The Church's Witness to the Responsible Use of Wine
My last two posts dealt with Scripture's testimony to the responsible use of wine, both socially and in the context of worship. Most nowadays would be satisfied to stop there and hear no more, but let us be reminded that Scripture does not speak to us in a vacuum. We receive its testimony through the teaching ministry of the church, and over the millennia, plenty has been said. Let's consider that which Keith Mathison has brought together for us in this excerpt from his very informative book, Given For You: Reclaiming Calvin's Doctrine of the Lord's Supper.
The Testimony of the Church
We have already mentioned that wine was universally used by the entire church for the first 1,800 years of her existence. During those years, there was never any suggestion that another drink should be used. In the early church, for example, we find clear testimony to the use of wine by such men as Justin Martyr (The First Apology, 65) and Clement of Alexandria (The Instructor, 2.2). In the eighth century, the Synod of Constantinople bore witness to the continued use of wine in the Lord's Super (See John H. Leith, ed., Creeds of the Churches, 3d ed. {Louisville: John Knox, 1982}, 55.).
At the time of the sixteenth-century Protestant Reformation, there were disagreements over virtually every other issue related to the sacraments, but there was no disagreement over the use of wine. All of the churches continued to teach that bread and wine are the proper elements to be used in the Lord's Supper. Martin Luther taught this in his Small Catechism of 1529, and the Lutheran church continued to teach it in the Augsburg Confession (art. 10). The Anglican Church taught the use of actual bread and wine in the Thirty-nine Articles (art. 28). Even the Anabaptists continued to teach this in the Dordrecht Confession of 1632 (art. 10).
In the Reformed branch of the church, the use of wine was taught and practiced by John Calvin (Calvin, Institutes, 4.17.1). It was also taught in the great sixteenth-century Reformed confessions, such as the Belgic Confession (art. 35), the Heidelberg Catechism (Q. 79), and the Second Helvetic Confession (chap. 19). The use of wine is also clearly taught in the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms. This Confession teaches that Jesus has appointed his ministers to "bless the elements of bread and wine" (29.3). The Larger Catechism repeatedly declares that the elements of the Lord's Supper are bread and wine (Qq. 168-69, 177). Every Reformed theologian from the time of Calvin forward taught that bread and wine were the proper elements to be used in the Lord's Supper. This teaching is found in the writings of
Robert Bruce (Robert Bruce, The Mystery of the Lord's Supper, trans. Thomas F. Torrance {1590-91; reprint, London: James Clarke, 1958}, 43, 76.),
William Ames (William Ames, The Marrow of Theology, trans. John Dykstra Eusden {Durham, N. C.: Labyrinth Press, 1983}, 212),
Francis Turretin (Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, ed. James t. Dennison Jr., trans. George Musgrave Giger (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R, 1992-97), 3:429),
Wilhelmus a Brakel (Wilhelmus a Brakel, The Christian's Reasonable Service, trans. Bartel Elshout {Morgan, Pa.: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1992-94}, 2:528),
Jonathan Edwards (Jonathan Edwards, The Works of Jonathan Edwards {Carlisle, Pa.: Banner of Truth, 1974}, 1:458),
Herman Witsius (Herman Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man {Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R, 1990}, 2:449-50),
Charles Hodge (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology {Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989}, 3:616),
A. A. Hodge (A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology {1879; reprint, Carlisle, Pa.: Banner of Truth, 1972}, 633-34)
Robert L. Dabney (Robert L. Dabney, Systematic Theology {Carlisle, Pa.: Banner of Truth, 1985}, 801),
W. G. T. Shedd (W. G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology {Grand Rapids: Zondervan, n.d.}, 2:573),
B. B. Warfield (B. B. Warfield, "The Fundamental Significance of the Lord's Supper," in Selected Shorter Writings of Benjamin B. Warfield--I, ed. John E. Meeter {Nutley, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1970}, 333),
John Murray (John Murray, The Collected Writings of John Murray, vol. 2 {Carlisle, Pa.: Banner of Truth, 1976}, 366, 369),
and Louis Berkhof (Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 4th ed. {Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996}, 617), among many others.
The use of wine in the Lord's Supper not only is unanimously taught by all the Reformed theologians and confessions from the sixteenth century forward, but also is explicitly taught in modern Presbyterian directories of worship. The Book of Church Order of the Presbyterian Church in America, for example, is clear in its teaching that the proper elements to be used in the Lord's Supper are bread and wine:
The table, on which the elements are placed, being decently covered,
and furnished with bread and wine, and the communicants
orderly and gravely sitting around it (or in their seats before it),
the elders in a convenient place together, the minister should
then set the elements apart by prayer and thanksgiving. (58-5 [emphasis added])
The Presbyterian Church in America's directory of worship is in perfect agreement with her doctrinal standards. Both the Confessions and The Book of Church Order clearly declare that the proper elements to be used in the Lord's Supper are bread and wine, not bread and grape juice.
