Max A Forsythe
Christ covenant reformed (PCA)
4787 Palmer Road S.W. - Reynoldsburg, OH 43068-331

Copyright 2004

The Fruit of the Vine
For the Lord’s Day: the 25th of May 2003

Jeremiah 35: 1-19

Introduction: Some of you, without the cultural baggage of the early and middle years of the Twentieth Century may well wonder why it is that we use Welch’s grape juice for our communion services when all of the appropriate biblical texts do indeed specifically read “wine”. The really interesting thing about the discussion of “The Fruit of the Vine” before us today is that it applies only to Americans in the specific historical context of the last 150 years.

Author Keith A Mathison, (whose recent book Given for You is being used as an outline of issues regarding the subject of communion for this series) makes the following accusation: “The historical origin of the modern American evangelical practice of substituting grape juice for wine can be traced directly to the nineteenth-century temperance movement.”

Perhaps I have been unkind in using the word accusation? You will have to read the rest of his chapter to sense that he is impatient at having to discuss this topic at all. In fact, there is a growing consensus within Reformed circles that the use of non-alcoholic grape juices for communion is at the very least: “quaint” or “eccentric.” That attitude during any discussion of the topic is considered kind and judicious. However, the discussion of this topic is not usually kind and judicious – the very fact that anyone in this Twenty-first Century would not use actual “wine” is increasingly being characterized as ignorant or self-righteous.

When I came into the Presbyterian Church in America from an older United Presbyterian Church in North America tradition, one of the first questions I was asked was how I could defend not drinking alcoholic beverages! That was a cultural shock of sorts for me. And so that is why we began with that obscure text from the book of Jeremiah. The major point that I took from that text is in the last two verses: “But to the house of the Rechabites Jeremiah said, ‘Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: Because you have obeyed the command of Jonadab your father and kept all his precepts and done all that he commanded you, therefore thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: Jonadab the son of Rechab shall never lack a man to stand before me.’” (Jeremiah 35: 18-19)

And my point is that non-drinkers of alcoholic beverages are welcome in the House of the Lord along with all the rest of those who would participate in communion.

Development: Now, you may wonder how, after 1,800 years that the American churches took this interesting side track into temperance? The historic reasoning for this is that in the Nineteenth Century - the majority of the evangelical churches suddenly desired a less toxic wine than was becoming available. The Welch's company was founded for this very purpose - to provide a sweet wine with next to no alcoholic content for communion.

Now, a word of explanation here is in order. As it was explained to me, back before the Civil War in the North and the War Between the States in the South - most beer, wine, whiskey and such was produced by local or regional brewers who knew their craft well enough to carefully control the amount of alcohol. The taste of the product was the desired end, not the buzz stimulated from the alcohol.

As the corporate era began to take hold, the larger companies began to advertise and compete for greater shares of the beverage market. The percentage of alcohol was increased to attract the customers of the less toxic local products. For this reason we may understand that the drinking generation at the turn of the Twentieth Century was poisoned in more ways than they understood. Their wives and families were aghast at what had happened. In the greater majority of cases they did not understand that two or three drinks of the newer brands were the equivalent of six or more of the old local recipes.

In this market context you eventually find the reason for the popularity of the war against "demon rum". The number of drunks had increased dramatically since the war and while the real reasons for this were not understood publicly - the church reacted and helped encourage the movement towards abstinence. Yes, of course, there have always been drunks who loved the "alcohol" part of the recipe. Even in biblical times, the older wines and beers were watered down to lessen the impact and also to purify the water that was added.

When I was small, we always made fresh cider from our Apple trees. Then from late September through Thanksgiving we enjoyed the fruit of our trees. By late November, the cider began to develop a bite! Some of the older men in the community who had given up drinking the real stuff looked forward to the final dredges of the cider barrels. One fall, my sister asked why the cider tasted funny. When she understood the implications of the alcohol content - she and my brother began to imitate the great comedian of that time: Red Skelton. And so they pretended that they enjoyed the by product. I was almost beginning to develop a taste for the aerated cider - so dad immediately threw out the rest of the season's collection! And we all were given a solemn warning about addiction and taste for such products.

While we never kept grape juice much beyond the first month, I understand that the fruit of the vine is similar in its increasing alcohol content as it ages. One commentator on Scripture once observed that the reason wine was stored in a wine skin was to subdue the alcoholic content. To accomplish this, a goat skin would be sewed tight, with the hair on the inside! As the alcohol content increased, the hair dissolved and tamed the process somewhat. This supposedly was the reason you had to have new wineskins to store the new wine?

All of our local United Presbyterian Churches had in storage: large wine pitchers and elaborate ornate silver cups. Until late in the Nineteenth Century these cups were shared by the elders with the people. I would suppose in those small churches where everyone shared a common germ pool, this was not too dangerous. Then in that era of increased drunkenness and whiskers, the good ladies began to complain that there was too much mustache hair getting into the cup and they were unhappy with the sanity of the administration of the sacrament.

