of the vine implies or hints at fermentation.

III. ARGUMENTS FOR FERMENTATION

1. That the Jews used fermented wine in the Passover and thus it was used to institute the Lord’s Table.

i. There is utterly no biblical proof of this. Pure grape juice seems the more likely element. (Deut. 29:6, Deut. 32:14)

a) Israel did keep the Passover during their wilderness journey, yet it seems that they did not drink “wine.”

ii. Even if the Jews traditionally used wine for the Passover, it justifies nothing, for their ordinances were totally perverted.

2. That traditionally wine was used by all the churches.

i. This is not provable by any source of historical literature of which I am aware.
ii. If it were, it still justifies nothing, for tradition does not make a thing right.
iii. If it were, it still did not demand either fermentation, and/or alcoholic content to qualify as “wine.”

3. That fermentation removes the leaven from the grape juice and thus is required for a proper symbol of the Lord’s blood, i.e., the sinlessness of that blood.

i. There is no chemical proof that fermentation removes leaven.
ii. By the above standard any loaf of bread which had been baked, would qualify, for the leaven would now be dead.
iii. There is absolutely no Scripture demanding that His sinlessness be typified by the nature of the juice or wine.

a) This is testified by the bread, which speaks of the body, which includes the blood.
b) The testimony of the cup is the shedding of His blood, not the character of the blood.

CONCLUSIONS WE MAY DRAW

1. Either element would occupy a “cup.”
2. Either element would be “fruit of the vine.”
3. Either element would testify of the shedding of Christ’s blood.
4. Neither element is being used as a beverage.
5. Grape juice is not forbidden in Scripture except for Nazarites, but wine often is.
6. It seems to me, from both the scriptural and the logical view, pure grape juice is the better, more biblical and more Christian element, than fermented, and especially a wine of relatively high alcoholic content.