It may come as a surprise to some, but even the great theologians and confessions of faith in the historic Baptist church taught that bread and wine were the proper elements to be used in the observance of the Lord's Supper. Great Baptist theologians such as
John Gill (John Gill, A Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity {reprint, Paris, Ariz.: Baptist Standard Bearer, 1987}, 918),
John L. Dagg (John L. Dagg, Manual of Church Order {reprint, Bridgewater, Va.: Sprinkle Publications, 1998}, 208-9),
and James Petigru Boyce (James Petigru Boyce, Abstract of Systematic Theology {Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R, 1996}, xxiii),
all taught that wine was to be used in the Lord's Supper. The Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 closely follows the wording of the Westminster Confession of Faith when it says, "The Lord Jesus hath, in this ordinance, appointed his ministers to pray, and bless the elements of bread and wine" (30.3). The Southern Baptist Abstract of Principles of 1859 says, "The Lord's Supper is an ordinance of Jesus Christ to be administered with the elements of bread and wine . . . " (art. 16). Even the Baptist Faith and Message, written in 1925, long after the beginning of the temperance movement, declares that bread and wine are to be used in the Lord's Supper (art. 13) (cf. Leith, Creeds of the Churches, 348).
Until the middle of the nineteenth century, the use of wine in the Lord's supper was simply a nonissue for Christians. Agreement on the matter was so universal that most confessions and theologians in the history of the church mention the subject in passing, as if they are simply stating the obvious. They do not even bother to present arguments for the use of wine because no one had ever suggested that anything else be used. They consider the use of wine in the Lord's Supper to be as biblically self-evident as the use of wate in baptism. The nineteenth-century theologians, such as the Presbyterian A. A. Hodge and the Baptist John L. Dagg, who were the first to be confronted with the question, were adamant in their refusal to change the elements of the Lord's Supper in order to pacify the legalistice spirit of the age.
3 comments:
John,
Your post says this:
"We have already mentioned that wine was universally used by the entire church for the first 1,800 years of her existence. During those years, there was never any suggestion that another drink should be used. In the early church, for example, we find clear testimony to the use of wine by such men as Justin Martyr (The First Apology, 65) and Clement of Alexandria (The Instructor, 2.2)."
True, but misleading, since it fails to mention the ancient practice (including 250 B.C. to A.D. 250) of using _diluted_ wine. That fact is brought out clearly in both Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria. Read on!
First, let's look at Charles Hodge's comments in his Systematic Theology:
"The Elements to be used in the Lord's Supper.... In most churches, the wine used in the Lord's Supper is mixed with water. The reasons assigned for this custom, are, (1.) The eucharist having been instituted at the table of the Paschal supper, and the wine used in the Passover being mixed with water, it is morally certain that the wine used by Christ when instituting this sacrament, was also thus mixed. Hence it was inferred that his disciples in all ages should follow his example. That the Paschal cup contained wine mixed with water rests on the authority of Jewish writers. "It was the general practice of the Jews to dilute their wine with water...." It is certain, from the writings of the fathers, that this custom prevailed extensively in the primitive Church. As the Greeks and Romans were in the habit of mixing water with their wine on all ordinary occasions, it is the more natural that the same usage should prevail in the Church. It is still retained, both by Romanists [i.e., Roman Catholics] and by the Oriental [i.e., Eastern Orthodox] Church. (2.) Besides this historical reason for the usage in question, it was urged that it adds to the appropriate significance of the ordinance. As water and blood flowed from the side of our Lord on the cross, it is proper, it is said, that water should be mixed with the wine in the service intended to be commemorative of his death...."
Note that Hodge -- an advocate of the use of wine in the Lord's Supper -- indicates that "[i]n most churches, the wine used in the Lord's Supper is mixed with water ...." for two reasons, one based on ancient practice (the "historical reason") and the other based on "the appropriate significance of the ordinance." (Hodge is using the word "significance" in its older meaning of a "symbol" or "sign" with a theological reference.)