It was also at this time that the greatest invention in public health was achieved - wooden flooring and woven carpets became common rather than luxurious. No longer did the average family have to contend with a dirt floor or even straw for the winter. Pets became better trained and often were encouraged to stay outside. Screens were introduced for the windows and a public concern for cleanliness became the standard. Water, milk and all manner of foodstuffs were evaluated for proper care and storage.

The ritual administration of communion was also affected. And for these reasons, small individual cups became the normative method. In the Presbyterian churches the elders simply passed the trays throughout the congregation and in the Methodist churches, the same trays and cups were passed to the kneelers at the communion rail. A friendly Reformed Baptist pastor even sent me a historic clipping of a Lutheran pastor at the time complaining about the sudden popularity of these changes much to his chagrin.

In some congregations the table had been symbolically fenced with a cloth covering which was then verbalized in the ritual. If it had not already been done so for that sacramental reason, the elements of the supper were carefully covered by table cloths to keep the flies, dirt and coal dust out of the table bread and "new wine" cups.
 
That is the way it was once done and part of the reasoning for the ritual of communion cups, unleavened bread and a covering of the table. Of course the right administration of the service was also carefully ingrained into the student ministers and guarded by the local elders. Yes, since the break from the Roman Administration the protestant pastors had learned to stand in back of the table instead of in front as the priests would do before the altar. Tables were very carefully displayed away from the wall to avoid any visible connection with Rome and any and all decorations kept to a minimum so that the focus of the sanctuary fell on the pulpit and table.

Of course, none of what I have reported to you was ever popularized in the theological books, but became part of the American folk-lore and the persistence of those habits has come down to our own day.

Application: Now, I firmly believe that there is more to this cultural tradition than meets the eye. I have always been struck by the Hebrew’s joyous anticipation of the “new wine” crop throughout the books of the Bible. Am I being stodgy if I consider that product fresh from the wine press to be a sweet delight, mainly because there has not been enough time for fermentation?

Again, The New Geneva Study Bible reports on the Last Supper that "At the Passover meal, each person would drink four cups of red wine. The wine was diluted; usually three parts of water to one of wine." (Page 1647)

There are other reports that the “wine” of the time was cut with five parts water. It seems logical to me that those ongoing practices would have had the effect of diminishing the alcoholic content to almost harmless and minimal levels. If my calculations are correct the alcohol could be diminished by 70% to 80% at the very least. This was once reported to be the operative presumption behind the Welch’s product. Dare I suggest to those who are adamant at restoring “wine” to the Lord’s Supper that the same dilution be practiced as it was in biblical times? I can almost imagine the response!

At the very least, we have to allow for a mixed audience around the table of our Lord. There will be those who have no compunction about the use of real “wine” at all. There will still be a few leftover people of conscience like me. There will also be a handful of recovering alcoholics who would probably be better off not even tasting the old sauce. And then there are the children of the church who have been admitted to membership and the table! Parents of course should help their own children make such decisions.

The way good large churches, with a mixed culture such as I have described, handle it is to identify those sections of the communion trays that contain the appropriate product (wine and juice) so that all may be served as is appropriate to their own taste and conscience.

Certainly, there has not been to my knowledge any serious discussion of this issue within the congregation. All of the arguments I have encountered have been at a different level of interdenominational discussions. And frankly, what I have experienced is in the sense of Paul’s admonition to the Corinthians: “But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.” (1 Corinthians 11: 17-19)

It is in this context that I quote Mathison one last time: “After reviewing some of the most commonly heard objections to the use of wine in the Lord’s Supper, we are forced to conclude that this burden of proof has not been met. In fact, there has never even been an attempt to meet this burden of proof in many of the churches that have made this change. There is simply no legitimate reason for replacing wine with grape juice in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.”

I would really like to ask him if he would be willing to add three to five parts of water to his “wine” just so the biblical pattern is continued? But, I digress from the major point that is to be shared with you this morning. This ongoing “American problem” is being discussed more and more in the evangelical church, and as the topic comes around we have to remember that freedom of conscience cuts more ways than one. And if my understanding of Jeremiah is sound – there is indeed room for conscience at the Lord’s Table in this regard. And this may sound strange as an invitation – but if there are any who would like to discuss the topic in the context I have outlined it – please feel free to speak to any of us elders.

And as we come to the Lord’s Table today, please remember that the “fruit of the vine” is symbolic of something much greater: the very blood of Christ shed for your sins. Could it be that the bitter bite of real wine could convince you more of that sacrifice than the sweetness of its saving grace? May the Lord bless you as you take His body and blood in the common elements today and always. Amen.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PREACHING RESOURCES

Forsythe, Max. The Rite Administration of Our Lord’s Supper.
Mathison, Keith A. Given For You.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Permission granted to redistribute unedited versions with this notice.
http://www.tulip.org/Com/Com03.htm