Like Charles Hodge, Robert Stein -- New Testament seminary professor and author of Difficult Passages in the New Testament (Baker, 1990, pp. 233-238) -- believes that it "is obvious that the term wine in the Bible does not mean unfermented grape juice...." Stein provides many interesting specifics that support Charles Hodge's references to "the Greeks and Romans," "Jewish writers," and "the writings of the [Church] fathers" on the "prevailing custom" of diluting wine with water:
"In ancient Greek culture, ... [w]hat is important to note is that before wine was drunk, it was mixed with water.... The ratio of water to wine varied. Homer (Odyssey 9.208-9) mentions a ratio of twenty parts water to one part wine. Pliny (Natural History, 14.6.54) mentions a ratio of eight parts water to one part wine.... [Stein also mentions Hesiod (three to one), Alexis (four to one), DIocles (two to one), Ion (three to one), Nicochares (five to two), and Anacreon (two to one).] [As] a beverage [wine] was always thought of as a mixed drink. Plutarch (Symposiacs 3.9), for instance, states, 'We call a mixture "wine," although the larger of the component parts is water.' The ratio of water might vary, but only barbarians drank wine unmixed, and a mixture of wine and water of equal parts was seen as 'strong drink' and frowned upon. The term wine or oinos in the ancient Greek world, then, did not mean wine as we understand it today, but wine mixed with water. Usually a writer simply referred to the mixture of water and wine as 'wine.'...
"And we ... have examples in both Jewish and Christian literature ... that wine was likewise understood as being a mixture of wine and water. In several instances in the Old Testament a distinction is made between 'wine' and 'strong drink.'.... The 1901 Jewish Encyclopedia (vol. 12, p. 533) states that in the rabbinic period at least, ' "yayin"' [wine] is to be distinguished from "shekar" [strong drink]: the former is diluted with water...; the latter is undiluted....' In the Talmud, which contains the oral traditions of Judaism from about 200 B.C. to A.D. 200 (the Mishnah)..., there are several tractates in which the mixture of water and wine is discussed.... In a most important reference (Pesahim 108b) the writer states that the four cups every Jew was to drink during the Passover ritual were to be mixed in a ratio of three parts water to one part wine. From this we can conclude with a fair degree of certainty that the fruit of the vine used at the institution of the Lord's Supper was a mixture of three parts water to one part wine. In another Jewish reference from around 60 B.B. we read, 'It is harmful to drink wine alone, or again, to drink water alone, while wine mixed with water is sweet and delicious and enhances one's enjoyment' (2 Macc.15:39). In ancient times there were not many beverages that were safe to drink.... The drinking of wine (i.e., a mixture of water and wine) served therefore as a safety measure, since often the water available was not safe....
"The burden of proof ... is surely upon anyone who would say that the wine of the New Testament is substantially different from the wine mentioned by the Greeks, the rabbis during the Talmudic period, and the early church fathers. In the writings of the early church fathers it is clear that 'wine' means wine mixed with water. Justin Martyr around A.D. 150 described the Lord's Supper in this way: 'Bread is brought, and wine and water, and the president sends up prayers and thanksgiving' (Apology 1.67.5).... Cyprian around A.D. 250 stated....: 'Nothing must be done by us but what the Lord first did on our behalf..... Thus, therefore, in considering the cup of the Lord, water alone cannot be offered, even as wine alone cannot be offered....' (Epistle 62.2, 11, 13). Here it is obvious that unmixed wine and plain water were both found unacceptable at the Lord's Supper. A mixture of wine and water was the norm.... Earlier (the latter part of the second century) Clement of Alexandria had stated: 'It is best for the wine to be mixed with as much water as possible.... To ... the water, which is in the greatest quantity, there is to be mixed in some of the [wine]...." (Instructor 2.2.23.3-24.1 [A.D. 182-212]).
If wine in Bible times had a maximum alcoholic content of 12% undiluted and if it is true that "we can conclude with a fair degree of certainty that the fruit of the vine used at the institution of the Lord's Supper was a mixture of three parts water to one part wine," then that would put the alcohol content of wine used for the Lord's Supper at 3% or less.
Barry,
Thanks for your valuable contribution to this discussion! I take no exception to your point. It would help defuse the issue if those advocating the myth of non-alcoholic "oinos" would do enough homework to realize just what you have pointed out. But it may be too much to ask that they admit that the oinos was fermented, although they would be happy to proclaim that it was and ought to be dilluted with water. However, prohibitionist-minded fundamentalists who promote the unfermented wine falacy, in my experience, are also burdened with a seemingly superstitious fear of scholarship that precludes their ever getting around to discovering the facts that you have highlighted.
Thanks again for caring enough to put together such a well-done presentation. Also, take note that I'm currently blogging at a new location:
www.capthk.wordpress.com
Hope to benefit from your comments in the future.
John,
The "prohibition-minded fundamentalists" are not the only ones who may be "burdened with a seemingly superstitious fear of scholarship that precludes their ever getting around to discovering the facts that [I] have highlighted." Such people may choose to ignore the fact, for example, that there is considerable evidence that FERMENTED WINE was used in the celebration of communion in New Testament times, but it should also be recognized that their opponents (including otherwise responsible scholars like Keith Mathison for whom I have a great deal of respect) ignore the fact that the WINE used was DILUTED. (Mathison cites the fact that Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria mention that fermented wine was used, but he does NOT mention the fact that Justin Martyr states, "Bread is brought, and wine and water," nor the fact that Clement of Alexaxandria states, "It is best for the wine to be mixed with as much water as possible.")
If Charles Hodge and Robert Stein are correct -- and Stein provides specific evidence from early Greek authors (Homer, Pliny, Hesiod, Alexis, DIocles, Ion, Nicochares, Anacreon, and Plutarch), Jewish tradition (tractates in the Mishnah), and the early church fathers (Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, and Cyprian) -- then we must take Stein's comments seriously: "The ratio of water might vary, but only barbarians drank wine unmixed, and a mixture of wine and water of equal parts was seen as 'strong drink' and frowned upon. The term wine or oinos in the ancient Greek world, then, did not mean wine as we understand it today, but wine mixed with water. Usually a writer simply referred to the mixture of water and wine as 'wine.'..." Yes, "prohibition-minded fundamentalists" may prefer to ignore the fact that (fermented) wine was used, but, in my experience (and I've read a considerable amount on all sides of the issue), "anti-prohibitionists" may prefer to ignore that the wine was diluted and that not to dilute the wine was regarded as "barbaric."
Often Christians have "an axe to grind," one way or the other, when discussing this issue. What does secular academic scholarship say?
Perhaps the most authoritative source here is Patrick E. McGovern, Stuart J. Fleming, and Solomon H. Katz, eds., The Origins and Ancient History of Wine (Routledge, 2000), about which one critic commented, "It is impossible to begin to describe the riches of this book ... a major contribution to wine literature ... recommended without reservation to anyone with an interest in grapes and wine in the past." The book is a compilation of papers presented at a major international symposium. Here's the publisher's description: "Featuring the work of 23 internationally known scholars and writers, the book offers the first wide ranging treatment of wine in the early history of western Asia and the Mediterranean. Comprehensive and accessible while providing full documentation,"
Here's what the book says about the Greeks and Romans:
"It was the custom for Greeks and Romans to dilute even ordinary wine with water to about half- or quarter-strength (Athenaeus ... ), but vintages were known that were diluted with 20 parts of water to one of wine (Pliny, N[atural] H[istory] ..., citing Homer, Odyssey ...)" (page 330).
Charles Hodge mentions "Greek and Roman authors," but Robert Stein does not discuss the Roman authors. What does this book have to say specifically about the Romans?
"It is well documented from Roman and other sources that wine was usually diluted before consumption.... [S]ometimes more water was added, but seldom less than one-third water. The person who drank undiluted wine was considered unsophisticated at best. One obvious reason for this custom ... is that the weather where grapes thrive is hot , at least in the summer, and thirst may not be quenched without drunkenness with undiluted wine... (page 75).
Note well: ""It is well documented from Roman ... sources that wine was usually diluted before consumption.... The person who drank undiluted wine was considered unsophisticated at best." As Stein commented concerning the Greeks, "The ratio of water might vary, but only barbarians drank wine unmixed, and a mixture of wine and water of equal parts was seen as 'strong drink' and frowned upon."
Why so much water and so little wine? One reason is that the combination, in a sense, was not so much "water-diluted wine" as it was "wine-enriched water" or, rather, "wine-sanitized water," much as we might add chlorine to water today. As The Origins and Ancient History of Wine indicates, one important purpose was to make the water safe:
"Various reasons could be proposed for diluting alcoholic, sweet wines.... The one compelling reason is that much of the drinking water would make a person ill, but mixed with wine the water would be sanitized. It has been shown experimentally that living typhoid and other dangerous microbes rapidly die when mixed with wine. It is axiomatic that food poisoning organisms, much less human pathogens, cannot survive and certainly not multiply in the acidic pH, the tannic, and alcoholic medium of wine. Wine was and is ... healthful [in this way], because it cannot be a source of microbial health problems. Thus, wine could have been used to make contaminated water safe, as well as more palatable..." (page 75).
In light of this fact, it has been suggested that 1 Timothy 5:23 should be interpreted thus:
"Stop drinking only water [i.e. water alone, with nothing added to it], but use WITH a little wine [added to the water] for your stomach’s sake and your frequent infirmities."
(In the original Greek, a "little wine" is in the dative case, suggesting the addition of the word "with.")
At any rate, getting back to The Origins and Ancient History of Wine, that book confirms Stein's thesis that the established custom in New Testament times (and the evidence comes from ancient Jewish, Christian, and Greek and Roman sources) was to drink wine that was greatly diluted (one part of wine to two or more parts of water) and that it was "unsophisticated" (if not "barbarian") to drink undiluted wine.
Some wine-haters may not like those facts, nor will some wine-lovers, but such is the evidence.
Barry Traver, B.A., M.A., M.Div., Th.M. in New Testament from Westminster Seminary, Philadelphia
Post a Comment